Musea Reviews any Radio Station, Show, Personality
TomHendricks474
MUSEA REVIEW POLICY and RULES
Musea would like to offer all artists in every conceivable field of music, art,
writing, film, etc. a site that guarantees you a review of your work. No longer
do you have to submit your 'art' to hundreds of magazines, websites,
newspapers, etc. in hopes that one outlet will give you a brief mention. One
mailing, one review. Here's how it works.
Put the following three things in a mailer and send it to Musea: 1. The work to
be reviewed. 2. Contact information. 3. The processing fee for Feb '04 is about
the price of postage you put on the envelope = $3 each work of art.)
When Musea gets it, we'll review it, post the review on alt.zines newsgroup
(accessed through google groups) and at the end of each month repost it on the
very huge, no ads - no sponsors - no gov. grants; thousands of hits weekly,
Musea website.
We guarantee these things. You WILL get a review. You will get a TOUGH review
that takes your art seriously. You will get a FAIR review. And you WON"T have
to kowtow to anyone to get that review.
We will review anything written: novels, plays, poems, zines, comics,
magazines, newspapers, etc. anything drawn or painted : art work, fashion
designs, architectural drawings, (photos too), etc.; any website you would
like reviewed, anything you can put on VHS tape: performances, plays,
concerts, d
Zances, tv shows, movies, newscasts, etc. ; or anything on a CD or cassette.
We will review your stuff or anyone elses stuff that you want us to.
Now for some extra fine print:
SEND ONY COPIES - you don't get nothing back - no SASE either
TELL US WHICH LEVEL - amateur or professional (professional is 10 times
harder). We'll do amateur unless you say different.
HINT HINT HINT: I HATE the following: All bands , any musician who writes his
own songs, conceptual art, (modern art hasn't been modern in 50 years), any
poetry that doesn't make sense, pretentious lit mags, Hollywood films, tv,
music, and publishing; ad-driven magazines, and almost all mainstream media
and big city dailies. I LOVE innovation and quality in every type of art or
media!
IMORTANT: Every work gets 30 MINUTES. That means we'll review 1 song, not a
CD, one poem not a chapbook, one chapter not a novel, one act not a play, one
painting not an exhibit, one clothes design not a line of clothes, etc. Thats
enough. That'll get the word out without boring the readers.
MORE IMPORTANT - posers beware. You can't fake art here and get away with it..
And don't be whiney this is TOUGH LOVE art reviews, not refrigerator art that
your mommy loves no matter how bad it is.
I RESERVE THE RIGHT to review for free anything that I find that is extremely
good or extremely bad. I also reserve the right to be the final say on all
these rules.
WHO ARE YOU? What is Musea? Are there some reviews I can see? What's the
weather like in Dallas? Is 5 a letter? All these and more questions are
answered in the hundreds of pages of my zine Musea.
STILL got QUESTIONS? - email me but make it brief and get to the point.
OVERALL: "Audition for the World right here. Let the world see your art. Take a
chance. Try it. You might be an overnight sensation! Good luck! And remember,
even if you stink as an artist, you're still cool for trying!
Tom Hendricks ed. Of Musea, tomhend...@cs.com
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com Mailing address: 4000 Hawthorne #5 Dallas
Texas 75219. c Tom Hendricks 2004.
gaffo
goto here and reveiw some of these shows:
http://www.whiterosesociety.org/
--
"I think in this case international law
stood in the way of doing the right thing (invading Iraq)."
- Richard Perle
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbours."
- Colin Powell February 24 2001
"We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping
him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful."
"He threatens not the United States."
"But I also thought that we had pretty
much removed his stings and frankly for ten years we really have."
'But what is interesting is that with the regime that has been in place
for the past ten years, I think a pretty good job has been done of
keeping him from breaking out and suddenly showing up one day and saying
"look what I got." He hasn't been able to do that.'
- Colin Powell February 26 2001
TomHendricks474
http://www.whiterosesociety.org/
>>
I'll take a look, but mostly as of Feb 04, I'm going to charge $3 for each
review.
Jan. was my free month.
You've picked some good sites though. I'm thinking of sending my own cd into
magnatune.
Tom Hendricks, ed. of Musea (10th year)
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com
It's a Capital idea - an all review site on the web.
But we need the capital - contact me.
Boycott every 4th ad in a row
A list of the Corp. Art Weasels
<A HREF="http://CJR.org/owners/">http://CJR.org/owners/</A>
gaffo
Cool!!!!!!!! best of Luck Tom! ;-).
Rich Wood
wrote:
>I'll take a look, but mostly as of Feb 04, I'm going to charge $3 for each
>review.
How can you do that? If one pays for a review your credibility is
shot. You'll never be able to accuse a station of playing a song
because they were paid to do it.
Rich
drewdawg
the following to the collective conscience:
I would have asked Tom "If a normal review is $3 how much for a stellar
review?" but I didn't. Thought it was a bit on the nose. ;-)
David Eduardo
"Rich Wood" <rich...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bi922099jbkla86nl...@4ax.com...
Rich,
You are such a nitpicker.
Don't you know that a website plays by different rules?
TomHendricks474
How can you do that? If one pays for a review your credibility is
shot. You'll never be able to accuse a station of playing a song
because they were paid to do it.
Rich
>>
No its not. The post office charges a process fee for every letter you send. Do
you think they support one letter over another?
If its a bad deal, let's turn it around. I'll send YOU or anyone $3 to give me
1. a fast review
2. a full page
3. posted on a major newsgroup
4. posted on a major website that covers all arts and has thousands coming to
it.
5. the review is from someone that's got a 12 year tradition of supporting the
best in arts
6. and are as fair as the first 10 I've done (at this long url)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Musea+Art+Review%22+-re%3A+group%3Aal
t.zines+author%3Atomhen...@cs.com&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
7. it's a great deal for an artist. It's fair and if for one second people
think its not fair, the mail will dry up.
People that know me know its fair and honest.
TomHendricks474
I would have asked Tom "If a normal review is $3 how much for a stellar
review?" but I didn't. Thought it was a bit on the nose. ;-) >>
The single processing fee guarantees you a review.
That means one mailing= one review.
Most artists have to mail 50-100 CD's for ex. to get one review.
Multiply 50 times postage = about 50 times what I'm charging. Go look at my
site. It's fair and honest and always has been.
If you can find a better more fair deal, let me know and I'll send my stuff to
them.
TomHendricks474
Don't you know that a website plays by different rules? >>
How about testing me. Send in a sample of your programming and see how fair it
is.
jEverybody SAYS how great there stuff is. Now you can prove it.
Rich Wood
wrote:
>How can you do that? If one pays for a review your credibility is
>shot. You'll never be able to accuse a station of playing a song
>because they were paid to do it.
>No its not. The post office charges a process fee for every letter you send. Do
>you think they support one letter over another?
Huh? The Postal Service is a delivery service. Actually, they do. If I
send it First Class and pay more I get faster service (allegedly). If
I send it second class and pay less it takes longer. Very bad example.
In reputable media one does not charge for an interview unless it's an
infomercial and there's a disclaimer.Other than the "infotainment"
shows, news organizations get very angry when someone suggests they
paid someone for an interview. Your reviews should carry a disclaimer
that says "the reviewer has been paid to review this product."
Rich
Bob Haberkost
That's dead on, Rich. Simply claiming that there's no bias while, effectively,
shaking down the reviewee, just doesn't pass muster...it's a matter of appearances,
after all, even if the claim really is true.
Of course, like Consumer's Union, Tom could do it for free (including covering his
own expenses)....or not at all. My preference would be the latter, since what I've
seen so far has little to do with broadcasting, and even when it does, is of
absolutely no interest to me.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
TomHendricks474
infomercial and there's a disclaimer.Other than the "infotainment"
shows, news organizations get very angry when someone suggests they
paid someone for an interview. Your reviews should carry a disclaimer
that says "the reviewer has been paid to review this product."
Everyone knows that from the start. Unlike your so called reputable - which
isn't - everything I do is above board.
Try it out and see.
The processing fee gets all the crap out - no ad pressure, no big biz pressure,
no nothing.
If you'll look at them, you'll see how fair and tough they are.
And again I'll say, if they're not fair no one will
a. send in art
b. go to the site and read the reviews.
My reputation of honesty and advocacy for art is solid and has been for the
decades I've been doing Musea
Rich
David Eduardo
"TomHendricks474" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040205001008...@mb-m25.news.cs.com...
> << You are such a nitpicker.
>
> Don't you know that a website plays by different rules? >>
>
>
> How about testing me. Send in a sample of your programming and see how
fair it
> is.
> jEverybody SAYS how great there stuff is. Now you can prove it.
Sample? A radio station is the sum of everything it does, week-in and
week-out. You can not review a radio station like you review a book or a
record.
And, in any case, and just citing one example, 1,100,000 review each week
just one of the stations I am involved with, week after week and keep coming
back. That is the only review that matters in radio.
TomHendricks474
effectively,
shaking down the reviewee, just doesn't pass muster...it's a matter of
appearances,
after all, even if the claim really is true.
>>
Shaking down the reviewer? Well now you're calling me a crook!
Same to you.
Look - most review sites limit their reviews to advertised companies or
friends.
I heard one guy admit that when he features a band review - he asks the
management to kick in with an ad - now that's fair? And many do that
For the processing fee - I guarantee to get rid of all that .
The reviewer (once it gets going) won't even see the $3.
He or she will only know that ALL those wanting a review have supported the
review site with a small fee - and that has guaranteed them all kinds of things
that no one else will give them.
It's like demanding Ebay do all the work and not ask for a fee, or the PO to
deliver the mail for free.
There has to be some type of revenue. The other choices are crooked.
This is the only honarable way to do it on any but an amateur level.
If you can find a better deal
than one mailing /one review - take it!
Bob Haberkost
you. All I was saying is that any review where the reviewer gets paid isn't a
review, it's an advertisement.
You've got a flawed business model. If you really want to help out the arts, then
you should find a method which doesn't look "crooked", because no matter what you do
to deny that, that's exactly what it looks like. Appearances ARE everything.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"TomHendricks474" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040205163627...@mb-m12.news.cs.com...
gbfmif
> << In reputable media one does not charge for an interview unless it's an
> infomercial and there's a disclaimer.Other than the "infotainment"
> shows, news organizations get very angry when someone suggests they
> paid someone for an interview. Your reviews should carry a disclaimer
> that says "the reviewer has been paid to review this product."
>
> Everyone knows that from the start. Unlike your so called reputable - which
> isn't - everything I do is above board.
> Try it out and see.
> The processing fee gets all the crap out - no ad pressure, no big biz pressure,
> no nothing.
> If you'll look at them, you'll see how fair and tough they are.
>
> And again I'll say, if they're not fair no one will
> a. send in art
> b. go to the site and read the reviews.
>
> My reputation of honesty and advocacy for art is solid and has been for the
> decades I've been doing Musea
Based on your last sentence, why not turn it around then to keep everyone happy.
Someone can send in their material and you will review it for free. You will charge
some very small amount to access and read the review.
You can not be accused of bias or even the appearance of bias toward the person
requesting the review. Interested people in the subject of the review or artist can
read it for a very small charge (do not know how low Pay Pal allows, but anyway)
You post that a review is available on a given subject and artist. with a link to
web site. Add a Read Reviews link that lists all of the available reviews with a
restricted link that requires a small fee to access a review.
Just a different way of looking at this maybe
gaffo
I never pay to excess a site - unless it is porn. a couple, but
otherwise............
I never register to see the content of a site either.
there are many like me in this regard.
I pay the ISP for access to the Net. The sites on the Net are FREE -
just like Radio is Free....................
I will never get XM nor will I go to site which charge me in addition to
the ISP charges.
gbfmif
that is not the point - Tom wants to do reviews of art, music, etc. This strikes me as a
not bad idea per se, but implementation is catching flak. His present approach is to
charge the person wanting the review to have the review done. It has been pointed out
that this implies a bias - even if not true, but potential taint is there. All I am
suggesting is a reversal of the concept. I will agree that Tom is passionate about what
he is trying to achieve and that he is scrupulously honest within this context. What I
was suggesting is the removal of the perception of taint and allow an honest review of
any material where the cost is absorbed by the people wanting to read the review, not the
individual requesting it.
Do you argue that Tom is not scrupulous in the review process and you would not pay a
small fee to read a review done by Tom?
> there are many like me in this regard.
well - that could be a problem I guess, but you either need to stand behind Tom on this
issue and acknowledge his passion and integrity or not. The idea of getting paid to DO a
review of material has a serious flaw imho - maybe not in yours - so be it
> I pay the ISP for access to the Net. The sites on the Net are FREE -
> just like Radio is Free....................
at a price, but lets let that one go for now
> I will never get XM nor will I go to site which charge me in addition to
> the ISP charges.
your choice I guess - but explain the porn reference then - would think an honest review
from Tom of music and art would be at least as valuable as porn access - but again - your
choice
gaffo
"Access"...........not "Excess"........though I have some vices in this
area too.
sorry.............
a site - unless it is porn. a couple, but
>>otherwise............
>>
>>I never register to see the content of a site either.
>
>
> that is not the point - Tom wants to do reviews of art, music, etc. This strikes me as a
> not bad idea per se, but implementation is catching flak.
Yes.................so I see.
His present approach is to
> charge the person wanting the review to have the review done. It has been pointed out
> that this implies a bias - even if not true, but potential taint is there. All I am
> suggesting is a reversal of the concept.
I know - and onthe surface it seems like a reasonalbe idea - esp. WTR to
Tom's perceived biases.
But it is not a solution -
because he will be a percived objective reviewer with not audience to
reveiw his reviews!!
Rather than a perceived unobjective reviewer with a large audience to
reveiw his reviews.
> I will agree that Tom is passionate about what
> he is trying to achieve and that he is scrupulously honest within this context. What I
> was suggesting is the removal of the perception of taint and allow an honest review of
> any material where the cost is absorbed by the people wanting to read the review, not the
> individual requesting it.
I know...................I'm sayng nobody will pay to see his reviews.
So we need a "third" solution.
> Do you argue that Tom is not scrupulous in the review process
no, not at all!
> and you would not pay a
> small fee to read a review done by Tom?
correct. I would not pay to read his reveiw. I won't even register to
free sites to read the news. I like my anonimity/privacy.
Start tangent Rant:
In fact I just got a new computer yesterday. I've never bought nor used
windoze-XP. Mostly due to the mother-ship call (activation). Well now I
have XP preinstalled. The first thing I shall do is patch the MoFo with
a de-activation crack (I download one early today). Then I shall use my
legally bought Windoze XP without the MoFo's at M$ logging my PC and
myself - neither if which is their Gad damned business.
End rant:
peace.
>
>
>>there are many like me in this regard.
>
>
> well - that could be a problem I guess, but you either need to stand behind Tom on this
> issue and acknowledge his passion and integrity or not. The idea of getting paid to DO a
> review of material has a serious flaw imho - maybe not in yours - so be it
>
>
>>I pay the ISP for access to the Net. The sites on the Net are FREE -
>>just like Radio is Free....................
>
>
> at a price, but lets let that one go for now
>
>
>>I will never get XM nor will I go to site which charge me in addition to
>>the ISP charges.
>
>
> your choice I guess - but explain the porn reference then - would think an honest review
> from Tom of music and art would be at least as valuable as porn access - but again - your
> choice
>
>
TomHendricks474
happy.
Someone can send in their material and you will review it for free. You will
charge
some very small amount to access and read the review. >>
No - because that will keep out the audience that these artists want to read
their reviews.
There is no conflict of interest
with the present way.
It's the most fair way - and anyone seeing the reviews sees that right away.
I'll say this - if someone else with a huge art zine and website and decades
of experience ,wants to do all this work, I'll sure pay them $3 to review all
my stuff.
TomHendricks474
arts, then
you should find a method which doesn't look "crooked", because no matter what
you do
to deny that, that's exactly what it looks like. Appearances ARE everything.
>>
No appearances are NOT everything.
The artists that are submitting don't have any problem with the fee - that
includes the radio stations I've reviewed already.
Small radio doesn't have the resources that Clear Channel and others have.
It is a service that may help them compete, IF they get a good review.
Check out the ex. I doubt Clear Channel will jump in.
Its more for indy folks that deserve honest appraisal for hard work.
ChuxGarage
not. Anyone who looks through Tom's site will get a feel for where he is going
with this. You will either agree with his reviews, or find them to not be to
your taste. Either way, you are getting some information that you possibly
didn't have before you started reading. You might even get exposed to
something you didn't know about.
Of course, if it were "$100 gets you a good review, $50 gets you a mediocre
review and $10 gets you a bad review," then I'd have a problem with it. But
that isn't the case. If you take the time to look at some of this stuff, I
think you'll find thee is a lot more integrity involved, and the cash is merely
secondary. After all, $3.00 doesn't even buy a cheap lunch. I was happy to
spend the money just to get some constructive criticism. As it worked out, Tom
made some very good points, a few of which I've even been able to address.
If that isn't worth a measly three bucks, I don't know what is.
Incidentally, have you ever tried to get an article published in Billboard
Magazine? A long time ago, I did in order to publicly thank one of my clients
and tell about out touring experience. It turned out that the size of the
article they were willing to publish was directly proportional to the size of
the ad I was willing to purchase. My, my. How fair and balanced….
BTW, the cost of a half page in Billboard can buy a lot of really, really good
lunches.
Chuck Conrad
www.kzqx.com
Rich Wood
wrote:
>No appearances are NOT everything.
>The artists that are submitting don't have any problem with the fee - that
>includes the radio stations I've reviewed already.
In our business perception is reality. I don't care what the artists
or stations think of the fee. It's the reader who feels snookered and
isn't quite sure he or she should believe the review.
Why do you think Consumer Reports gets its review models off a
retailer's shelf rather than from the manufacturer? To make sure
they're getting the same thing the consumer would get.
>Small radio doesn't have the resources that Clear Channel and others have.
>It is a service that may help them compete, IF they get a good review.
No offense, Tom, but a review from your web site means no more to a
radio station than how deeply flooded your basement is from a broken
pipe.
It's utterly irrelevant. As David said, it's those 1,100,000 listeners
who keep coming back that's important. I have this mental picture of
you tilting at all the windmills just outside Palm Springs.
Rich
drewdawg
the following to the collective conscience:
> wrote:
>
>> No appearances are NOT everything.
>> The artists that are submitting don't have any problem with the fee
>> - that includes the radio stations I've reviewed already.
>
> In our business perception is reality. I don't care what the artists
> or stations think of the fee. It's the reader who feels snookered and
> isn't quite sure he or she should believe the review.
>
one of his posts (even selling the service in his replies).
Bob Haberkost
such an honest face.
Under the circumstances, I suppose I should also now take GW Bush's word that there
really are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After all, he makes the same claims
of credibility as you do.
Your naiveté is refreshing, Tom. Don't lose it. But it is a cynical world, and
(assuming we're seeing a consensus here in the newsgroup) your assurances will, for
the most part, fall on deaf ears.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-
"TomHendricks474" <tomhend...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20040205232303...@mb-m19.news.cs.com...