My tastes are my own but are rather broad-based, as described somewhat at the bottom of this page. I like most genres of music, with a few exceptions noted below. Mostly, I appreciate innovation, enthusiasm, and mastery.

Although a simple one-to-five star rating system is pretty much self-explanatory, the following explains the general fallback standards I used in rating each song. Two caveats, though. First, these are listenability ratings, not anticipations of who will give the best show. Most good shows need to also be listenable, and I have tried to give separate ratings for which shows I would recommend. However, a high rating does not guarantee a good show. Second, not all five-star bands are equal: likewise with all four star and all three-star bands. Some songs fall squarely within the rating; others fall on the cusp upwards or downwards. But we need to draw lines somewhere.

Five-Star. These songs pretty much needed to knock my socks off in one way or another such that I would really, really want to hear the song again and again. A "Five-star" rating, however, does not mean it needs to be the most innovative band ever, nor even the most innovative, exciting band in the festival. Limiting it to that criteria makes a five-star rating somewhat useless except for one or two bands. It just means I really dig it. Definite keepers.

Four-Star. These are solidly good songs I would want to hear again, but fell short of knocking my socks off for one or more reasons. I would include them in a compilation, and many of these bands might be some of my favorite shows. Keepers.

Three-Star. These are songs I would not mind hearing again, but really did not make a huge impression. I will keep them after the festival, but not listen to them again unless I have a reason to do so.

Two-Star. I did not like these songs, but I understood what they were getting at, why SXSW invited them, and why someone else might like them. I also might reconsider them later if someone reliable gives them a good review. But after the festival, I will get rid of these samples.

One-Star. Garbage. Nothing redeemable. Don't ever want to hear them again. Will not reconsider them, even if my most trusted source gives me a convincing explanation of their musical merits.

Some ratings try to limit the number of top-rated bands: as if grading on a curve and making sure there were not too many A's. Others try to socialize the ratings so as to disperse the ratings equally: grading on a more even-keeled curve. I just called them as I see them. The disproportionate number of four and five star rated bands merely is a testament to how great a job the SXSW selection committee did in selecting these bands. They do a much better job than commercial radio.

__________________________________________________________________________

Rating Notes

While rating these songs, I noticed the following trends arising. The following could be used as advice for budding bands who submit samples to SXSW. But I documented it mostly to explain my biases and as a reminder to myself, which helps make rating the samples easier.

1) First Impressions count. For all the detail of the following ramblings, first impressions are usually accurate. Using Malcolm Gladwell's principles from "Blink," I tried to not over-think any particular rating, but instead went on gut reaction. Granted, my innate "thin sliced" gut reaction has an inherent complexity and refinement after avidly listening to music for forty some years. And I did listen to some songs all the way through, even though doing so mostly just confirmed the initial gut reaction. But the rest of this explanation mostly describes what goes on in the blink of a moment when listening to these songs.

2) Solid Rhythm As any freshman music student knows, there are four basic elements to a song: rhythm, structure, melody, and harmony. All of those parts are important, but for me it all starts with a solid, rich, interesting rhythm. To openly mock my own self, making me bounce or wiggle to the rhythm makes me happy. Complex, ornate, abrupt, or overly-syncopated rhythms are just distracting; and rhythmless music is just noise to me.

3) Get to the frickin point. As I listened to 1288 songs, I grew increasingly weary of bands whose "pop hit" takes a minute or two to "start." Extended intros might work well for album-oriented stuff, but not even a legendary album-oriented band like The Who would submit, say, "The Sea & Sand" from Quadrophenia as a song sample: they would submit something like "The Real Me," which gets to the point and makes an impression quickly. When there are thousands of bands to choose from at SXSW, you gotta make a good first impression, and a wimpy, meandering intro does not do it. DJ songs (MIDI or other songs synthesized on a mixer, not with instruments) especially violate this principle by over-using a nifty riff WAY too long before moving on to the next musical idea.

4) Experiment on your own time. Too many "art-rock" bands waste their audience's time on experiments that should be kept archived until well AFTER the band makes history. Although I intellectually understand that many bands are creatively experimenting with new sounds, this festival is about making or breaking your music career. If you are still just experimenting, you are not ready,and (more to the point) I don't want to waste my time at your show. Also, just like not all movement is forward, not all change is for the better. Innovation needs to inspire, not just randomly meander through different sounds.

5) Innovation counts--Take risks. Notwithstanding #2, the second worst sin to commit is to just pump out the same old crap, especially when it was not that inspiring to begin with. Bands with a refreshing new sound--even a new glean on an old sound--get extra points. That said, we are all prisoners of our pre-conceived preferences. The farther a band innovates, the better the innovation needs to be in order to maintain attention. Van Halen would have tanked in the 1950s, just as shown in that scene from "Back to the Future." But by the 1970s, pop culture was ready for the innovations that Van Halen brought to the table.

6) Derivative Sounds. By this time in Rock History, all Rock music is somewhat derivative. However, close associations still exist, and herein lies the risk. bands that just copycatted previous styles (whether intentionally or not) lost points in the ratings. However, the upside is that a catchy new glean on an old familiar favorite sound gets extra bonus points, even if it technically is not that innovative.

7)) Mastery. Too many musicians think "it" is all about attitude and innate talent first, and developing your craft second. Not so. Musicians need to master their instrument and their genre. Although mastering your craft, alone,will just make you a decent session musician, you still need to do it. Professionalism and developing your craft is not sufficient to get success. But it is still necessary. This music thing is your profession: treat it that way.

8) Sound Quality. Because music is inherently an audible (not intellectual) experience, mastery of your instrument or of your music is not enough. A band needs to master all the elements of sound, which includes sound and recording quality. It is not enough to be able to play guitar: someone with the band needs to know how to make that musicianship sparkle and even perhaps sound better.

9) Change it up. The best songs not only start out catchy, they also shift in the middle, either with a funky bridge or by moving onto a catchy chorus. One catchy riff does not make a great song, anymore. As with #1, DJ songs also rampantly violate this principle by over-using a nifty riff WAY too long before moving on to the next idea.

8) Singing counts. Like it or not, the human voice is the single most recognizable sound in any song, and even if you have the most accomplished band, it will not work if you can't sing. The biggest mistake here is that carrying a tune is not enough. The human voice is the most complex sounding instrument in a band, and a hollow or flat sounding voice is disappointing at best. Some of it is just innate: the richness, depth, clarity, tone, sweetness, strength, edge. But other aspects take work: control of your register, vocal phrasing, rhythmic emphasis, timing, patterns, harmonics, breath control, lung capacity, etc.

_______________________________________________________________________

No Jam Bands. I have some friends who love "Jam Bands." I don't. (See #1 & #2 below.) A friend of mine even described his love of Jam Bands as an appreciation for a band "taking risks" onstage: where the solo can flop or go brilliant. However, I just don't see the risks or the rewards of meandering through scales onstage. As Miles said to Coltrane, "Son, you don't need to play ev-e-ry-thang." Experiment and get high on your own time.

Angry Rappers/Angry Death Metal For some reason, rap and death metal bands selected for SXSW seem to think that the only acceptable form of rap or death metal music is "angry." Although I understand the prevailing rap paradigm is angry gangsta rap, that doesn't mean we need yet another angry rapper. Innovate mothafuckas--get yo own shit! Better yet, Read a Book. And many death metal bands selected for SXSW actually sounded great until the singer started madly chanting or screaming with the same gruff voice of Satan. Guys, it's no longer scary; it's so done, it's funny.

Whiney Singer-Songwriters. Just like "voice-of-Satan death metal" and "angry-gangsta rap" is overdone, so is the whiny singer-songwriter on the other end of the spectrum. I know Counting Crows and Coldplay are popular, but that doesn't mean we need another whiner on the radio. Copycats are about as alluring as teenage girl singers who model their voices after the passionless moaning and groaning of Britany Spears. If you copy this style, you are a poser, and we will all know it.

Folk Singers. Cracker said it best. "What the world needs now is another folk singer... like I need a hole in my head." Fortunately, this year's bands contain some exceptions, most especially when they pay heed to being able to sing, not whining, and getting to the point. (See below).

Disco. After decades of struggling to maintain my loyalty to Steve Dahl and Disco Demolition, I finally must admit it: I like Disco. I'm no longer going to apologize for it or cover for it. I still don't like plastic jewelry, polyester leisure suits, smarmy scenes full of losers and posers, or any of the other trappings of the Disco "scene." But the rhythm works, and I like it. Deal with it.

Punky Pop. I have an admitted predisposition for "punky" alternative rock music. My favorite shows over the years have all ended up in a mosh pit with outbreaks of slam dancing: Gogol Bordello, Iggy Pop, The Arctic Monkeys, MxPx, etc. Although I noticed that predisposition has fallen this year, it is still there, especially when recommending shows to attend as opposed to rating the songs based purely on listenability.