I'm Supposed to Pay for This?: Rocking out with your wallet out at NYROCK.com.

Resolved: NYRock.com is a very bad website. Although it celebrates the New York City rock scene, the editors and writers have squandered any chance to capitalize on the big local boom of the past few years. NYRock.com reads like any generic rock site full of lame attitude and tired references, and is rightly one of the most hated websites in the music industry.

In a grand example of rock ’n’ roll rebellion, this is because NYRock.com has set certain rules. Specifically, the site has rules for any indie label, act, or publicist seeking to send in a CD for review. Here are two of the requirements for being written up in NYRock’s indie-oriented "Street Beat" section:

"Reviews are $20 each (Note: 1. We are providing a service and, 2. we have top-notch writers and like to pay them for their work). Inclusion of your band’s photo (approximately 200 X 200) is an additional $10. Payment guarantees a review...

"Payment can be made by check (payable to NY Rock), money order, or PayPal.com. Contact us for our PayPal account information."

In other words, NYRock.com is actually charging labels, publicists, and bands for the honor of being reviewed in the "Street Beat" section, which is written by a guy named Bill Ribas, who just happens to find something to like about every CD he gets.

This is why NYRock is now routinely ridiculed and loathed by any number of indie labels, acts and publicists. A few rock critics have also jumped in to take the moral high ground. In the world of music criticism, NYRock.com is a true pariah.

NYRock publisher Stu Newman feels misunderstood. "Most people who are offended," he explains, "end up understanding that we need money for things like food. Once we explain our position, they’re very sympathetic. We’ve tried our best to explain our position and to provide free services for local musicians. The review policy is about keeping the site running. The best thing I can do is get that message out to people. We want to keep the flow of information going."

The problem, though, is that Newman chose the one revenue-enhancing device that would ruin any publication’s reputation.

"There’s always going to be a downside," Newman responds. "The real downside here is that some CDs that might have gotten good reviews won’t come through the door now. The upside is that we still have a section where we can guarantee reviews. As far as any guarantee that the review will be objective, the best way to show that is by our actions."

In other words, don’t suggest that all of the "Street Beat" reviews are positive simply because the artists are paying for them. "That section has one columnist," Newman explains, "and the positive tone has been established over the past few years, long before we began charging for reviews. We tend to like people a lot, especially when it comes to indie musicians, because they’re struggling to get somewhere. If Bill’s slanted to the positive, that’s great."

Actually, you can hold your enthusiasm for "Street Beat" columnist Bill Ribas. He’s a classic hackety-hack, and each review sounds like the mid-term evaluation of a lazy student whose father just wrote a check toward the academy’s Olympic swimming pool. Ribas’ idea of trashing an act involves the citing of lots of potential.

He’s also stupid enough to think that Frank Zappa, King Crimson and Weird Al Yankovic are "worlds apart."

Of course, many rock critics for other publications are just as generous in their praise. They have to keep the CDs coming in so they can cash them in for falafels down at St. Mark’s Place. Still, Bill Ribas deserves to be singled out for putting his name to a pay-for-review policy; especially since Newman claims that the money being brought in "doesn’t cover the cost of the column."

While Bill Ribas can at least brag that he’s the most overpaid rock critic in America, it’s strange that NYRock.com decided to destroy its reputation for such a small amount of money. In a way, that’s probably Newman’s best defense.

Newman’s the kind of guy who sounds proud when he states that NYRock never had any kind of business plan. He also talks a lot about how he understands what it’s like to be a struggling indie musician. As a result, he almost sounds believable when he makes his best pitch for why it’s good to charge musicians for reviews:

"One of the main concepts behind the ‘Street Beat’ column was to guarantee a review. But it got out of control when a publicist would send 25 or 39 CDs in one package. We had piles of CDs in our living room. It’s better to review less CDs than to waste a band’s money by receiving CDs that we’re not reviewing."

Even if Newman’s completely insincere, it’s a good point, almost moral. But Newman has something even better in his defense. NYRock.com practices full disclosure. The site’s policy is proudly stated right at the end of the "Street Beats" column.

Given the nature of Ribas’ writing, of course, it’s a good bet that nobody actually reads to the end of the page. On the other hand, this posting also effectively alerts readers that they can’t trust a single review.

NYRock’s openness also makes for some decent industry gossip. It’s really sad to see a former chart act like Gregory Abbot now reduced to paying for a good review. A review of Jesse Malin’s new album is also up in the section, despite having already been heavily—and positively—reviewed by classier publications. Although the NYRock editors later explained to me how that one’s a freebie, Malin’s publicist would probably prefer that the editors explain it to their readers.

And note that one of the reasons people even know to ridicule NYRock is that the site actually solicits indie labels to buy reviews—as if those indie labels don’t have enough things to be pissed off about.

Still, all rock publications should be as honest as NYRock. Major magazines routinely provide good reviews in exchange for access to major recording stars. The indie rock press usually settles for extorting ads from record labels in exchange for a review or article.

This might explain why Newman sounds honestly baffled by all the commotion. In the end, he seems fairly convinced that he’s the victim here. "It’s been tough," Newman says. "We knew this would be controversial, but we don’t shy from controversy. Our motto is, ‘What good is surfing the Web if nobody’s making waves?’ Controversy is good. It’s tough, but isn’t it good to be shaking things up?"

In this case, of course, shaking things up is actually kind of stupid. That motto is also badly dated. Let’s just be polite and say it shows lots of potential.