I guess I could just as easily vote yes for the idea of a rough demo site. I don’t think anyone would use it much but there wouldn’t be any harm in Steiny setting this up.
I still think people who post songs should learn to engage folks who respond with comments. As I said before ,best to say something like “this is a rough demo” or “I think its close to being finished, how does the mix sound” or “do I need something else here”. Just posting a song and saying “thoughts” is an open invite to have the entire production reviewed.Apparently this wasn’t wanted by the OP. I responded to halljacks song saying that acoustic guitar or a pad could be added for variety. If the thought was that I didn’t know the style well enough or that this idea was wrong for guitar based pop; why not just say so? The more you communicate ,the more you get out of a forum like this.
Also I used to subscribe to Home Recording which became Recording Magazine. I read the reviews for years and they had a very narrow scope of songs they’d review, basically rock. I submitted an R&B song once and it was never mentioned or reviewed at all… I just moved on. Afterwards I joined Taxi. As part of their membership they give a subscription to this mag. I wish everyone could have the Taxi experience. Their reviews of your songs are without mercy and have little regard for feelings, unlike the reviews here. They get to the point plain and simple.After a while the lessons are painful but the point is clear, Rough versions are pretty much useless. Best to finish a song (or make clear its not finished) , post what you have , review opinions and engage the responders.
Also regarding sites to review songs, the reason sites like Taxi charge $300 (1st year ,$200 thereafter) is , thats what its worth to get quality people (at least some) to listen to raw material and of course forward it for commercial use. Hard to imagine a free site doing this or what it would turn into after a short while.
My vote changed to yes, lets see what happens