I often discuss with fellow colleagues how strict a reporter should be when he's reviewing a Demo. My opinion is that a reviewer should be as strict when reviewing a Demo as he is when he's reviewing an official release. But let's break down what exactly a Demo is and what it is not. Most of you see a CD with a couple of songs in it and you baptize it a Demo.
There are actually three different types of recordings prior to a full length album. First we have the rehearsal tape; this is a live recording of the band's songs in order for the members to study, learn their mistakes or experiment on ready compositions. Demo is the recording a band must do prior to entering the studio to record the final version of their songs. On this level the songs are finalized as compositions. In the end we have the Promo. A Promo recording is actually the band's proposition towards the labels / media. It must have a professional recording, artwork, must be followed by a detailed biography written in fine English... A Promo must have nothing to be jealous of from an official release (except of course its duration).
The biography following Andrasta is terrible, written probably by a ten year old English student. Please don't send a biography that can be considered insulting for people who know English. I speak England Very Best is not the appropriate way to approach an editor.
This is actually a mini CD. This is what the band claims in their bio, but only two songs are new (the rest are revisited). The production is of Demo quality (average to say at best). Even if I overcome all the above, it doesn't get any better with the music. Retro Thrash Metal with a terrible vocalist. Do I have to say more? Too bad since there are some good ideas in the guitar riffs. Still the lousy vocalist manages to ruin everything (the fact that he was a singer in a NU Metal band rings any bells?). I have one word for the band: Work.