Objective review about genres you dislike

Peter wrote: lostrom wrote: I rather have information than opinions in a review! Opinions are for those who wants to shine themselfs when writing, information is for those who puts the reader first! How can we respond to art without involving opinion? "This painting is 6' by 8.' It was done with oils, on canvas. There is a preponderance of blue and red. The subject is a vase of mixed flowers. The artist was 42 when he painted it. He lived in Paris." Rivetting! Or: "The band has four members. They are named Peter, Paul, Steve and Bob, and they play guitars, bass, drums and keyboards, respectively. The CD has a photo of a red car on the cover. The usual time signature is 4/4." Gripping, and so... informative! As soon as I tell you who they "sound like," or attempt to categorize the music, or even tell you if I like it, I am veering into the verboten opinion territory. Art appeals (mainly) to the emotions, not the intellect, and each of us responds in our unique way, based upon all the factors that make one an individual. That's MY opinion.... Whoops -- sorry!

couldn't be more true

There's no point in someone who doesn't listen to metal reviewing a metal album, unless (as in the case of Opeth), fans of the band are claiming that the band/album should appeal to people who don't normally listen to the genre.

If I read about a band then they have to have something about them that really stands out to persuade me to give them a listen. If a band claims to be innovative, persuades me to listen to them, and then I find it's not at all, then I'd write a poor review (someday..!). If, however, when reading about them I see nothing to persuade me to listen (and if I disliked metal, them being metal would quite possibly instantly dissuade me), then I'd just ignore them.

It's easy for me, when I want to have an idea about a band or album I don't know, I try read:

1. Reviews by people who love the album,relatively objective  reviews and some others from people who hates the album: Reading all, I make an idea about the great highlights only fans see, the good and high points an objective reviewer can see and the flaws that only a hater can see.
2. Opinions and facts: I also need  to know the obvious influences and technical facts, but the negative or posituive impact that an album produces in the listener is also important for me.
3. Emotions: That's one of the most important part of a review, if the music or painting or any form of art doesn't prodice emotions, then it's not art.

So reading as many reviews as possible and tryng to evaluate the position and knowledge of the reviewer will give me a relatively accurate idea of the album.

Iván

Personally, I find reviews by people who hate/know nothing about the genre/album/artist to be hilarious. I look on amazon.com at the lowest reviews every once in a while for a good laugh. My favorite one is the first one here.

Peter wrote: lostrom wrote: I rather have information than opinions in a review! Opinions are for those who wants to shine themselfs when writing, information is for those who puts the reader first! How can we respond to art without involving opinion? "This painting is 6' by 8.' It was done with oils, on canvas. There is a preponderance of blue and red. The subject is a vase of mixed flowers. The artist was 42 when he painted it. He lived in Paris." Rivetting! Or: "The band has four members. They are named Peter, Paul, Steve and Bob, and they play guitars, bass, drums and keyboards, respectively. The CD has a photo of a red car on the cover. The usual time signature is 4/4." Gripping, and so... informative! As soon as I tell you who they "sound like," or attempt to categorize the music, or even tell you if I like it, I am veering into the verboten opinion territory. Art appeals (mainly) to the emotions, not the intellect, and each of us responds in our unique way, based upon all the factors that make one an individual. That's MY opinion.... Whoops -- sorry!

Sorry, It was ment to be a respond to THIS post

Of course every (or most every) review will contain someone's opinions, whether you like them or not. It is, after all, what YOU think about the record...if someone has similiar tastes, then you've done your job. However, I agree with the difficulty of reviewing an album of a genre you dislike. It's like being a non-metal fan and buying the new Dream Theater album and saying "I told you so, see! it's loud, and fast, and techincal-ick! I hate it!"

There will always be a certain level of subjectiveness in any review, it happens, but I see no problem as long as the reviewer doesn't lash out at all that likes a certain type of music, or lash out at the band because they don't like the style. Bad reviews are just as important as good ones, but both can be rather distasteful. If you really LOVE Genesis and believe they can do no wrong and give We Can't Dance 5 stars and lash out at those for not going along with Genesis' ideals, that does nobody any good.

lostrom wrote: I rather have information than opinions in a review! Opinions are for those who wants to shine themselfs when writing, information is for those who puts the reader first!

How can we respond to art without involving opinion?

"This painting is 6' by 8.' It was done with oils, on canvas. There is a preponderance of blue and red. The subject is a vase of mixed flowers. The artist was 42 when he painted it. He lived in Paris."

Rivetting!

Or: "The band has four members. They are named Peter, Paul, Steve and Bob, and they play guitars, bass, drums and keyboards, respectively. The CD has a photo of a red car on the cover. The usual time signature is 4/4."

Gripping, and so... informative!

As soon as I tell you who they "sound like," or attempt to categorize the music, or even tell you if I like it, I am veering into the verboten opinion territory.

Art appeals (mainly) to the emotions, not the intellect, and each of us responds in our unique way, based upon all the factors that make one an individual.

That's MY opinion....

Whoops -- sorry!

Edited by Peter

tuxon wrote: I think I'm knowledgable enough to write about bands from genres that i don't like. The fact that I don't like a genre implies that I know the genre good enough to make that assessment.

I don't doubt that you are capable of writing good reviews about genres which you don't like. Many others aren't ... for various reasons, only one of which is that they don't like the genre. I've read a review on Into The Electric Castle on amazon.de where a guy complained about the poor quality of the vocals ... I'd prefer any qualified yet biased review over plain incompetence  

Not liking it, doesn't mean you don't know it.

You can't write reviews about albums you don't know, but if you know an album your sufficiently knowledgable to write a review about it.

Reviews aren't written for people who already have the album, they don't need a review. Reviews are written for people who don't have the album, or don't know the band. All information (positive and negative) can be helpfull in providing insight in the bands music.

I think I'm knowledgable enough to write about bands from genres that i don't like. The fact that I don't like a genre implies that I know the genre good enough to make that assessment.

 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Of course such posts can be informative and entertaining, but the negative effect on the rating is not ok ... maybe there should be an option "no rating" in addition to the five stars.

One might argue that the statistical effect overall (including the 'biased' ratings) is the only thing even approaching objectivity. If an album is only reviewed by gushing fans, it will appear to have more importance than it deserves.