What makes a review a good review?

Pnoom! wrote: This is random, but Laplace, stop referring to yourself as "this reviewer" and learn to say I.  Forget what your writing teachers told you, it will read better, and it's a review, so it's subjective anyway.

Many people, including myself, find 3rd person preferable. That is, unless the review includes some sort of narrative or personal anecdote. If it isn't one of those exceptions, then I find the review reads better sans first person. (I'm not quite sure what "it's a review, so it's subjective anyway" is supposed to mean).

Keep your reviews the way you always write them lappy. Very high quality (or entertainment value).

Sorry, I just felt the need to respond to that.

Finnforest wrote: debrewguy wrote: Finnforest wrote: More great stuff there to digest...thanks guys.  Ghost...point 3 gets a big YUP from me.  TGM, had not considered that half stars were unprofessional, sometimes its very hard to pick between 3 and 4 especially.  I'll have to think about  that.  Debrewguy, all good points except your last one: The obvious superiority of Italian prog over the other lesser genres MUST be pointed out early and often Which makes Ange, Klaatu & Split Enz all the more amazing as the exception to the rule that RPI rules. P.S. Me and my 40 RPI albums agree with you re : genre superiority. And that's not counting the PFM & Le Orme collections. Ange...hell yeah!  I still haven't heard Emile yet though so I  have that treat to look forward to!!

Klaatu, too. Hope is a perfect merging of rock group & orchestra. Also please note that filming began in Vancouver, British Columbia on December 12, 2007 on the remake of the 1951 classic sci-fi flick "Day The Earth Stood Still" starring Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Connelly, Kathy Bates, and Jaden Smith. There's a push to have Klaatu's music use as the soundtrack. Especially "Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft", which would be a perfect fit, given the story.
Klaatu.org has the details on its' main page. Thanks for all your support ahead of time.
Hey, too many people complain about Prog's lack of mainstream visibility. Here's a chance. Let's take it.

debrewguy wrote: Finnforest wrote: More great stuff there to digest...thanks guys.  Ghost...point 3 gets a big YUP from me.  TGM, had not considered that half stars were unprofessional, sometimes its very hard to pick between 3 and 4 especially.  I'll have to think about  that.  Debrewguy, all good points except your last one: The obvious superiority of Italian prog over the other lesser genres MUST be pointed out early and often Which makes Ange, Klaatu & Split Enz all the more amazing as the exception to the rule that RPI rules. P.S. Me and my 40 RPI albums agree with you re : genre superiority. And that's not counting the PFM & Le Orme collections.

Ange...hell yeah!  I still haven't heard Emile yet though so I  have that treat to look forward to!!

Raffa, good stuff.  Lyrics are another item it was good to touch on.  And us English-only types really appreciate it when you multi-linguals translate a bit for us in your Italian, French, etc reviews.  Of couse we don't expect complete translation, but even a bit helps with knowing something about the themes. 

Obviouslyrunningallyoursentencestogetherintoonehumongoparargaph.

I like the following, though they don't necessarily need to all appear in the same review :
Some personal insight - this album/music I play because/reminds of/affects me etc ...
Some musical comparisons - Similarities, originality , influences, or influence on other bands.
Some technical notes - tempo changes / arrangements / instrumental skills or lack thereof ...
Some out and out subjective opinions - this is my fave band, my fave album (or vice versa) as long as there is an explanation as to why.
Some objective caveats - I'm a fanboy / I hate this genre / limited knowledge / just listened to it 'cause others have said it's great, yadda yadda, yadda ...
Some expertise or enthusiasm - 'nuff said there
Some agreement with Debrewguy as to the awesomeness of Ange's Emile Jacotey, Klaatu's Hope, Split Enz' TIme & Tide.
Of no interest - any elitism, i.e. "I and a select intellectually superior few are the only ones to fully inderstand/appreciate what a masterpiece this is. Pity the poor unfortunate multitudes who don't know any better"
Of even less interest - "getting it"
And of least interest - claiming genre or sub-genre superiority or inferiority. Tell me about the album in question. Genre references are nice when placing the music in context, but are not necessary.

Finnforest wrote: As someone who writes reviews, I'd like to know more about what readers are looking for in reviews that they read.  Please reply only if you are a regular review reader.  There's no need to inform us if you think "reviews suck."  1) Do you like song x song descriptions, a play by play of each track?    Or do you find this repetitive and boring? 2) Is it better to not go track by track, but to just provide a general overview of the listening experience, speaking more broadly about the songs as a collection rather than individually? 3) Are comparisons to other bands helpful or is it ultimately unfair because each band is so unique? 4) Quotes?  Historical facts?   Comments from the band about the music?  Good to include or not? 5) What else do you want the reviewer to include or not include? 6) Short, medium, or long reviews?   Assuming all are good quality, do you prefer a concise 1-2 paragraph review or a mammoth mini-book?  Or in-between? Thanks...I'm sure this has been done before, but I want responses from current visitors, not ones from a year ago.  Cheers!

Oh this is just gold you guys.  Thanks so much for taking the time.  I can tell you I find your words very helpful.  To answer some of my own questions, I've been feeling about the same thing as you guys.  As someone who has frequently tried to do a track by track I have found that sometimes it is not very practical, like lately when reviewing NIL I noticed there were like 30 tracks.  I can see why Jake says' he would just stop reading.  OTOH, there are some Italian titles where, because I'm enamored with the genre, I'm able to give a pretty vivid description of all the madness on those old records and so I have to try to relay EVERY thing because I'm excited. 

Also, if there are few reviews for an album, I will write more.  If I'm writing about something with 1000 reviews already, I may just give a brief opinion. 

I very much agree with the comments to go with your gut feeling, to write the length that seems required and not more, and to write as though telling a friend about the album.  Those are great pointers.

I once argued in favor of objective reviews, but have come to the conclusion that most people want subjective, so I attempt to provide both.    I will clearly say what I think, I'm not afraid to be harsh if I think something sucks or glowing if I love it.  But I still insist on some objectivity.  If I hate something, but recognize value in the playing, historic nature, etc, I'm going to say so.  I think a quality review will give both views to the reader; both the reviewers thumbs up/down, but also a bit of a wider view as well.  No reviewing with blinders on. 

I really appreciate this and will take your comments to heart.  I'm not interesting in cranking out a bunch of sh*t for the numbers.  I want to write something of value that people might enjoy reading.  I want to make them laugh with a good line sometimes, or share something person.  I don't want to be completely dry.  So I keep working at it.   They can't all be perfect reviews and sometimes I'm not happy with certain ones.  But others I do think have value.  If I felt unable to hit at least a few home runs, I'd throw in the towel just like that.  So thanks for corking my bat. 

Honestly, I think it's important to avoid track-by-track reviewing and contextual statements about the band's situation and line-up. But what I really look for in a review comes down to this:

1. someone who has a new perspective on an album
2. someone who knows who to express that perspective

and all other preferences bow down to these two, since if a reviewer just *flows* then I'll read anything they write, however long, idiosyncratic and tangential. Of course, I don't always enjoy every "character" review since some people just manage to sound so *regional* that it turns me away from their writing style.

Nor am I fan of people with bland opinions o:) a good reviewer polarises and expresses their opinions in a way that shocks but doesn't insult.

Finnforest, you shouldn't worry because your reviews are good. =)

I think that just about any of those characteristics can be good in a review except a track-by-track breakdown.  As soon as I see someone start to go track-by-track I stop reading.