What makes a review a good review?

1) Do you like song x song descriptions, a play by play of each track?    Or do you find this repetitive and boring?

The majority of the time I do not like a track by track review at all. In some cases I think it works, for example if an album is only made up of a few tracks, then I think it is fair as each track contributes such a large portion to the whole. Many times I understand that every track is so powerful on its own as well as a whole, but I think a track by track analysis should be condensed.

Ex. - Instead of saying "Track one wields an absolutely brutal Opethian riff that just pounds the living sh*t out of the listeners ears" and "Track two shows the band on a mellower note, conveying their more subtle emotional side that would make Camel fans' mouths water."

Improved - "Shifting from brutal riffs to more mellow passages, the opening tracks of [album name] showcase the band's astounding ability to not only pound the living sh*t out of the listener's ears, but also convey a subtle emotional side that would make Opeth and Camel fans' mouths water."

You get the best parts of each separate track description, but condense them into a smaller sentence (and in my opinion, more well constructed and equally informative).

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?

Absolutely. I think most of us here care more about the overall album experience rather than singles otherwise we wouldn't be fans of the genre, now would we?

3) Are comparisons to other bands helpful or is it ultimately unfair because each band is so unique?

I think comparisons are helpful for a couple reasons:

#1 They help someone who is unfamiliar with the band get an idea of what the band may sound like based on bands they may be familiar with.

#2 They prove you are not just a rambling fanboy who knows next to nothing of the rest of the genres 40+ year history. I think one is to take a review more seriously that says "The Flower Kings are very enjoyable band for me even though they borrow a lot of influence from well-known prog acts of the 70s such as Yes and Genesis" rather than: "The Flower Kings are awesome. I love them!"

By using the comparison in the first example you prove that first of all, you're aware of the fact that you're stating an opinion by saying "very enjoyable band for me". The second statement merely says "The Flower Kings are awesome". There isn't much awareness in that statement. The first example also proves you've been following the musical style's entire history, so you've at least gained some experience. The second example proves nothing except that you've listened to The Flower Kings. For all the reader knows you could have heard nothing else of prog.

Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with stating a band is "awesome" and using fun enthusiasm as long as you back up your opinion. If you're especially enthusiastic about a certain album, let the reader know, but let them know why.

I think it's also good to use a balanced amount of objectiveness and subjectiveness in a review. A purely objective review has no soul behind it. It's merely facts thrown in the reader's face, and honestly doesn't say much about the impact it had on the listener/reviewer. While on the other hand a purely subjective review has no backbone for its argument. It's all opinion based and the reader knows nothing of the reasoning behind it. A review that balances both factors will ultimately be far more successful. Make sure the reader knows your likes and dislikes, and any personal biases, and how the album relates to that. There's no point in reading a review that might as well been done by a computer program. After all, the main reason we read reviews is to see how an album affected the listener, is it not?

4) Quotes?  Historical facts?   Comments from the band about the music?  Good to include or not?

Good to include if it works for the overall purpose. People unfamiliar with the band might be interested to know a little bit at how they arrived at creating the work your reviewing. People who are in fact familiar with the band will want to know how to ranks compared to their other work. I think this stuff should be kept to a minimum though, as no one wants to read a history lesson.

5) What else do you want the reviewer to include or not include?

Only thing I can really say is be "real". Tell the reader how and why your truly love the music, and how you arrived at that point. Keep in mind that the reader doesn't know you as a person, they don't know how your mind works, so you gotta let them know. A reader can relate to the mind and experiences of a review is a happy reader.

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?

It depends. How much do you have to say? Just make sure you get your point across and be informative enough to satisfy the reader. Try condensing excess amount of description and anything you don't feel is contributing strongly to the review as a whole. Ask yourself questions such as "is this paragraph about the lead singer's life really necessary?" or "do I really need to restate the musicians' technical abilitity, or have I made my point already?" Just sort of let the words flow out of you as if you were talking to a friend. When you feel you have said enough, you will know. Just make sure you go back afterwards and do that whole condensing thing.

I hope my advice was helpful.

Finnforest wrote: Matt...awesome, thank you.  Definitely WAS helpful to me.  Will edit this later with more comments but have to head to work now.

Haha thanks! Now I just need to find time to start reviewing again

1) Do you like song x song descriptions, a play by play of each track?    Or do you find this repetitive and boring?

1) Do you like song x song descriptions, a play by play of each track?    Or do you find this repetitive and boring?

It depends really. Like others have said this is only really effective for albums that don't have many tracks such as EPs, but it does become boring and repetitive if the person just starts to repeat themselves. (I'm guilty of this at times )

Really though, I find nothing wrong with a review that touches on all the tracks but doesn't go hugely into detail about each one.

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?

Generally if I know the band but not the album I'll look for a track by track, if I don't know the band at all then I'll look for something that's more of an overview. I think overviews work better.

3) Are comparisons to other bands helpful or is it ultimately unfair because each band is so unique?

I've always liked comparisons. Band X is like Y meets Z is always INCREDIBLY helpful if the comparison is accurate. X is like Y except with a hint of this is also good.

4) Quotes?  Historical facts?   Comments from the band about the music?  Good to include or not?

I always love stuff like this. It's true that it can become redundant if that's all the review is about, but as a paragraph or two about the album before the review about the music it's always nice to see. I like mah music trivia anyways

5) What else do you want the reviewer to include or not include?

Personally -- I kind of like it when the reviewer adds a personal touch to the review. A subjective review is alright if you know the person's taste... but I'm more talking about how the person came about having the album or why they like it (Life experiences,ect.)... just lets me know where the reviewer is coming from.

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?

It depends on the album and the reviewer, really. I once wrote a review for Blue Oyster Cult's Imaginos which was about 3 pages long on Microsoft Word... and I can't even go back to proof read it because it's too freaking long! Also, if I don't really know the band then a long review is not going to fly with me. However, if I'm really looking to get into the band then I might just look for a really long review.

I'll always read short reviews because they're short and quick to read. Unfortunately, they don't usually make me interested in the music. Very few people are really REALLY good at the short reviews. However, there's been a couple times when it's great.

Medium is really the best. A review that's a good 4-6 paragraphs is ideal (imo). Not too long that it'll take me forever t read and not too short that there's no substance.




Great thread!

You really forced me to go back and read over some of my recent reviews... Turns out some of them are still alright!

Hope my response was helpful!


Edited by King By-Tor - April 25 2008 at 14:38

all great points..  my pet peeve is when someone approaches a review as if it were their private journal;  'Dear diary, I just don't like Jethro Tull, is there something wrong with me?"    ..just my opinion of course
 

laplace wrote: 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. =)

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.

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? I write song by song descriptions, but really it depends on the reviewer. I feel that reviewers don't need to go into every single song to explain their opinions of the album, so long as they engage with the music. I enjoy reading song by song reviews, but if they seem very rushed opinions, as they sometimes do, they can be jarring. HOWEVER, I really dislike reviews that have no basis in the songs or the music. If a review *only* deals with overall feel and avoids the individual songs, I'll usually ignore it, because I could write a review like that without hearing the music and because it doesn't help me to really understand why the reviewer likes it. 3) Are comparisons to other bands helpful or is it ultimately unfair because each band is so unique? It really depends on the band and album in question. Links between bands are always interesting,  and if a band seems derivative, it often ends up feeling very harmless to me. However, comparisons should not form the backbone of the review unless they are actually very relevant to the music. 4) Quotes?  Historical facts?   Comments from the band about the music?  Good to include or not? Quotes are fine, even appropriate. The band's thoughts are often interesting and relevant, and if they help explain the reviewer's point, then it's really useful. Similarly, an appropriate historical circumstance might be useful to back up a reviewer's ideas. However, I see way too many reviews that seem to have their judgment grounded in historical circumstances and not the music that an album contains (especially ELP's works volumes). Quite often in such reviews the facts aren't actually even basically researched, just assumed. Basically, fine so long as the review is not based on them with no interest in the music. 5) What else do you want the reviewer to include or not include? I want a review, basically, to give me something that I didn't understand before about the music or to explain whether I think I should buy it. Hence, say, a review that deals intensely or originally with a specific aspect (say, the bass-playing, the change in line-up, or even the artwork or the concept) of a very well-known album would be more interesting to me than most song-by-song reviews. For not including, calculating the rating by a song average or giving a half star seems very unprofessional and essentially pointless, so I don't like it. There's little point in examining song length or musicians involved UNLESS the reviewer ties it to a point or an idea, however basic that idea is. I can find out who's on the album by reading the album's entry on PA. 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? Whichever gets the point across. A short review that hits the nail on the head or really adds something new (see one of the Bald pair's Pulse review for an example) is just perfect. A sprawling review is generally going to have to include more analysis and is more difficult to write without actually examining the music, so I'd probably prefer to have more of those. Thanks...I'm sure this has been done before, but I want responses from current visitors, not ones from a year ago.  Cheers!

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

Great thread, James! Now here's my answers...

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.