What makes a review a good review?

Slartibartfast wrote: Obviouslyrunningallyoursentencestogetherintoonehumongoparargaph.

I'm sorry, I should have used more color and boldness, etc.
Obviouslyrunningallyoursentencestogetherintoonehumongoparargaph...

OK seriously, it's all about perspective...
You have to put some you into the review.
Of course, if you happen to be a jerk, maybe that's not such a good idea.


Edited by Slartibartfast - April 28 2008 at 19:25

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

I generally like this when I already have the album. I like to read other opinions about particular tracks, especially albums that have few reviews. The best however is when a reviewer is describing the album and mentions tracks and maybe what he/she considers a highlight or a flaw while talking about the album. Song x song descriptions can get too long if the reviewer gets carried away (heck, it even happened to me haha)


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 like a middle ground. Even fantastically written reviews (like Rico's) can make me lose interest when there's not a single mention of one track. I need a few tracks mentioned so maybe I can look them up on youtube. An exception is when the album is not very varied, like an Iron Maiden album or an ambient album, etc.

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

Only if the comparisons make sense. I don't wanna read "Opeth is better than Tangerine Dream, so Br00tal"

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

Comments from the band? useful when they are old albums to avoid band opinion bias. I don't like historical facts unless they make you understand the music or lyrics.

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

When some reviewers give scores to specific songs and then get the average and put the 1-5 star choice. I've seen one who rated the 3 long tracks of Pink Floyd - Animals all 5-star tracks and because the tiny tiny acoustic ditty that surrounds them got 3-stars each, the album ended up with 4 stars.

_I also don't want any acronyms, unless the acronym is defined the first time that acronym is used in the review.

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?

Medium. 2-4 paragraphs.

ClassicRocker wrote: 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.

amen, brother!