A Serious Poll: Reviews
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30962
Printed Date: November 27 2024 at 06:46
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A Serious Poll: Reviews
Posted By: Pnoom!
Subject: A Serious Poll: Reviews
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 15:17
| When I first PMed Peter Rideout to say that I liked one of his reviews, he was surprised, since it was a rather long one. Well, I tend to write and like long reviews (my Final Cut review is 6 pages in word double spaced), but I wondered about everyone else here. |
Replies:
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 15:24
|
My view varies quite a lot depending on the reviewer/review, but generally:
"medium, only talking highlights, and maybe lowlights, too"
The history of the album history I could care less about. If I wanted to hear about it, I'd read a bio of the band. I like a review to be clever, and if the reviewer drones on and on going through the same old formula with seemingly no inspiration, I'll just close it and ignore the review.
I've written one very long and in-depth review for Pendragon's Believe, and I do believe it is just an average review of mine. I explain the songs well, I believe, but usually just an overview and feel of the album is fine. Picking out two or three songs that best represent the album and explaining why they represent the album is just fine.
For me, the ideal review is no less than 100 words but no more than 500, depending on how well the reviewer can connect his thoughts and feelings. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 15:37
I like them so elaborated and so challenging, you simply have to call them...masterliness. 
------------- 
|
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 15:42
For me size matters  .
My reviews are usually long. Some people read them, some don't - I get comments both good and bad. Meh... I like a review that puts the album in context, either historically or with respect to the development of a particular genre or idea, or just within the context of that band's career. The song-by-song descriptions are usually worthwhile as well, but if the description of the album's context sells itself, I'm going to buy the album and listen to it and form my own opinion about the specific songs. ------------- "Peace is the only battle worth waging." Albert Camus |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 15:47
|
I favor short reviews. They should contain just enough info to give the reader an ideaof where the author is coming from, and what to expect of the album. I used to write very long reviews ... but today I think it's better to write 10 short reviews than one long one. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 15:50
by the highlighted principles, short and simple and astute enough is all it takes.  but I'm not by that main rule... -------------
|
MikeEnRegalia wrote:Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 15:53
I voted for "Other", which means I like reviews that are not excessively long, or give a song-by-song analysis, but which manage to convey both the history of the album and some description of the individual tracks (or at least of the most representative ones). My reviews (when I still wrote them... now suffering from a sort of writer's block ) fall much in this category - they're rarely too long, but hopefully they manage to give a good overview of the album in question.
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 16:00
|
I prefer reading for "substance".
Myself, I do not concentrate to accomplish on a specific length when I am writing my review, I just try to express myself as thoroughly and detailed as I can, it just always happen that they do not turn out short. However, I would never allow myself to write a review without an introductory part or a conclusion, so you can say it is a well-thought process.
The length does not matter, the content does. ------------- sig |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 16:01
| "Medium, only talking highlights, and maybe lowlights, too." I prefer long reviews to very short ones, but usually it's not necessary to give a precise description of every song. |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 16:38
hot, short and no sugar, boy!  ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Arsillus
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 16:45
|
Keep them short and sweet. Tell me something good and something not so good, but if it's a really good album, tell me two good things. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 17:03
Exactly. The most important info for me is: "Why is it good/bad?" A brief, two sentence answer to this sentence gives the reader a good idea of whether he can trust the review or not. For example, if the review says "I don't like this album because it contains growling", someone who likes growling can immediatelly dismiss the review, as it doesn't apply to his own preferences. I think that usually people read reviews because they are trying to find out whether they should further investigate an album or not - so the pattern is (IMO): - Looking at the rating - Reading the review, trying to find out whether the rating applies - If it does, either download/buy the album and listen to it (high rating), or find another album (low rating) - If it doesn't, find a review that shows more "compatibility" to one's own tastes ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Australian
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 17:37
|
I usually write reviews around 600 words. Actually it depends how many songs the album has… Albums I really like get really long reviews.No one has ever given me a negative comment, that can be attributed to fact that I pull arms off when I lose. *Wookie Growl* Honestly guys, let the wookie win!! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: November 11 2006 at 17:54
As a Reviews Moderator, I prefer those that are in accordance with PA Guidelines! 
As a reader, I prefer the medium-size ones with a bit of history (if necessary) and comments about the production and tracks. Some hidden information and the way that particular album was received in the reviewer's country are welcome too. Humour (not gaiety or outrageous sarcasm) in small doses counts especially for longer reviews in order to allow us to breathe.
As a reviewer, I'm only a student since I have to do reviews in a non-native language (English). I can assure you that if I had to do reviews in my native language (Portuguese) they should sound fair.  ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: Pseudonym
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 01:57
| medium reviews are the best, i like to read personal opinions and ideas about an certain album, to get a introduction to an album what is it and what emotions it brought up in different listeners. |
Posted By: Bj-1
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 05:21
|
200-350 words, a good overview does it for me! ------------- RIO/AVANT/ZEUHL - The best thing you can get with yer pants on! |
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 08:09
|
one word can paint a thousand pictures .... concise astute observations are best .... it is a rare skill but I do like some background .... |
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 09:39
|
It all depends on what it calls for with me. Most of my reviews are brief, but sometimes I have gone into more detail. I just let the case dictate what I will do. ------------- a.k.a. H.T. http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 09:53
|
In general I like the longer reviews (about 600 words, which is about how long my own are) and for the review to give a good overview of what the album is like, both good and bad points, without giving away too much of what the music is like. I must admit I detest the plethora of really short reviews that almost everyone seems to be posting these days, they just give me no idea about what the album is like. I also like to get a bit of background information on the band/album, but not too much as its not totaly necassary. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 11:32
|
I go with medium, including short descriptions of each song. I
want to feel like the reviewer listened to the work more than once or
twice before coming to conclusions about it. I rely on the
reviews posted here to give me a consensus about something I'm
considering as a purchase and if they are long-winded with a paragraph
about each song I tend to skip over them and read something I have time
to digest.
------------- "Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain |
Posted By: Abstrakt
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 11:35
|
Opinion number 7. Too long reviews are boring, so is too short ones. |
Posted By: UtUmNo1
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 13:44
If yours were the ones I read the other day (there was a few revieing In the Woods I think) then you do a very good job. I did mean to give you a pat on the back at the time but it too skipped my mind.
I'm not concerned by the length of the review (reading, as i haven't written any yet) but it's content. I'm not too concerned about, and prefer not to read the, song by song reviews either. I like to know the style of the album, its obvious influences, sounds like....., for fans of....., and the feelings that the album invokes.
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 13:53
|
The latest two ITW reviews are by Dieter Fischer, who I think summed up the albums very well (I have different approaches to express pretty much the same thoughts though). I am not sure which reviews were those you read though. ------------- sig |
Posted By: UtUmNo1
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 13:58
|
They we yours, I just looked.
*pats heartily on back*
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 14:03
|
Well, my latest ITW review is from 9/28/2006 ,so I figured you were talking about Dieter's two. I think I have reviewed four ITW albums so far, so might as well review the two other ones as well, huh? Thanks for the pat, these signs of appreciation force me to make a step up towards actually attempting another review one of these weeks. ------------- sig |
Posted By: UtUmNo1
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 14:09
Please do review them as I am using you as a guide to discovering some new metal and I have read, and found quite worthwhile, quite a number of your reviews.
|
Posted By: johnobvious
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 14:09
|
Medium with history, if by history you mean comparing it to the band's other albums or albums by similar bands. Points of reference are key to me to help me make buying decisions. If by history you mean just regurgitating facts about the band, then no thanks.
------------- Biggles was in rehab last Saturday |
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 14:10
|
I like medium sized reviews. I dont need a full run down of the qualities of each track.
I dislike reviews that give marks for each track,it looks cumbersome and nerdy,even worse when the scores are totted up at the end - why? 
One man's meat and all that.... |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 14:11
That's great! I should have put that into my profile as a reminder, but bear in mind that not everything that gets a rating lower than 4 in my book is not worth being heard.
I'll get to other reviews by other bands I have either wanted to review or did not fully review discographies of sooner or later. ------------- sig |
Posted By: UtUmNo1
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 14:21
|
Your efforts aren't wasted.
Kudos.
Any man who loves Agalloch as much I do can't be all bad
|
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 16:55
|
Just the rating should suffice I think, some words to explain the reason for the rating, and maybe some info on musical style, relating the music to contempory's or influences, and maybe some relevant info on the the band, and maybe a pointer to what songs are the best or worst can be a nice addition.
Basically I like shorter reviews for first glance, and when that appeals to me I go read the longer reviews hoping for some more detail info.
------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 16:56
I like to read fairly long reviews- a look at the reviews I've written over the last two years would probably confirm that! 
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 17:04
What I don't like is when reviewers review each track, and find the average for each track to determine the album's worth, which completely ignores the concept of the album and the flow of the album. And the fact that I know albums that from me would get an average 4.2 stars that are better than those that would get an average say, 4.6/4.7 stars.
But I do like to read reviews (and write them) that discuss each track so that I know what to expect as I listen to them the first time.
|
Posted By: The Miracle
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 21:46
|
Option 3. Usually my reviews come out very long with details - I'm a very punctual person and most of my reviews turn out long even if I didn't intend that from the beginning. And I totally agree on track ratings and math calculations - useless and annoying IMO. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/ocellatedgod" rel="nofollow - last.fm |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: November 13 2006 at 21:52
|
I say leave every person with their own style, except those reviews that rate song by song, create a formula and reach a general average, that's absurd IMO. My reviews normally are between 400 and 1,000 words, in the case of conceptual albums I focus more in the concept and how the band achieved it but in the nrmal albums I try to check most tracks, at least the best and the worst ones and be as descriptive as possible. Iván ------------- 
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 15:10
|
I agree with the sentiment of not liking they way some people have used a formula to decide the rating of a band. I can think of a few albums where the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005
|
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 19:08
| Just to give a further example of my reviews, my new Meddle review is 7 and a half pages in word (double spaced) and devotes about 8 or 9 paragraphs to Echoes alone... |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 19:23
|
I can honestly say i didn't read a single word of that review inpraiseoffolly.
but I'm sure some will be interested in that review, so compliments on your stamina.
just out of respect I will read it, maybe it's even something I want to read. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 19:25
Thank you... I do ramble a bit... Generally, though, I keep my reviews between two and four pages double spaced. Something about Meddle though (being my favorite album and all) inspired 7 and a half pages of adoration from me. |
Posted By: Joolz
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 19:29
Yes, and it is 2906 words !! By the way, One Of Those Days .... 'I'm going to cut you into little pieces' is aimed at British DJ Jimmy Young, not because he was a critic of theirs, but because they hated his smarmy old-granny manners And ..... the ping at the start of Echoes is not "Wright plucking a detuned piano string" but a chance harmonic distortion caused when Wright was experimenting with a piano put through a Leslie cabinet See .... I did read the review |
Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 19:39
|
well read it, and it's a nice review, but you do understand that the length will scare many off.
just one little thing that I saw.
"seven or so distinct parts"
shouldn't it be "seven distinct parts", or "seven or so parts"
the word "distinct" and "or so" doesn't go well together.
just kiddin of course, just proving I have read the whole thing. ------------- I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 20:00
|
^^^^^
To prove the validity of seven or so distinct parts... Each part is distinct, I just haven't bothered to count them (well, I have, but I forgot). So lets see: Intro Vocal Part 1 Rythym Section Whale Song Three Minute Build Vocal Part 2 Conclusion What do you know, seven parts... Or so... |
Posted By: Pnoom!
Date Posted: November 14 2006 at 20:02
I do know the length will scare off many, but I write reviews that I would like to read, and love me a good 8 page review (that will be my new Thick as a Brick review...). |