The biggest flaw of new album reviews in mags and webzines

[JayKeeley]

I know this is obvious, but it's also pretty mind boggling....

New reviews in magazines and 'efficiently' run webzines are written within days/weeks of getting the promo. So the accuracy of the review is close to nil, right?

I don't know ANYONE who holds an album in the same regard 2 years down the line as they did when they heard the release the first few times. It's also SO GODDAMN obvious when the writer's only spun it twice. There's just no depth to the review.

Don't know about you guys, but I can't say that I truly know an album until I've had it for months/years. It's another reason why I'm only buying 10-15 albums per year now. Just want to focus on the creme de la creme.

If I were to ever do it again (or even just write for another 'zine), I would only review albums I know cold and inside out. This is something I pushed for towards the end of RC -- forget the promos once and for all, and for the love of goat stick with the 'classics'.

And yeah, only write reviews for albums which you think people should own. I see no point in writing 3 paragraphs on a review, only to tell the reader that he / she should AVOID the album.

That is all.

 

[Hell Mike]

Agreed, but a few words on the AVOID-stuff isn't bad either. Plus it can make amusing reading at times. Mostly reviews are there to give the reader an idea of what the stuff that's new to the market is like though, but obviously that might be difficult. Anyways, a stylistic report can be given after only a few listens, and there ARE albums that hit you right away.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

i agree, it's hard to get to know an album that quickly but then if you don't come out with the reviews right away you lose sales and thus advertising $...that's why you have to take magazine reviews with a grain of salt. i rarely base purchases on a single review, i consider that the same as buying totally blind, which i do on occasion anyway.

in a lot of magazines there's serious grade inflation, everything is a 8, 9, or 10...it's infuriating, i disagree that reviews should only be of "great albums", cuz if you're thinking "hmm maybe i should chance it with that new in flames" sometimes it's nice to have somebody say "no you should not"

and i for one enjoy reading reviews about anything that rip it to shreds...somebody should start a site where they only review crap, mercilessly

 

[JayKeeley]

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong -- there is definitely a need for SOMEONE to review new releases, I'm just saying it wouldn't be me (if I had to do it over).

And yes, ripping an album to shreds is fun (to read and write). Look at Madder Mortem falling into the "any press is good press" category of reviews. They certainly live in infamy.

 

[NAD]

This is one reason why I don't understand why people give an album one spin, or one song a 10 second sample, and then chuck it if it doesn't fulfill their every desire.

Hey, I'm guilty of it as well somtimes. D'oh well.

 

[JayKeeley]

OK QUICK POLL -- which is the most retarded:

(a) one spin, omg this is 10/10 buy or die classic of all time
(b) one spin, omg this is horrible burn it at the stake
(c) all of the above except (c)

 

[cthulufhtagn]

OK QUICK POLL -- which is the most retarded:

(a) one spin, omg this is 10/10 buy or die classic of all time
(b) one spin, omg this is horrible burn it at the stake
(c) all of the above except (c)

i would say (b) is more common and thus retardeder

if you say "omg this is the best album i've ever heard" on the first listen, chances are it's gonna be an album you'll enjoy, at least for a while, i.e. it won't be the complete opposite of what you think at first
but if you say "omg this is crap" it could easily turn out to rule...i'm sure all of us have had that experience

and (c) isn't one of the above so it's not even an option for (c), yuo lose

 

[NAD]

OK QUICK POLL -- which is the most retarded:

(a) one spin, omg this is 10/10 buy or die classic of all time
(b) one spin, omg this is horrible burn it at the stake
(c) all of the above except (c)

A, by a longshot. Even though I've been guilty of B only to realize how great the music was on future spins.

Hammers of Misfortune and The Mars Volta gave me the quickest OMG 10/10 BUY OR DIE status, with only about one week of listening before I declared such a title. But those are exceptional examples that rarely, if ever, happen.

 

[Hell Mike]

When you've listened to music a lot you generally can tell what may be good but you don't get it just yet from stuff that's serious poop

 

[JayKeeley]

and (c) isn't one of the above so it's not even an option for (c), yuo lose

That's what you call an infinite loop.

 

[Ellestin]

New reviews in magazines and 'efficiently' run webzines are written within days/weeks of getting the promo. So the accuracy of the review is close to nil, right?

Of course, that should be a 'silent contract' between any reviewer and any reader, which is unfortunately not the case as most reviewers will want to promote their fucking opinion as being the be all end all of tastes and culture, and a lot of readers will base their purchasing politics on those albums of the month checklist crap of big magazines.

For me the main interest in browsing reviews is finding those people you have the closest musical affinities with so you know you can trust their advice to some extent.

 

[Dick Sirloin]

Hmmmm... can't say I wasn't guilty of this while reviewing promos at RC...

 

[Eminor]

You know, I think quite a bit about this issue of how much to listen to something before reviewing it. It’s kind of tricky. I listen to most albums quite a bit, but I play them at least 3 times, and as many as probably 20, just depending on how multidimensional they seem to be. During some spins, I just play it while I work, and other times I listen very intently, sometimes w/ headphones. I keep playing the album until I feel like I’ve got a handle on it, and also feel the urge to talk about it hit me.
How much should a reviewer listen to an album? Books, food, movies, etc. are reviewed after a single experience. Then again, music is a different from all of those. Those other things are all single sitting kinds of experiences, while music is listened to repeatedly in a short amount of time. I guess the key is drawing the line where you can reasonably say you’ve “experienced” the album, the same way you experience food, movies, etc. I agree with your assertion that views on albums deepen and change over time, and like to read (and write) reviews like that. On the other hand, that can also be a little misleading to the reader. Some people may not want to know a view on an album that they might also have after spending one year with it.

 

[circus_brimstone]

I usually wait until I'm fully comfortable reviewing an album, whether that takes one spin or 20 doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me. And there are only a handful of scores I'd go back and change, months or years later.

 

[lurch70]

When you've listened to music a lot you generally can tell what may be good but you don't get it just yet from stuff that's serious poop

i think i agree with this.

you know my stance on this already ... but really JK, you are really talking about dissecting something from a MUSICIANS point of view, more than anything else.

is there anything else you give so many chances?

 

[J.]

No person can know an album inside and out after 1 or 2 spins. Impossible. Seriously. Some of my favorite album are hardly immediate listens and at times I was ready to chunk them, but then one magical day, it all made sense. Persistence pays off. Not impatience.

If I were to ever do it again (or even just write for another 'zine), I would only review albums I know cold and inside out.

This is the way it should be. Fuck new promos where reviewers almost feel obligated to give a good score to at least one of the record labels' albums to stay on promo lists.

And yeah, only write reviews for albums which you think people should own.

This I don't agree with. I mean someone has to tell the truth about how Blut Aus Nord blows.

 

[Eminor]

This is the way it should be. Fuck new promos where reviewers almost feel obligated to give a good score to at least one of the record labels' albums to stay on promo lists.

I can only speak for my experience at Metal Review, but there's never been even the slightest hint of pressure of that nature. What about you RC guys--every happened to you? I'm doubting it.

 

[SonOfNun]

This bothers me a lot as a writer. I agree completely and it is hard for me to spin an album even 5 or 6 times and then act like I know what the fuck I'm talking about. For quite awhile now, I've been writing a lot more sparsely, mainly because I'm busy as fuck, but also because I'd rather take my time and write a really long, thought out review of something that is going to be meaningful rather than a quick three paragraph blurb that they'll graze over and forget. I'm really proud of a few reviews I've written and those ones have managed to spark discussion and stay on the front page for weeks or months. Having those 2 or 3 quality reviews means A LOT more to me than churning out 20 that I put little effort into, but got out of the way for the sake of having reviewed it in time.

I like reviewing new stuff, but it's tough to find a balance. It's not like I get the record months before it comes out, usually about a week and with everything I have to do, it's just not feasible to review it properly in a timely manner. Yet it feels like we're forced to do so and labels are usually more pleased to get any review quickly than a good one later on. I actually brought up having a classic reviews section here on UM where I could contribute with reviews on all of the albums I know by heart, but that flew like a lead brick.

The other "controversial" view point I've argued for is doing away with ratings. Not sure how most readers feel, but I've always thought it cheapens the review, because most people just skip to the end, look at the score and leave. I know, I've done it many times. I try to be "objective" in the sense that even if a reader doesn't agree with my viewpoint, they'll still get a good idea of what the band sounds like from comparisons, etc., but that is negated when they don't read it. Anyway, I love writing and supporting bands that deserve it, but it's tough to actually find the best way to go about doing it.

 

[J.]

for the brief time i wrote, it was only fun when i reviewed albums i actually owned and knew through and through, even if they were barely average albums. and i knew my writing sucked, but i had fun.

one thing that sucked the fun out of it was expectant labels waiting for reviews of mediocre and in most cases, irrelevant albums.

 

[circus_brimstone]

For quite awhile now, I've been writing a lot more sparsely, mainly because I'm busy as fuck

What have you been up to? /hasnoidea

flew like a lead brick

As if a brick would fly that far anyway.

The other "controversial" view point I've argued for is doing away with ratings. Not sure how most readers feel, but I've always thought it cheapens the review, because most people just skip to the end, look at the score and leave. I know, I've done it many times. I try to be "objective" in the sense that even if a reader doesn't agree with my viewpoint, they'll still get a good idea of what the band sounds like from comparisons, etc., but that is negated when they don't read it. Anyway, I love writing and supporting bands that deserve it, but it's tough to actually find the best way to go about doing it.

For me, if there's no score, then chances are I'll be less likely to read the review than if there were one. In essence, I want to find out why an album fared the way it did, and I like rating things. Even if the review doesn't have a numerical score or grade or whatever - even if I care about the band - I'll usually just read the introduction and conclusion, or just the conclusion. I guess I'm kind of lazy, but then again, I visit about six or seven webzines per day.