What makes a good review?

[Russell]

In your opinion, what makes a good review? What do you like to see in one?

For example do you like or dislike it when a reviewer: goes through each song individually/writes a paragraph on a bands history/lists the good and bad qualities of each instrument/expresses their own opinions very strongly/writes a more factual review etc. etc.?

Well?

 

[Staffan]

I think that reviews should be more objective than subjuctive... For example describing how the songs are, how the quality is and so on instead of only telling their emotions of the cd... Of course they have to let some emotions through, that is what makes the interview, right?... If they for example write bad about something I don't buy the album... and if they write that it's the best cd ever I always get dissapointed when listening to it...

 

[Nugent Goes AOL]

I agree.

I'm a music journalist myself, and I've always been taught that objectivism is the only way to go. When one writes objectively, no extra expectations will be created for the reader...it's the most universal way of sharing an opinion.

Can't wait to review "Deliverance"....

 

[Russell]

Yus, objectivity is cool, but I want more detial Specifics, like the examples I gave at the top..

 

[Kveldssanger]

Since you are so anxious to improve your writing my friend I'll also add my opinion here. I have written a few reviews and so I have an idea of the difficulties of the whole experience... (One thing I'm certain of is that the first reviews you'll write always kind of suck, you only hope that they will get better with time)... As for the elements that make a good review... I think a quite detailed description of the style of the band is essential, since if you do that you have, at least, given everyone a bit of an idea for what going on in the album... A few notes about the band itself are good but I don't think you should overdo it (the more "experienced" readers will get bored if they read too much they already know and, as for the rest, if they want to know more they can search and find more). A song by song presentation is only to be used in special occasions (too long reviews are tiring)...

Finally, I really don't believe there is such thing as a totally objective review (not even a more objective than subjective)... After all when you give a mark to an album you only express your opinion about it, otherwise there wouldn't be all these totally different opinions about many albums... I think that those who say that write objectively, either don't understand what the word means or they have a great misconception about their writing... There are no absolute truths in music, there are only opinions... Subjective reviews are not always a bad thing, though... I believe that if the reader has read many reviews by a certain person, he begins to form an opinion about the reviewers tastes, general approach to music and ideas. That way he can understand by the review what the album is like... And after all, even the reviewer is a fan, how can he be objective about something he loves. It's better to be honest than try to disguise you opinion and pass it as an objective point of view...

Anyway I hope it helped...

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by Kveldssanger
Since you are so anxious to improve your writing my friend I'll also add my opinion here.

Not so much improve, I'm very happy with my later reviews and stylisticaly I know they're fine (my dad (proffesional writer) or sister (english uni student) often check them through)

I just prefer writing long reviews with a lot of information and little personal opinion so people can make up their own mind, and was wondering whether others felt the same or prefered one element in a review to another etc. Anyway, thanks for your in-depth answer my most excellent friend, it was pretty much what I was looking for

 

[ham]

umm
i read a lot of reviews on satan stole my teddybear (www.chedsey.com) and can definately agree that you do eventually learn certain reviewers tastes etc. Certain reviewers i can't stand, while others - like mr john chedsey himself, are way too inconsistent in their reviews. if he was paticularly unimpressed, he'll always state the same kind of "they play their instruments well, and with conviction, but it doesn't grab me" crap.

on the other hand, he's very good at covering the pros and cons of albums he does enjoy, and his reviews of those albums are always very good i think.

im a good writer, and wrote some reviews back in the day, cbf anymore.

 

[Nugent Goes AOL]

Originally posted by Kveldssanger
I think that those who say that write objectively, either don't understand what the word means or they have a great misconception about their writing... There are no absolute truths in music, there are only opinions...

Well, obviously...yes, I do claim to write objectively, but when at all did I say anything about complete objectivity?

Humans, as emotion-capable creatures, cannot be objective about ANYTHING. Obviously opinions factor in to reviews, or else there would be no point in writing them!

When I speak of writing objectively, I more refer to a level of detactched professionalism...but obviously, opinion will be involved.

I.E., stating, "'Deliverance', by far Opeth's most disturbing release to date, surpasses even 2000's monumental 'Blackwater Park,'" is clearly an opinoinated statement. However, note that the reviewer didn't say, "Opeth, one of my favorite bands, has outdone themselves with 'Deliverance'. I think it's better than Blackwater Park, but nothing will ever be better than Morningrise, my favorite." This reads as a weaker review, because how can the average reader trust someone who loves the band so much already and holds his own expectations?

Blah blah...enough of my rambling. But you get the idea. I'm just saying that I still know what objectivism is, Kveldssanger, and yes, I think I know how to write accordingly.

 

[Kveldssanger]

Originally posted by Nugent Goes AOL
I.E., stating, "'Deliverance', by far Opeth's most disturbing release to date, surpasses even 2000's monumental 'Blackwater Park,'" is clearly an opinoinated statement. However, note that the reviewer didn't say, "Opeth, one of my favorite bands, has outdone themselves with 'Deliverance'. I think it's better than Blackwater Park, but nothing will ever be better than Morningrise, my favorite." This reads as a weaker review, because how can the average reader trust someone who loves the band so much already and holds his own expectations?

Blah blah...enough of my rambling. But you get the idea. I'm just saying that I still know what objectivism is, Kveldssanger, and yes, I think I know how to write accordingly.

You say that the above example is, to a degree, objective and I agree that it's not the words that would first come to mind to a devoted fan. However, I'm sure that when the album come out, there will be a number of reviews that will, objectively, state that it's not Opeth's best album or that it's maybe one of their weakest. So you have two "objective" opinions that are completely opposite. That, in my opinion, automatically negates every "state" of objectivity. I can agree that you can write "detached" reviews without resorting to statements like "X are the best band in the world, they released another masterpiece of utter brilliance" but you'll still just expressing your opinion (and there is nothing wrong with that).
I'll try to give you another example... I've seen many people to argue (with logical points) that "La Masquerade Infernale" is the best Arcturus album while other, using also logical points, say that it's boring and they couldn't get into it. How can you say what's the objective opinion?
I still believe that the only way to really find the reviews possible is to get to know the reviewer, at least that's the way it works for me. Professionalism is one thing and objectivity is quite another. I believe that the term objectivity is too absolute to be used in a case that involves so much personal opinion.
Anyway, it all depends on how the reader approaches the reviews. You may be right and I may be wrong, but so far from the point of view of a fan this approach worked fine for me. And to tell you the truth I've kind of stopped paying a lot of attention to reviews. I've formed my opinions about what I like and what I dislike and it's difficult for a reviewer to change my opinion. Reviews are great for being informed about new releases but it can get out of hand.
I'll end this (too long) post here and I'll be really interested in hearing more of your opinions...

 

[Eld]

I've been writing for http://www.metalbite.com for awhile now and I've been improving with my writing skills continuously. I try to give an idea of what the band is trying to accomplish, what they sound like, any unique qualities the band has, etc. There are many more things but I just try to write what I feel when I hear the album.