RANT #1: What exactly is an ideal reviewing style?
For some reason, I once subscribed to the mailing list of the Satan Stole My Teddybear site - not that it was bad or anything, it's just that the reviewers and posters there have a musical taste just a bit too intense and underground for my liking, and a lot of the discussion deals with that, plus political and religious discussions that I have almost no interest in getting involved in. Anyway, an E-mail sent to John Chedsey (who runs the site if you didn't already know that) complaining about the length of the guest reviews sparked off a debate on what exactly the best way of getting the point across in a review is. In this thread, there was a response that particularly got my attention:
"He does have a point, though. People like Nick Karn bore the hell out of me with their long-ass reviews, and it doesn't help that a lot of them are uninteresting and/or poorly written (describing how every song on the album is constructed is NOT good reviewing, Nick!). Some people, like Chedsey, can pull it off, but most can't and shouldn't."
As you can tell, I was kind of miffed at this response, especially since it was public bashing of my reviewing style which I'm not saying is the greatest in the world, but I'm generally proud of the efforts I've put forth in them, especially throughout the last four or five months as of this writing. This is probably the first time I've ever heard serious criticism of the way I review albums - I'm not talking about dissenting opinions here, that's perfectly understandable, and it's exactly why this site is interactive and that I allow people not only to post comments but their own individual reviews. On top of that, he goes on to list a few reviewers with his opinion of how he likes their writing style ('very good', 'excellent', 'boring', 'okay', etc.) and mine was the only one he rated as low as 'poor'.
Excuse me for my language, but what an asshole. That's why there exists the concept of tact and constructive criticism. Blasting people for their styles like that (especially when they've never publically had anything against you in the first place) just strikes me as alarmingly juvenile. As far as I know, I haven't personally insulted him or any of his favorite bands in my reviews (hell, we even have similar musical tastes in parts - Pink Floyd, Queensryche, Rush and Dream Theater are some of his preferred bands... so what exactly is the hostility for?).
Furthermore, it appears to me that people who complain about the length of reviews are those who have short attention spans and don't have time to take in a lot of information and detail. If I wanted to read a lot of short and to the point reviews, I'd go to Wilson and Alroy's site all the time (which I certainly don't). I want to get out as much of my feelings toward an album as I can in a review without writing a whole book about it, and that is simply not possible to do within like 6 lines or a paragraph for most albums I've heard. This is a site called Music Junkies Anonymous after all - I'm addicted to this stuff (as are probably most, if not all, of the other reviews here). I listen to it for pleasure and as an escape from reality, so I feel an emotional connection to a lot of stuff, which means my thoughts on the albums and bands aren't exactly gonna be short caption things. So I'm so sorry if I'm not accomodating those people.
This point has probably been brought up several times before, but I feel it is one so important that I have to bring it up again. If the reviews are too long, don't read them. Or just don't come to this site if you're dissatisfied with the damn length. Plus, I really don't even think my reviews are that long anyway, especially compared to some of the more notable reviewers and commentators like George Starostin, John McFerrin and Jeff Blehar (three who I have a whole lot of respect for, by the way, especially due to the fact that they don't exactly leave detail out). My reviews generally average twenty to fifty lines (and that probably applies in a lot of cases for everyone else who writes here), and only on some of my most celebrated albums does it even approach the longest lengths. Now how is that excessive at all? It's not like they're feature reviews for Rolling Stone or Spin or anything.
But the length is not even the main point of contention in this situation - it's the idea of 'long-windedness' (i.e. going into way too much detail). Right now, I'll address the idea that 'describing how every song is constructed is NOT good reviewing'. Well, first off, in practically all my reviews I try to describe the general sound of the entire album (usually within the opening paragraph) and ending with whether or not it's actually recommendable or a worthwhile progression from the previous effort if that applies. And the way I see it practically every single reviewer I've ever read goes into describing what the songs are like to some extent.
If the song happens to be worth mentioning, then why the hell wouldn't I go into the aspects of it - the notable structure, the energetic chorus, the strong melody, the sheer drama of the bridge, the fantastic guitar solo, for instance? I don't see how doing such make the reviews less helpful - aren't there several useful aspects that could potentially help the reader within those descriptions? I cover the elements that people look for - the sound, the songs, the importance of the album in them. So what else am I supposed to do???? Bitch about the freakin' production of the album??? A very limited amount of people care about stuff like that (not that I mean any offense toward those that are very proficient at sound quality review - i.e. Pat D.)
So in summary, there is no such thing as an ideal reviewing style. Short reviews don't satisfy everyone. Long reviews don't satisfy everyone. Outspoken reviews don't satisfy everyone. Modest reviews don't satisfy everyone. My advice is that when you've found a style that most of your readers can approve or identify with, definitely carry on with it. It's not like I'm gonna stop reviewing albums because I bore the hell out of one of my readers - changing my approach just on that would make me no better than him. All I know is that I have been to a lot more music review sites than the ones I have linked on this one, and most of them I don't find too helpful because a lot of them are just too brief and don't tell you much about what they're reviewing at all. I guess those short-attention span people just expect this place to be another amazon.com or All Music Guide with skimpy reviews and inflated or lopsided ratings. The thing is, though, every reviewer has their own strengths and flaws, and they're all apparent to me.
But the key to being a good reviewer, obviously, is to compensate for those flaws with the stronger aspects of their style. It's my belief that it is much harder to compensate for them with brief reviews - in my opinion, the only web reviewer that is able to master brief reviewing while at the same time offering a good picture of the album and keeping you entertained (and that's without even including the reader commentary) is Mark Prindle. But I believe him to be one of the very few exceptions - a lot of my motivation to start my own site came from my annoyance with brief reviewers, especially when I didn't agree with them. That could have been part of the motivation for others too.
So that's my 'reviewing style' rant. I know a lot of others probably have a strong opinion on this issue, so feel free to send in your comments on it. I bet George Starostin can at least relate, since he's had this problem before. Oh, I'm sorry - I've probably bored you to sleep with this unnecessary rant. Sweet dreams.
A SMALL ADDITION:
I probably haven't explained my position in this 'flame war' adequately enough, and since people's comments to these types of things generally elicit responses from the author, this is probably the only instance where I'll do an 'Author's note response' in the Starostin and McFerrin tradition under a certain comments in places where it needs more clarifying and/or another counter argument.
As evidenced by the numerous comments below, this has turned into quite a killer analysis of reviewing styles taken to heights that I never could have imagined when I first wrote this thing. Within these comments are a lot of useful stuff for not only would be reviewers to think about, but also current reviewers who wish to improve their style. Intelligent thought prevails!
Post your comments about this rant
[email protected] (Philip Maddox)
Personally, I can glean information out of just about any type of review. I don't mind if it's a Wilson and Alroy type 5 sentances, a Starostin styled essay, or your attempts at a happy medium (which I quite like, by the way). The only type of reviews I find totally worthless are the extremely biased reviews one would find at, say, Amazon.com, where every person gives every album either 1 or 5 stars. One guy said that OK Computer was overrated, but still OK, and proceded to give it 1 star. People will often point out numerous flaws in albums, and give 'em 5 stars anyway. As long as a review is relatively objective, I've got no problems with it (even if I disagree). I guess you could say to people who feel the need to complain vocally about the style of a reviewer that they should just not read the offending reviews, or else the reviewer could refund the $0.00 dollars the reader paid to get in. This sort of thing reminds me of those people who listen to Howard Stern even though they don't like him just so they can complain about how offensive he is. If you don't like it, just turn it off. If you dig a certain reviewer, read his or her reviews. If you don't, don't.
[email protected] (Ben Marlin)
First off, to be fair, I think the guy who insulted your site has a right to his opinion. It wasn't a personal attack, just a criticism of your reviewing style. It wasn't nice, but I don't think that makes him an asshole, unless he knew you were gonna be reading it and intentionally did it to insult you.
[Author's note: This is exactly the problem I had with him. He KNEW I was on that mailing list. In fact, a few weeks earlier he E-mailed me to say that 'everything you post here has already been said on your website' in response to how I occasionally posted my playlists at the time... and that was the first time he said, 'speaking of your reviews, could you be a little less long -winded in them... describing how every song is structured does not make for a good review' blah blah. I perfectly understood his criticism at that time because it wasn't blatant lack of tact just to get me angry at him like it was here. Plus he has a reputation as a flamer on who lives in constant negativity (MTV and all mainstream sucks, the U.S.A. should be nuked, etc.)]
But... I'm glad you responded the way you did. I'd shrivel up if I got criticism like that, and I admire you for sticking to your web-reviewing guns and defending your style. You have a good point -- nothing will make everyone happy. I prefer shorter reviews, but I'm the first to admit that I have an awful attention span.
I've struggled over and over with trying to find the "best" way to review something. In my opinion, the best way is a good mix between an overview and a bunch of song descriptions. But that's really, really hard to do. An overview ignores the "meat" of the album (the songs), and straight song review sometimes seems too easy to do. However, Rich Bunnell and I were talking and we agreed that you're one of the best at song descriptions. You pick out the verses and middle-eights that most people don't even notice and provide a good description of them. You come closer than most to giving a good picture of what a song is actually like.
The problem with sites like Satan Stole My Teddybear and Pitchforkmedia is that they are way, way pretentious. Like, off-the-charts pretentious. And that's my least favorite thing about reviews. And there are a lot of people out there (presumably like the guy who insulted your style) who are so used to that kind of Rolling Stone/Spin tripe that they can't fathom a humbly-written review that's out to inform, not impress. And you do that really well. You might be the least pretentious reviewer out there, and it comes through in your writing and the way you run your site.
Before this becomes a praise-fest, I will be honest, just to give my other comments some credibility. I think your reviews could use a little more "excitement" in them. Just don't be afraid to let a joke slip through now and then. But you do have a very solid, consistent style and I trust your opinions a lot. And I admire you defending yourself on this one. Anyone who tries to please every last person will go crazy, and you're smart in recognizing that.
Keep up the awesome work.
--Ben Marlin
[Author's note: I certainly respect your critique there. I guess I'm just not much of a really outgoing person when it comes to writing reviews - if I ever attempted to be hilarious like Prindle or anything like that, I'd probably sound stupid. I will take what you've said into consideration though. But just to clarify something, I'm NOT going to get all pissed off every time someone attacks my writing style or other opinions (I've gotten several flames before and I've never even budged on them). This rant is probably an out of context bitter thing to people who don't realize how the entire situation went down with him. This guy at one point seemed to be a supporter of my site who has even made album comments in the past. That's why it caught me totally off guard when he just publicly insulted me on the list, and the reason it's a totally unique situation. I understand where you and others are coming from, though.]
[email protected] (George Starostin)
Nick, calm down. You mean you just saw some guy put down your site and you made such a fuss of it? Come on now, if I were to make a fuss over everybody who's putting down ME, I'd require medical help.
[Authopr's note: Like I said before to others who have responded to this, this probably requires more explanation than I gave, so I'll probably add more of that in addition to the other comments. This is certainly not the first time I've been flamed for my opinion on anything, it's just mostly directed at someone who at one time was a supporter of my site (or so it seemed) that a couple weeks ago first brought up the 'speaking of your reviews, could you be a little less long winded in them...' thing. That was criticism I didn't mind at all, because I really did wonder whether or not I was being too long-winded. But the combination of the fact that I've never had such a complaint before and that out of nowhere he just publicly blasted me for this stuff like he did - it just really aggravated me. I was in a really bad mood at the time, and I already had some thoughts on the subject anyway, so I just kind of put it together. I hardly think the way the whole thing went that it was just criticism, considering the way he was deliberately insulting me is a major 180 from his attitude towards me in the past.]
Of course, the guy wrote in a rather (though not overtly) offensive manner, but that's no reason for getting so nervous yourself. I've visited the Chedsey forum and found his list - it was pretty stupid indeed (I'm glad he didn't include me - God knows what he would have written!) Did you notice he put Casey on there TWO times, once under 'boring' and another time under 'decent'? Plus, when one of your highest reviewing authorities is Ben Greenstein, you know you're in trouble indeed. (I have nothing against Ben in person, but his reviews and reader comments are the epitome of 'Reckless Subjective Approach', not to mention his getting overhyped all the time).
[Author's note: I think his list, though, does match up with the point you try to make later on - the reviewers of that group, Mark Prindle and Pat D., that seemed to be the most entertaining were the only ones that he rated as high as 'excellent'. But again, it's part of the way his attitude was, not necessarily the content, that irritated me.]
So don't pay too much attention to the guy. Judging by his replies, I don't think he actually means you harm. Also, I don't think it's the length of your reviews that really irritates him so much. It's the style. I know it because at times it bugs me too: you're approaching nearly every record like, I dunno, like a biologist would approach a one-cell organism. I mean, I'm all for formalism and I fully support the basic paradigm, but sometimes the style can get too... you know... lifeless. After all, a musical review isn't exactly a German philosophical treatise; it's not only supposed to be useful and strict, it's also supposed to entertain. That's how most review readers usually put it, at least.
What your reviews don't do is entertain. They are TOO dry even for my tastes, and while it may work for a site of two or three hundred reviews, it starts getting a bit irritating on a site of one thousand reviews. To be honest with you, I generally like your comments on my site more than the reviews: somehow you manage to get the same information across, but with more life and passion. For instance, your Quadrophenia review more or less coincides - factually - with what you wrote in your comment on my site, but the comment is so much more vivacious that after enjoying it I could hardly make myself sit through the actual review.
I know my own reviews often share the same defect, because at the current rate of work I don't have the possibility to carefully watch over everything. But I still try to 'liven' them up as much as possible, with a silly joke now and then or a more colloquial turn of phrase, even if my English is not always perfect or not even always appropriate. Remember, your audience doesn't consist of serious music professors. These guys want to be entertained - and it doesn't matter if your visitor in question is a brainless rabid AC/DC fan or an intelligent friendly guy whose tastes completely coincide with yours. They all want entertainment and a little fun to go along with the review. Or at least a little extra topic, a little generalization, a little something outside of the usual formula. That's how I see it, and that's why, I think, the guy voiced his hostility.
Think about that. Your site seriously lacks entertainment value; in fact, I'll be harsh here (I know you'll understand) and say that your reviews are the LEAST entertaining I've ever met. That doesn't mean they are the WORST - because entertainment is, after all, just one of the criteria. Your reviews are detailed, intelligent, well-written, well thought-out, systematic, honest and never offensive. Not too many sites can boast such an approach - probably NONE can boast a complete combination of all these values, so your site beats all the others in that respect, including mine. But as for what concerns entertainment values, EVERYBODY beats you at that. I'm not asking you to start your very next review with something like 'Well dudes, off we go now, another year, another piece of plastic crap', of course, which would look rather silly; besides, everybody has his own entertaining style, and I'm not sure how yours would look. But think about it still.
[Author's note: This is an example of criticism that I wish more people would have thrown at me. I've just gone on reviewing with mostly positive feedback and no one even mentioning how lifeless my reviews actually are or anything like that (an aspect which is sometimes hard for the one who's writing them to see). Essentially saying I'm the worst reviewer on the web in front of a public discussion forum (most of whom have never seen the site) that this guy knew I participated in when I have had mostly good relations with him in the past I think is reason to get upset, and goes beyond 'criticizing'. Anyway, I'll try and take what you've said and think about it a bit more. I am actually a very entertaining person outside of web activity and even in online chats or whatever, but for some reason it doesn't carry over to my reviewing. I probably take my work too seriously, I don't know, maybe I'm a little TOO humble and non-pretentious as an album reviewer. I really do enjoy entertainment in reviews when I read, but now realize only in certain cases have I ever really incorporated it, and I don't really know why that is.]
[email protected] (Jeff Blehar)
Everybody's reviewing style has flaws, Nick. Yours can be too dry and clinical. Ben Greenstein's can be opinionated and not clearly justified (not that his views aren't justified, just that he doesn't always clarify WHY per se). Mark's kamikaze sorties, for all their pure entertainment value, can almost be TOO flippant, at the cost of useful information. And both George and John write extremely long reviews that can be difficult to scan if you lack patience. And Lord KNOWS that I just can't seem to shut up, to say nothing of the fact that I sometimes get far too "rhapsodic" and, some would say (howdy, George!) slick in what I write; if anything, I could see myself being accused of writing along those "Rolling Stone slick" lines people are talking about, as much as it agonizes me to admit that. Sometimes I feel like I have to tie everything up into a nice pretty package with a bow on top.
But the point is that we all work to our strengths, you know? We can invert each criticism above to reflect the positive aspects of the way each person writes about music. And our writing reflects, quite often, the way in which we actually organize our thoughts. I actually write the way I speak, more or less (unbelievable as that may seem). George has some tough words to say about your style, and I agree with them in part, but on the other hand I never feel like I'm in hands of some raving fool when I read what you write, and that's a real plus - your "professionality" can be (and is) an IMMEASURABLE strength. What would really help it out is an injection of the personal element into your views. Objectivity on the "general" level is one thing: that's what I'd call even-handedness, and you do very well on that. But REAL "objectivity" is a sham - there ain't no such thing, and that's why personal opinions are important.
The name of this site is called Music Junkies Anonymous, as you said. I agree that there's a lot of meaning in that title, and it's well-chosen. You also said above, "I'm addicted to this stuff (as are probably most, if not all, of the other reviewers here)...so I feel an emotional connection to a lot of stuff." Well that's a damn good thing, and that's what unites every last one of us in this small network, I'd wager. If we didn't all feel some need to talk about this stuff (and more importantly, share it with others, to try to expose other people to the music which has, in the end, meant so much to each of us individually) we wouldn't be posting or writing or sticking with this whole underground music review business the way we all do. And in the end, because music is so personal in many ways, but also capable of being shared with others, well that's why I've always believed that it's important to put some of MYSELF into whatever I'm writing - I'd like to think that some stranger reading the things I write can actually see a person in there, behind the text.
When I first tried to write about music, just like George, I adopted a short, Prindlesque style. And it fit me like a pair of size 6 shoes - it just wasn't me. So I began to ramble on, because I found that my strength was in detail work, or in factual accuracy, or in sifting out little observations about the music, or maybe in trying to convey the emotional impact or mood of whatever I was writing about, or whatever. The point is, it's ME. Write like you want to write, but never underestimate the value of writing yourself into the review. One way or another, I think the best musical writing conveys the enthusiasm or disgust of the person who's doing the writing. After all, isn't that curt, impersonal and undetailed style of review at AMG one of things we all disapprove of?
In the end, I'm in your corner, though. (and as for that Satan Stole My Teddybear guy who ranked you dead last, well fuck him - he has a right to his view, even if it's wrong, but not to express it in such a nasty way. To me that's the EXACT equivalent of the kind of guy who goes onto the Beatles page at Amazon.com and gives Revolver 1 star because "'Yellow Submarine' sux and beside The Raspberries were a better band blah blah blah." I hate skewed reviews.) You have a right to be proud of the work you've done so far. I'm proud of what I've written so far as well. But I'm always trying to improve it, and I'm always finding things to work on and change as I grow both as a writer and a music-lover. I think that maybe that could be a constructive way to think about your reviews.
Just my thoughts on the matter, for what they're worth. And as you can see, I've rambled on forever, true to form.
[email protected] (John McFerrin)
George certainly does have a point, but I think I can understand why your writing is often dry. Unless your site introduction is out of date, you're a journalism major, no? Well, there you go. You seem to approach your reviews the way you would approach a story about, say, the upcoming presidential elections. You give facts, in an attempt to be as objective as possible, and avoid spin as much as you can, just as any responsible journalist should.
The only problem is this - many people (and myself included) almost always head to the editorials before the recaps. We want to laugh. We want to nod vigorously at a point with which we agree. We want our blood to boil. Facts are important, don't get me wrong - but all responsible music sites contain some degree of factual information. They extra zing is provided by how you spice it up.
As an analogy, take The Rolling Stones. As you know, the musical inspiration of the group lies with Keith Richards and Mick Jagger. Keith Richards provides the solid riffs and melodies that provide the foundation of the sound (in this analogy, the facts) while Jagger provides the experimentation, the flair and pop-culture sensibility that spices up everything (ie the humor, the invested emotions of the reader, the satire, etc). Apart, both are good, but they do not have the power seperate that they do together.
But anyways, onto the subject of balancing the two. As I've written reviews, my philosophy has evolved into this - don't give any more or less information than necessary. Sometimes, identifying every song is a necessity. If you are ragging on a 'sacred cow', for instance, you need to justify why you're giving a crappy album like Minstrel in the Gallery a 4 when everybody else loves it ... oops, back to you. Or, if you wish to give reasons why an album underrated by many would get an extremely high grade. And of course, there's the good old "this is the beginning of an era of crap" type of album, where you can gleefully point out flaws left and right.
Sometimes, though, if an album is very consistent, or there are a bazillion songs, and ESPECIALLY if repeated listenings have left you with nothing more than a "blah, this sucks and it's boring and montonous" feeling, you should economize your fact writing, oftentimes at the expense of the length of the review.
That's all of my thoughts on the matter. I am sorry that you were singled out in such a strange manner, but it's one of the things. My biggest problem is that very few of the people who I actually come in contact with give two cents about my site, and while that used to bug the hell out of me, I've managed to get past it.
[email protected] (tony souza)
Well, I've read the rant and I can understand how you feel. As for the length of reviews, I prefer them to be medium-to-long myself. When I read a review, especially for an album that I have, I like to see why somebody likes it or doesn't like it. If somebody can articulate that in a few sentences, fine, but if somebody wants to break it down and go further than that, that's better. If it's an album I haven't heard, then what I'm looking for is information. What does it sound like? What kind of character does it have (aggressive? heavy? melodic? etc.) What are it's influences? If I can get some or all of that information, then I feel the reviewer has done his job. For me, short reviews can come off as flippant or lazy. I haven't seen too much of that on the sites I have visited. I see a lot of it when I read reviews in magazines, though. There have been many times where I have read short, snotty reviews in magazines that didn't give me any insight about albums that I might have been interested in buying.
As far as style is concerned, it can play a role in which site I might go to, but only a very minor one. For example, what led me to this site was the fact that King's X was reviewed here. That led me to look around and read several other bands that were reviewed here. Bands that may not be on other sites. Same thing with Chedsey (sic?). He did a Frank Black review. One of my favorite artists. After I read those, I got a sense of his style, liked it, and looked around. What I'm saying is, I look more at what bands are on the site that what kind of style the reviewer writes in. I may be in the minority here.
Style is important, but I would rather have somebody write in a style that is comfortable to them rather than trying to be something they're not.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and I read the guy's ratings on other web sites. I disagree with his assesment that this site is "poor'" and I also disagree that Burkes' site is "boring". I appreciate the fact that this site (and many others that I have visited) has put in the time and effort to review albums and that people like me can come and read them. When I was younger, all I had was Rolling Stone and maybe a couple of other magazines where I could read reviews (and you couldn't trust them anyway). Keep up the good work.
Well, i finally got around to reading that "BTW" post on the SSMT message board, and man i would just like to point out that there is really no way i should be put up with Prindle and above half those people on that list. The funny thing is, if you actually read half my reviews, they are pretty much all structured the same. Opening comment, listings of songs i like and dislike for whatever reason(s), comment on the production and how the indivicual instruments sound, conclusion and whether i think you should buy the album or not. So if anybody on this site is unoriginal, count me in.
Secondly, I have always thought that i am by far the most crude in sentence structure wise (especially my earlier shit that i transfered to your site e.g. Metallica is a very glaring example) and grammatically speaking. Since you, Nick, rewrote all your reviews from the old site, i have always felt that you have far surpassed me in sentence and paragraph composition.
Thirdly, its hard to call someone an excellent reviewer when they are SO incredibly biased, which if you dont accept any other of these things, you have to at least admit that Bush probably doesn't deserve a 1 for Deconstructed, or U2 a 0 for Zooropa (although i'll stand by that 0 till the day i die!) as well as other albums i trash cause i dont like the band.
Fourth, if somebody thinks that YOU write long reviews, check out my Iron Maiden review for Brave New World. I dont think you has ever written a review that went that long.
And finally, what do people expect anyways? You have written what, 5-6 times the reviews i have? Geez, the reason i dont write more reviews because after writing 93, every time i start writing a new one i feel i am repeating myself over and over. I've run out of catch phrases and original thought after 93 reviews. Which alone should knock me down off the pedestal from Prindle, who remained fresh, original and witty after who-knows-how-many but-certainly-more-than-93 album analyses. Thats why Prindle should be alone at the top, because no other reviewer on the net (although there are other excellent ones like Brian Burke for example) could manage to come up with such entertaining essays for so voluminous a website for so long.
In closing, I do appreciate Vexor's misguided praise of me, but i think that its a little ridiculous to be ranking me at the top.
[email protected] (Casey Brennan)
Hey Nick, I didn't know about this rant until earlier today when we hung out. I've just read it and I can understand why you have you been a little irked off at that guy. You take your work very seriously and try to be as clear-headed and well thought out as you can, avoiding half-baked opinions and such. Being a journalism major and workhorse on your site probably makes you want to write something that is worthwhile and intelligent. This perfection is what probably makes you subconsciously leave out the entertainment part from your reviews. I can understand what George is saying when he said that your reviews are sometimes kind of dry and lack entertainment. I can agree with this on certain bands that you reviewed, as a fair amount of bands(mostly the bands that I don't know too well or at all, or ones that you don't rate as highly on your list) are given kind of lifeless reviews. I wouldn't say that you are the least entertaining reviewer though as some of these newer reviewers with the half-assed ratings and short reviews take out any entertainment quality they have in their work by being too offensive, blunt, or careless. You know, I really don't wanna read a review that is 2 lines long, and contains an opinion that isn't backed up with a reason why he/she thinks that way. Probably the worst review I ever read is one for The Beachboys Pet Sounds. Even though this album has been reviewed to death, only saying the word "Duh" in a review(yes, one of the new reviewers on the web actually did this) is just lame and 'unentertaining'(at least to me). He might have thought that everything has already been said about Pet Sounds, but it would have been nice of him to at least make a worthwhile review. With that said, I guess I'm more into reviews that are of mid-length to long size. When it comes to that Nick, you are quite fine. Your writing skills are also excellent; the focus and lack of grammatical efforts you put in these reviews, which you write at a quick pace, gives me no doubt in my mind that you are very talented at this sort of thing. I wish i could write reviews as quick. Instead I find myself often taking a long time to write just one review, because I always end up changing my sentences around and fixing mechanical errors. With my college semester in full swing and work 24 hours a week, this is one reason I haven't made a review since mid-September. I hope to start with the reviews again(maybe on Wednesday or sumthin' like that).
Anyway, don't let that guy piss you off too much. Maybe your reviews are just meant to be serious. I don't think this really hurts most of your reviews, as your reviews of Pink Floyd, Yes, Led Zeppelin, and especially Metallica work well in this format, and give them a lot of credibility. I rather like the seriousness, because I can be a pretty damn serious person at times, even though its hidden a lot by my zany and whacked-out personality. Like I said before, the only gripe i really have about your reviews is the un-inviting nature of some of the reviews. A lot of the reviews from underground, hair metal, or prog-metal bands like Queenschryche on your site sound indistinguishable from one another, even though very well-written. It may just be the fact that I simply don't know what these bands sound like at all(or too interested yet), but a lot of times I feel like I'm reading the same review(meaning some of your hair metal reviews use the same terms and have the same tone as your other hair metal reviews, etc.). Besides that though, I love your reviews and find them to be the least offensive of almost all the other reviewers on the web. Also, the vocabulary and detail you put into your reviews can let me relate to them on such bands like Led Zeppelin, where we virtually agree on everything about Led Zeppelin I.
You'll have to see how that guy(I don't even remember his name now hehe) responds to this rant page. I'll gladly like to see his opinions on all this. Hopefully, he won't give two totally different opinions on here, as he did when he labeled my reviewing style as 'boring' and also 'decent'. Well, thats all I've got to say for now. Theres a blunt ending.
I can see where you're comming from on this one - ultimately, whatever style of reviewing you choose, there is always someone who won't like it. Constructive criticism is always more useful than just abuse (although I would dispute that that guy's comment was meant in a malicious way), and it's good that you've brought this up, as it has forced people's hands into making constructive critism, rather than just saying "yeah, great reviews!"
[email protected] (Adrian Denning)
i was sharing your anger as i read the piece, because this is something i've been thinking about for a while.
i came across a site today which is exactly the kind of reviewing style I personally dislike. it's a wilson and alroy style, dry and lacking in personality. a professional approach? of course, i'm not about to say either site isn't well written or whatever, but we (the wrc guys ) have the freedom professional critics don't have. we don't have to abide by strict editorial guidelines, give a good review to the new mick jagger album, etc etc.
the track by track analysis thing, which is something i've been doing a bit lately, is a good indication the reviewer has actually LISTENED to the album! more than once!!
check this line from Wilson And Alroys Automatic For The People review. "Some fans see this as a return to REM's hard-rocking sound, but to my ears its Shiny Happy People Vol. 2."
that to me indicates, A)they haven't listened to the album and B)poor research.
and yeah, i'd rather read about how an album sounds than who produced it, who played on it, etc. i could write a ton of w&a style reviews in a single hour. get yourself some reference material, mention a couple of the songs, and voila!
as far as 'professional' publications are concerned i like the reviews in the N.M.E because they are idiosyncratic, they show personality. i'm talking UK magazines here, because they're the one's i'm familiar with. 'Q' magazines reviews are very short, concise, 6 sentences..... tells you next to nothing. they may be more 'fair' and 'balanced', record companies no doubt much prefer the 'Q' approach...
well, i'm not a guy out to please record labels, and i'm not trying to apply to become a writer for 'Q' or 'Rolling Stone' through the medium of my own web-site, either.
sorry about this long mail :)
regards,
adrian