Review Etiquette and Rationale

This may turn into more of a survey than a blog, but...

Here at MMA, reviews are strongly encouraged.  There are guidelines, but generally the rules and regulations for reviews are more lenient than those of other websites, and everyone with an opinion is allowed to share it.  This is great for a general audience and it's very user-friendly, but letting everyone do their own thing will inevitably raise questions about one's review process, writing style, and so on.  Basically, it's tough not making comparisons and assumptions when you see a 100-word review and then a 1000-word review of the same album; however, I think it's safe to say we all have our own rhyme and reason for writing the way we do, and I think it would be cool to share some of it, both to get different perspectives and to get to know each other a little better.

So I ask you: what's your reviewing style and process?  What's your logic behind writing reviews the way you do?

Me, I love writing.  I always have and I always will.  It's something that I do when I'm bored, spending hours on end just plugging away at whatever's on my mind, but I don't take it very seriously; I've been a very informal writer since I was a kid (too many comic books, I guess), and at almost every grade level, I've had points taken off on my papers because they weren't written in a "professional" manner.  This is something I found ridiculous and frustrating, and I finally stopped writing on my own for a while because it was no longer fun.  I felt as if my creativity was being squashed.

When I found MMA, I figured I would try my hand at reviewing; I love music and the site didn't seem to have restrictions on how to write, so why not?  I quickly found that it was something I really enjoyed.  I could write about whatever the hell I wanted, however the hell I wanted, and be making a contribution somehow.  I would just keep writing, and writing, and writing, without much of an idea about what exactly should have been written.  The other problem with this was that I would go through long droughts of just not having any inspiration, since how I wrote reviews drew so heavily on whether I was in the mood to ramble or not.  Lately, I've tried to make my reviews more concise; it doesn't come as naturally to me, but it's a hell of a lot easier to read, and I feel that I can be a more productive reviewer (although I'll never be on Jonas or Kim's level when it comes to quantity).  Still, I never want to force myself into writing something I'm not interested in writing, because then it might as well not even be my work. 

I wish I could say that I have a specific review process, but I don't.  It's really something that depends on how many listens it takes me to "get" and album.  Oftentimes I will begin a review, get hung up on how to write something, and then I won't touch it again for a week or so.  That really sucks! 

What about you?  What are your thoughts on reviewing?  Pet peeves, interests, changes in style, etc.  I'd really love to get everyone's take on this.  Post whatever you feel!


Edited by Diogenes - 28 May 2012 at 12:39pm

I found PA by chance in 2007 and started writing reviews almost imidiately. My first reviews were for "...and then there were three (1978)" by Genesis and "Into the Everflow (1992) by Psychotic Waltz. I had never written a review before and actually had no writing experience whatsoever, so basically I just read a lot of reviews and tried to take the good ideas I found and use them in my reviews (not sentences but ideas on how to write). To tell you the truth there are only few of the first couple of hundreds of reviews I wrote that I�m still proud of today and I try and go back when I have the time and edit/re-write the worst of them.

I started out writing reviews for my favorite albums and artists I knew something about before trying my hand at releases I listened to for the first time. A hard challenge bearing in mind that English is my second language and the words don�t necessarily flow easily when I�m writing about things I don�t know too much about, but also an important challenge, which has helped me broaden my musical horizon but has also made me a more skilled reviewer.

After writing a couple of hundreds of reviews, I started to get dissatisfied with my writing style and also my at times disrespectful/better knowing attitude. So I said to myself: "What is it You want to read when you read a review?" And I soon came to the conclusion that the below review "skeleton" is basically what I want to read when I read a review and therefore that�s basically how I write reviews and have done for a couple of years:

1. Introduction to the album:
- What is the placement of the album in the artist�s discography
- What label(s) released the album and when was it released
- anekdotes/history about the album (sometimes very little info and sometimes a lot. Depending on which album I�m reviewing and how much information is available). I usually do a minimum of research before writing this part of my review. In some cases research can take hours.

2. Description of the music:
- I try to give a general idea of how the music sounds without going too much into details. Too many details/minute by minite descriptions of each track on an album have a tendency to become a boring read, and I try not to lull my readers into a sleep with my reviews. If I can I try to mention highlights or unusual tracks, but again only mentions, not detailed descriptions.

3. Musicianship:
- When I read a review I�d like to know if we�re talking amaturs or skilled professionals, so I usually mention that in my review too. If there is something out of the ordinary going on I�ll probably mention that too (an extremely skilled drummer, a lead vocalist with a great voice...etc.).

4. Sound production/mix
- I think sound production is an extremely important part of an album and I�ll almost always mention what kind of sound production the listener can expect. This is an area I�m still working on improving. It doesn�t come natural to me, talking about production techniques. I would be able to explain myself much better in Danish on this particular subject.

5. Conclusion
- What do I think about the album?
- How does it hold up to the other releases in the artist�s discography or to similar artits?
- Rating

That�s basically it. It�s a formula, that I�ve come to appreciate. A formula is especially good to fall back on if you are having difficulties getting the words out. Then it�s nice to have some basics you can talk about and then boom you have a review written. I try and keep my reviews between 200 and 500 words. My own attention often wanders when reading reviews that are more than 500 words long. I simply start skimming them instead of giving them proper attention.

Some reviews take me 10 minutes to write, some take hours, some take countless hours spread over the course of years. Sometimes the muse is there and sometimes it�s not. I have a notepad document I carry with me all the time, where I have drafts for reviews. Sometimes I write a sentence on a review and then go back to writing on an entirely different review. Depends a lot on my mood what kind of music I want to write about. I only write about albums I have very recently listened to though and that goes for albums I know very well too.

Edited by UMUR - 28 May 2012 at 2:42pm

That's a great formula, Jonas.  And I wouldn't have guessed English was your second language from the things I've read by you either.

I've never had a solid outline for my reviews besides an intro and conclusion.  I've made it a point to talk about as many good or bad things I can identify, which is why I look down upon bare bones reviews for not saying much at all.

^ true, too many of the worst, worst, worst reviews I've ever read have been by professionals - like the turkey who reviewed LZII for Rolling Stone - can't recall his name, but it sucked.

Edited by dreadpirateroberts - 30 May 2012 at 5:37pm

Wilytank wrote: One other thing I like about EM is the ability to add a witty review title.

I agree on this one.

UMUR wrote: ^I think I prefer the bare bones concise reviews, but that�s subjective and one of the great things about a site like MMA. You have the opportunity to read reviews by many different people, who write in their own style (long ones, detailed ones, not so detailed ones and short ones). Some you�ll trust and some you won�t. Some you�ll prefer and some you probably won�t read that often. I like the fact that the reviews on this site, are written by "regular" folks contra so called "professional" reviewers, who often IMO aren�t better at writing reviews than many of the people here. They are just as subjective in their opinions as everyone else.

That's kind of why I started this thread, so we can get to know each other a little better as reviewers.  Lots of great stuff here so far, keep it coming!

We do have a lot of members on this site who also write for more "professional" websites, I think.  That's a word you have to take with a grain of salt; I can't tell you how many times I've been frustrated with "professional" sports analysts who think that they're all that just because they're on TV, while there are college students making far better analyses on message boards.  Especially with something like music, where mostly everything is subjective, you kinda have to fend for yourself when reading people's opinions...but that's far better than those opinions not being shared at all because the site won't allow it.

dreadpirateroberts wrote: dreadpirateroberts wrote: ^ true, too many of the worst, worst, worst reviews I've ever read have been by professionals - like the turkey who reviewed LZII for Rolling Stone - can't recall his name, but it sucked.   Just realised I missed the name of the publication before - apologies

Edited by UMUR - 31 May 2012 at 1:59am

adg211288 wrote: I write for my own website first and foremost. How 'professional' you want to call that is up for debate, since we're entirely non-profit. Though being part of a community that helps you find new music is rewarding in its own right. Call us(me) semi-professional if you will, after all I do receive promos from some labels. I have a semi-set in stone style of reviewing which I sometimes intentionally break depending on how the words flow. I seem to have sub-consciously picked up a trait from Jonas with starting review like "Album is that whatever number album from so and so band" etc. It's a good way to get going, as I often find the hardest line to write is the first one. The rest of my reviews typically cover the same stuff in varying length. It's all about how the words flow. Some albums I find need more said on them than others, especially if the album has both positive and negative aspects to cover. Take my recent Augury reviews. I prefer Concealed, yet I wrote a fair bit more for Fragmentary Evidence.  My familiarity with a band can also affect my reviews. Sometimes if its my first encounter with an established band I will says that the review is from the perspective a newcomer. If I'm familiar with the band though they may get graded based on what expectations I had from them as much as from their genre. I also have varying standards from different sub-genres since with metal as diverse as it is if I looked for the same positives in every sub there'd be some subs always getting lower or higher reviews. As such I tend to be more critical on some, such as symphonic metal, where I'm really not interested these days if all you can do is be a poor intimation of what Nightwish or Epica is already doing better.

Take this for what it's worth, but you're the one guy on this site I would model my reviews after, if possible.  Your writing is very professional but still has a looot of detail, which is where I want to end up with my reviews eventually.  And per the bolded, I think that's why it's beneficial to try to review as many subgenres as possible; to learn more about them and expand your horizons, sure, but also so you don't have to write "Modern Thrash band X plays metal that is heavily influenced by bands such as Exodus and Slayer" hundreds of times.  Being someone who strives to write something unique for each review, I don't think I'd be able to stomach that.

Diogenes wrote:  Take this for what it's worth, but you're the one guy on this site I would model my reviews after, if possible.  Your writing is very professional but still has a looot of detail, which is where I want to end up with my reviews eventually.  And per the bolded, I think that's why it's beneficial to try to review as many subgenres as possible; to learn more about them and expand your horizons, sure, but also so you don't have to write "Modern Thrash band X plays metal that is heavily influenced by bands such as Exodus and Slayer" hundreds of times.  Being someone who strives to write something unique for each review, I don't think I'd be able to stomach that.