Track-by-track reviews

If it's just a track by track then no, I don't like them. I don't mind so much when there is some other text outside of doing a track by track though. 

J-Man wrote: I do like reviews that briefly touch on a few of the tracks, but generally I don't like reading reviews that go into tremendous detail about each song (unless the album in question is one of my favorites - then I might enjoy reading their thoughts on each song). By and large, however, I prefer reviews that talk about the album as a whole and are a bit more concise. There are still exceptions, though.

Edited by UMUR - 09 Aug 2012 at 10:57am

Track by track can be hard work to read, there's less surprises too, if I end up buying the album. Hints are better I think, describing the general feel and mentioning a few specific songs is pretty useful for most readers looking for information about a band/album.

I'm probably one of the few out of the pack when it comes to track-by-track reviews. If it's well-written, it could give me some further insight on those tracks I've already heard, not to mention that I learn how you formulate a song when it comes to writing your own review. The only thing I don't like about it is when the reviewer takes the song apart and just tells how the songs are structured since that's not important at all. I see the interpretations and backgrounds of the songs as essential, depending on you're checking out the album or just wants to get more insight of this with some help from the reviewer.

UMUR wrote: J-Man wrote: I do like reviews that briefly touch on a few of the tracks, but generally I don't like reading reviews that go into tremendous detail about each song (unless the album in question is one of my favorites - then I might enjoy reading their thoughts on each song). By and large, however, I prefer reviews that talk about the album as a whole and are a bit more concise. There are still exceptions, though.   I fully agree with you Jeff.