How do you review a record?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I DEFY you to draw on your own experiences and dignify this most simple of questions with a genuinely serious answer.

Please.

― Antmusic78 (Antmusic78), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

listen a few times, think some stuff. make a decision. smoke alot, write. edit alot. listen once or twice more just in case i've been harsh.

(nb this is if working in short space of time)

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

listen to it a bunch of times, develop an opinion and/or point of view about it, and make it legible.

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:26 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.screamyell.com.br/musica/critic.html

― may pang (maypang), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:28 (twenty-two years ago)

any number of ways. track by track, contextually (historical/overview), (not usually a good idea but) conceptually...usually a mixture of the first two. maybe with a few jokes, some personal reference to the music at hand, and some sort of overarching theme.

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:28 (twenty-two years ago)

1. Listen a bunch of times, while thiking of gags.
2. Take notes stringing gags together, describing what makes the record sound different than other records, the lyrics read different, etc.
3. Come up with a reason why all the things that make this record different than other records fit together, use it to choose the big gag.
4. Start and end with the big gag, fill in the middle with the little ones in a reasonable order.
5. Take out the extra words.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)

nice piece, may. for me (and i've only done it for non-profit/university type rags) i need a theme.
but i'm bad: i'll decide on a theme, listen a few times with that theme in mind, and not let the music sway me from my clevely constructed idea.
erm, maybe why i've never been paid for it (except free discs)?

― paulhw (paulhw), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I forgot to mention yes I always think of gags, I often leave them out in the end though. When I was reviewing Ludacris Chicken N Beer I wanted to begin, "Chicken N Beer are the two faculties in the University of Ludacris. Needless to say this makes it a few hundred furlongs better than DCU". (Dublin City University is a depressing Orwellian vision of the future, cameras everywhere, awful place)

In the end I decided non DCU people might not get it and left it out.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:32 (twenty-two years ago)

can i steal that for my ludacris review?

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 15 January 2004 21:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Live my life, speak to my friends, go to work, think of funny/touching ways to talk about music. Get album through post. Make assumptions about album. Wait until its too much hassle NOT to do a review. Listen. Start writing. Find myself actually talking about something. Keep listening. Try and justify the article on its own merits. Bear in mind no-one wants to read about a mediocre indie band being mediocre. Listen. Avoid coming to a decision. Edit. Edit again. Get annoyed that the funny/touching things you thought about don't really work. Edit. Stop listening. Send off. Publish. Read. Wallow in the lack of self-worth.

― Jim Robinson (Original Miscreant), Thursday, 15 January 2004 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Usually I start with a letter I wrote to my ex-girlfriend in 1998, then I digress and talk about my dogs for a few sentences. In the second paragraph, I'll leap right into talking about the record using the previous discussion to make spurious and arcane references to the music. In the final paragraph, I'll sum up everything as if I'd made some profound point, learned a little bit about life, and made your day just that much better for giving a record a middling grade and barely giving you a concept of what it sounds like.

― Xii (Xii), Thursday, 15 January 2004 22:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Xii - thats gold.

― gallantseagull, Thursday, 15 January 2004 22:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I find listening to something over and over until you can't not have an opinion on it helps.

I have to review Fabric 14 and am scared.

― Ferrrrrrg (Ferg), Thursday, 15 January 2004 22:42 (twenty-two years ago)

omg all these rock critic parody ideas are hilarious!!

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 15 January 2004 22:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Listen to the record.

Pick one word to describe the record: great, stupid, varied, boring, departure, run-of-the-mill (this word doesn't have to appear in the review; in fact, probably better if it doesn't).

Listen again, and pick the moments that are most _____________ (fill in the blank with the word selected above).

Start writing. Explain why the record is (word selected above), using these moments to illustrate.

Add general comments on how this record is aiding/fighting the improvement/decline of the state of popular music today.

Throw out stupid parts. Try those sections again.

Throw the whole thing out and do it again, not using such a formula approach (optional).

"Writing is just a series of mistakes that you correct" (Tony Kushner)

― Rick Massimo, Thursday, 15 January 2004 23:23 (twenty-two years ago)

off topic but can anyone tell me if the reviewer who wrote about the new Books album in the VV this week actually liked it or not?

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 15 January 2004 23:25 (twenty-two years ago)

"Writing is just a series of mistakes that you correct" (Tony Kushner)

unless you get it right the first time.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 15 January 2004 23:31 (twenty-two years ago)

"Writing is just a series of mistakes that you correct" (Tony Kushner)

unless you get it right the first time.

Well, you don't necessarily have to write the whole thing over again (I rarely do), but do you never use the backspace key?

― Rick Massimo, Friday, 16 January 2004 00:45 (twenty-two years ago)

1) hit self on head with mallet
2) wake up later to find 800 words scribbled in a spiral-bound notebook
3) transcribe

― nate detritus (natedetritus), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm impressed with everyone who listens more than once on a regular basis but I'm sorta surprised where you find the time? Then again maybe I'm used to other approches.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Two methods. For things I've not told myself I must write about -

1) Wait until I hear a record which I'm thinking something interesting about (def'n of interesting = can't remember reading it anywhere)
2) Write it down.

OR for things I have told myself I must write about -

1) Listen to track a lot.
2) Work out 'angle'.
3) Follow it.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Tom OTM about the "interesting" bit. Another thing I do is to read what ppl. have written about something and look for the bit i think they all got glaringly wrong and write the review as an effort to avoid doing that wrong thing.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Sometimes it needs an 'angle,' sometimes not. Depends on 1) how much you have to say and/or 2) how many words you have to milk out of the record. AMG reviews, for instance, rarely have an angle.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:41 (twenty-two years ago)

There's rarely room for it -- then again, in my brain the difference is:

AMG style: "This is good."

Other rant style: "This is really really good. Let me loopily explain why with long run-on sentences."

(This is why I am not a sociologist or philosopher.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Well the angle might end up the same angle as everyone else's angle (i.e. a right angle!! ha ha oh)

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Are you mad? I go for obtuse (instead of acute).

Fuck I sound like a They Might Be Giants song.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 01:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Basically, what Matos said. It can become a little mechanical if you don't watch out, and I think the best music writers are ones that still have incredible passion for music (I've always wondered how passioniate lifer critics could be, after listening to 300 records a year or whatever for 20 years).

― dleone (dleone), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel like I should slink away.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:08 (twenty-two years ago)

usually start collecting little phrases as i go along throughout the days & keep track of them for future use, eventually find a record i fall in love w. or feel i have to write about for some reason, write down all the phrases in the .txt document window, think about an angle or an idea to riff off, lot's of copy & pasting my phrases about, write 600 words, re-draft mistakes until only i can tell the difference between the last & penultimate drafts (yes that much). this kinda explains why i only wrote about 8 reviews last year, meep. (that and i didn't start getting ok at it until near the end of those 8).

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 16 January 2004 02:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I look at my checkbook and realize that if I don't write 3 reviews for the All Music Guide by next Friday I will not have milk and orange juice and beef pie. With proper motivation thus instilled, the rest seems to take care of itself.

― Joseph McCombs, Friday, 16 January 2004 05:49 (twenty-two years ago)

When my receiver went on the fritz, I developed a new approach that I've found to be quite effective:

1. Examine album cover while watching "Little Nemo."
2. Appraise the record according to whatever standard seems most fashionable at the time.
3. To avoid mistakes, write mainly in generalities such as "Artist X has done a humdinger job of telegraphing the ups and downs of human interaction in a manner that's both limpid [I find that this adjective is a good one for suggesting an interest in literature] and funky."
4. Collect giant paycheck.

― dylan (dylan), Friday, 16 January 2004 07:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I think up little observations about every piece of music I listen to, period. If I think I'm going to want to write about a particular piece I try to remember the observations (I should get a notepad). When I'm writing a proper short review I'll usually just choose the most salient of observations and string them together. For my blog I usually have a branching effect where each observation incites another thought or three (often about other records) and I just follow the branches while trying to avoid including the dead-ends. This is hard to do though and the result is almost always starting off talking about the "official" record and making a long detour to discuss a record I think is related in some manner. If such an outcome is totally unavoidable I just expand it into a historical/thematic/stylistic overview and pretend that was my intention all along.

I like Sterling's gag-focused approach. I wish I had more gags.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Friday, 16 January 2004 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Listen to record. Sit down. Turn on PC. Open Word. Rant. Delete all the occurances of the word 'cunt' except one. Send to Todd.

― Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Friday, 16 January 2004 13:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Pretty much just thinking while listening. What the music is doing, what it sounds like, what makes it interesting. I may be alone in this but some of what makes the review good in the end is luck. A lot of music I just don't have anything interesting to say about, and if I'm lucky, I'm never forced to write about those records.

― Mark (MarkR), Friday, 16 January 2004 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

How to be a Rock Critic - A Megatonic Journey. By some fat guy from 1974.

― Jake Brown (elvissinatra), Friday, 16 January 2004 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Occasionally I'll sit down and take notes while listening.

― Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Friday, 16 January 2004 15:29 (twenty-two years ago)

The best thing I ever read about what makes a great critic (I'm not a critic, if you can't tell) was a interview with Pauline Kael. She was talking about her old nemesis Andrew Sarris, and she admitted she enjoyed reading him as she did few other critics. "He has authentic reactions to movies," she said. "Most critics don't."

― Not That Chuck, Friday, 16 January 2004 18:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Jess (yes you can)

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 16 January 2004 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

This is a useful thread. From a novice's point of view, can I ask - am I right in assuming that you never put anything along the lines of "in my opinion", you instead just state it as if said opinion were universal?

― Darcus How? (nordicskilla), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Is that at all clear?

― Darcus How? (nordicskilla), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

not universal but fact, skillz.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:38 (twenty-two years ago)

You're right, Darcus, you needn't attribute the opinions to yourself. Most readers udnerstand the form. Despite what college professors will tell you, though, it's fine to use the first person sometimes and to embrace your idiosyncracies.

― dylan (dylan), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Teachers/professors/editors who don't permit use of the first person make one very angry.

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah you can get sick of all that dry academic passive-voice 'it could be argued that...' shit in college, I like it when journ'list types manage to say 'I' a bit without turning it into a full-on ME thing

― Ferrrrrrg (Ferg), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I do try to listen three to five times, and take notes once. If I have time, I'll do some compare/contrast tests with records by influences or kindred spirits.

― dylan (dylan), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

From Jerome Frank, in Garner's "Modern American Usage": "To say "I" removes a false impression of a Jovian aloofness." The present writer agrees.

― dylan (dylan), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:59 (twenty-two years ago)

To answer the original question, most of my ideas come while I'm walking, or doing dishes, or doing something else relatively active while I'm away from the computer.

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Friday, 16 January 2004 23:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Since the present writer was earlier quoting from "Modern Fucking American Usage," I guess I should have written: "To say 'I' removes...." But seriously, I will sometimes try to find time to listen to the album while midly tipsy on wine or in some other chemically altered but still lucid state. If the record makes me happy in this state, I won't issue a negative review.

― dylan (dylan), Friday, 16 January 2004 23:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Keith OTM.

― Llahtuos Kcin (Nick Southall), Friday, 16 January 2004 23:33 (twenty-two years ago)

first person is to be used very judiciously

― M Matos (M Matos), Friday, 16 January 2004 23:34 (twenty-two years ago)

And context determines much.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 17 January 2004 00:47 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.