Why do I write poor record reviews?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

As someone who knows licksquat about musical jargon (not to mention critical theory), how can I improve my reviews? I'm too embarassed to share any, btw, so I suppose I can only expect very broad and general advice. And I don't think I'm that retarded...

― Leee, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Write for yourself and not the audience. And don't write to the formula of what you think will make a good review. Might help *shrug*

― jel --, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Drowned in Sound seems quite ready to publish mediocre reviews... No pay, natch, but you'll develop a little portfolio of poop that you can show to editors:

http://www.drownedinsound.com/

― Andy, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Um...Don't try to fake excitement, and try to say something of general interest in any review, so that people reading who don't know the band can get something out of it.

― Tom, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Musical jargon = surefire death. Write what you feel about the release in question--if it brings something up in your memory, talk about that. Don't try to create the catchphrase that will appear on a sticker or in the advertising, because that'll just look suspect and pandering. In short, write with your own voice, like you were talking about this album to a friend...and then remove the swears where appropriate.

― Sean Carruthers, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Or put them in where appropriate. Good advice: try and get the feel of the FT writers. Read the articles. The kinda avuncular friendly personalness of those reviews are a benchmark to aim for.

My own technique is to not talk about the music and let it slip around the corners. What's on yr mind? Right, now contort the music to fit into what you want to talk about.

If I'm being completely honest...

Probly why no-one reads my blog.

― david h(0wie), Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"I'm too embarassed to share any, btw"

Oh show us some, would you? I want to pick holes in it and be really mean to you.

Just kidding. I've never written a review in my life, so I can't help you. I'll leave quietly now without a fuss.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

don't try to fake excitement

Does anyone else find they feel as though they're faking excitement all the time even when they know they aren't? All the words to convey it seem so cliched and powerless.

― Ronan, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Fod the love of god don't write about yourself in them, that pisses me off so much. I wanna know about the music, and I wanna know about the music FAST. Is it good? Does it make you twitch? If it is good, what is it like? Should we own it? Don't worry about looking stupid, just be honest. Cruelly, nastily honest.

― Nick Southall, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ronan: Yes. This is one reason I don't often write formally about things I really really like - things I quite like or am ambivalent about allow me more freedom, word-wise. For the stuff I love I just enthuse to people in person or mention it here sometimes.

― Tom, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom = Marcus on Bangs. ROCKIST! Mebbe.

― david h(0wie), Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

AVOID ALL THESE!! (except shtick, you can use that... )

remember there is no such thing as influence

― mark s, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Analogies and connotations are good places to start. Later, metonymy.

― Lisa, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

advanced rhetoric, for when you throw away yr learner wheels!!

― mark s, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"For the love of god don't write about yourself in them"

Too right. Here's an extract from a Codeine review I found on the Net.

"The worst period of my life occurred during the summer of 1996. My roommate had just gotten married and moved out, so I was living by myself. All of my friends were gone on various vacations and trips. I had just broken up with the girl that, at one time, I was sure I was going to marry. I had just started a new job, but was still so poor that my food for the day consisted of a bag of chips and a can of pop for lunch and a grilled cheese sandwich or pancakes for dinner. I spent my free time in the computer labs on campus, reading Michael Moorcock, Albert Camus, and H.P. Lovecraft, or listening to music. I had a phone that never rang and no television. And when I stayed up late during the humid nights sweating through every pore imaginable, staring at my sterile, white walls, I was certain I was about to go insane."

Lighten up, mate. I don't wanna know what you had for lunch in back in '96.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

But if it had just been left like that, it wd have been a GENUINELY BRILLIANT REVIEW. I expect it was spoiled, by mention of the stupid band and its dumm record. Think abt what bores you in what other people write and don't do it yrself.

― mark s, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

hey nick, 'you' crept into your advice already...

leee, I was going to quote something that some critic said that sounds sensible to me, but I can't find it right now and I can't remember which critic it was in order to search my own blog to find out where I posted it. but he said something like: figure out why you like or don't like something, and then say so, being honest about both of those. there are all kinds of reasons to do things another way, but I think doing it this way might give you a good purchase on doing it more subtly or more complexly or more accurately or more enjoyably etc etc.

― Josh, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Nick S is, of course, correct...in certain circumstances. I wasn't meaning to imply by my earlier comments that you should just type about you you you and your reaction to the music, but your personal feelings are fair game to enter into it occasionally, depending on the venue. If you're writing for a buyer's-guide style of publication then by all means can the personal quips and get down to the basics. Writing like that for all outlets, though, can lead to a really boring read, if more is expected of you: "it's loud, it rocks, the vocals sound like Black Francis"...yawn. Balance. Balance!

― Sean Carruthers, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

mark - I agree with you 100%. But that's mostly cause them's those are the kind of reviews I can write.

But why do you think that?

― david h(0wie), Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

87.94%

― david h(0wie), Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

71.23%

― david h(0wie), Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Be an eighteen year old girl.

― nickn, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Most of the review is done while you're listening & thinking, not while you're writing. Think hard about what the music is doing for you as you hear it. Most of all, write about stuff you're interested in writing about! Few people can write something fun to read w/ out being interested themselves.

Also, the person who said don't worry about making an ass of yourself was right on. You'll always be a little nervous about something good.

― Mark, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I can totally understand Mark's position. My review writing is compulsive, occuring in my head as I hear the music - every single thing I hear that I'm concentrating on, in fact. Then occasionally I'll sit down and try to imperfectly reproduce it in writing. Problems occur when I can't remember exactly what I thought that was clearly the best thing anyone had thought about that music ever, but carrying around a notebook would slow me up too much for needing to write in it constantly.

I don't think excitement in writing is a bad thing, if what you're trying to convey that you're engaged with the music and thinking about it. Sweeping statements are more of a problem, and these are what I've decided I have to wean myself off.

― Tim, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Some very good advice offered here already from writers I trust. I can but echo their statements (Tim unsurprisingly roolz) -- it's a very individual thing, finding one's style in a review, and there's no real model to follow. Jargon is jargon, stick to what connects. Sometimes it can be as specific as a chord, sometimes an intangible feeling -- it's how you capture and project what you sense in words rather than in music that matters.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I forget a lot too tim, so I just try to listen to a record while I'm writing, so that if I forgot maybe I'll have something like the same idea again, or another good one

― Josh, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

A couple of my own personal rules (including ones I still have yet to constantly adhere to): 1) Try to avoid talking shit about other bands unless it's completely necessary and integral to the statement you are trying to make about the band you're actually reviewing. 2) Don't try and make too many historical/canonical/zeitgeisty remarks about a band if the music they're playing and the genre(s) they adhere to seem foreign to you. Sometimes readers as unfamiliar with the genre as you will be confused and disoriented by all sorts of jargon that doesn't describe how the music sounds, while those who are intimately familiar with said genre will be more than willing to pick apart any incorrect details or "underinformed" opinions. Just stick to talking about sounds and feelings and tone in a general sense. The knowledge will come eventually. 3) Never be afraid of changing your mind.

― Nate Patrin, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Josh: I think that might have been Christgau. He said that there's 2 aspects to writing music criticism. You have to pick out what you actually like, not what you think you're supposed to like or something. You have to isolate what it is that gives you pleasure. And then you need to describe this or explain why honestly. Give your reasons, not the reasons you think you should have.

I love personal content in reviews. I agree with Mark S that that Codeine review would be great if just left as is.

― sundar subramanian, Tuesday, 23 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Write for your readers not for yourself.

You aren't marking a term paper so don't even bother suggesting how to fix what is wrong with the music or how the musicians could have done it better if only they had your insight. What use is that? The reader will never hear the improved remix in your head.

Have a point to the writing. Think of it as a target "after reading my pieve the reader will xxxx" where xxxx is some insight or change in viewpoint you want to get across. You probably won't actually achieve that target so don't worry about it too much, just have a target in mind.

Write in short paragraphs.

― Alexander Blair, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Never write more than two words entirely in capitals.

― Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah I thought it was christgau too but after I failed to find any mentions of him I gave up on that idea

― Josh, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

this is not to say that I disagree with you

― Josh, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Depends on what you're reviewing and for what audience. Do you want to describe or analyse? For example, look at this. This kind of analysis is spot-on yet only makes sense to the reader if he already owns the recording. It is way too abstract for a casual listener.

― Siegbran Hetteson, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Pah all this casual talk of "oh tell me if the album is good" is a bit silly. Reviews aren't like the fucking going out section of the local rag, if you're reading them to genuinely help you make a decision about something then there's something wrong. I mean I know the first review on a page I read is the one of the album I own already.

If the little story about the person is in the review so what, if you're that against reviews being interesting works in themselves then email me a list of albums I own and I'll give you a fucking mark out of ten for all of them to print out and take to the record store, just don't forget to buy the correct lawn fertilizer and some milk and eggs aswell as the correct albums!

― Ronan, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I mean I know the first review on a page I read is the one of the album I own already.

That's normal. That way you can assess the risk of whether the other reviews are any good. If the reviewer appears to have the same taste as you, you're more likely to accept his suggestions of other albums.

― Siegbran Hetteson, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

No I mean I do that because it's interesting. I don't care if he has the same taste as me, I can decide what to buy on my own.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

BALLS - I love music reviews when you put something of yrself in them, I remember reading a Stereolab review which read like a piece of prose, and I remember it to this day, whereas 'the glacial middle eight of this multi-stringed track is the future of rock and roll' = yawn yawn bloody yawn. Also: a review of Dexys which started off about punching someone who claimed to like Dexys more than the reviewer, fantastic! The best music writing encompasses the personality of the reviewer and gives a vague idea of what the record will sound like, I'd much rather hear how it FEELS than how it SOUNDS. Bloody hell.

All the NME reviews are RUBBISH apart from Swells and he just relies on the good old standby of AMUSING INSULTS recently. Then again since t'NME now costs a KINGS RANSOM I've not read it in ages, when I were a lad ect ect ect. And they're rubbish because they only talk about 'the music'. GAH!

― Sarah, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

also note sarah's attitude to CAPITALS which i SHARE do you SEE!!

― mark s, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually in the sense of 'do not be like this' here is a GOLDEN RULE - do NOT be anything like anything written on PITCHFORK ever (apart from maybe Ethan who might have been funny once, if I remember correctly he was still wrong hur hur)! Pitchfork - where they write about the music. "if you like that sort of thing".

― Sarah, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh aye, I have no problem at all with people telling me about the time they PUNCHED someone because OF a RECORD and USING capitals and SWEARING is good too. It's the whole thing about prefixing a review with 300 words about

― Nick Southall, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

...about this and that?

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

... what book you're reading at the moment or when your dog died and it made you cry or something, when I'd much rather hear about how She Wolf Daydreaming by Kid Loco made you have a wank and how Hula Hoop Wounds by ATDI made you set fire to a nursery or something.

I pressed Tab and Return by mistake, or something, Ned. I think.

Oh, and swearing in reviews is always great. Especially swearing in FUCKING BIG LETTERS.

― Nick Southall, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

― Mark, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Nothing wrong with being abstract and or personal stories or general humour but swells is a fucking idiot. The class clown of the NME, I can't remember him ever making one funny "joke" in any of his reviews.

― Ronan, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Reading Meltzer's last book helped me relax. I think that's important. Helps avoid pretentiousness.

― Brad Haywood, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Reading Meltzer's last book helped me relax. I think that's important. Helps avoid pretentiousness.

=> avoid Meltzer's last book?

― jamesmichaelward, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

<< => avoid Meltzer's last book? >>

This place is all about the Pitchfork hate, isn't it?

― Brad Haywood, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Meltzer writes for Pitchfork?

― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes.

― Brad Haywood, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

maaan. i've been SAYING pitchfork is going down the dumper, and this just confirms it.

― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I haven't had time to read all the responses yet, but by unpopular demand, I will give you one link that I'm not too ashamed of. Writ for those Amazon customer review dealies, mind you.

― Leee, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I like Pitchfork alot. Probably the best review site that I know of. The 10.0 score for YHF I don't agree with though.

― Indieholic Anonymous, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Lee, I read the review you linked to and it's certainly informative but it betrays a lack of confidence. Show you have the courage of your convictions and write as if you are speaking to a person. just imagine you are having a conversation and trying to convince of the music's worth or lack of merit. otherwise you'll just be stuck worried about writing it and how it's gonna look on the page. If it has no flow then it'll just piss the reader off. And while you're listening to it and write down the most insane thoughts that enter your head - they may not make it into the final review but they can lead you down avenues you would never have contemplated going down in the first place.

― Sam Baccaro, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the last post is otm, re getting stuff going

― mark s, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

steal other people's reviews and change all the appropriate words

― Josh, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I steal Josh's reviews and change the appropriate words...ie, the name!

― Sean Carruthers, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

hahaha

― charlie va, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

haha I've seen the amg guidelines, you'd have to change more than that

― Josh, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Sean is RUMBLED! The AMG Blind Fists of Death will have to hunt him down now.

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 24 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Sarah that review of Dexys was by Everett True! You and ET, sitting in a tree!

― Tom, Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hahaha Tom I know it was and I still think it's grebt! This does not mean that I want to snog him though perish the THORT.

― Sarah, Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Something about Dexys brings out the best in ppl though - that Chris Roberts piece on Don't Stand Me Down in the freebie Melody Maker book years ago was definitely the best thing I'd ever read by him.

― Tom, Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

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