Reviews discussion

kenethlevine wrote: In the last few months I got a few free downloads of new albums by bands I have reviewed favourably in the past.  I thought both were not up to their usual standards and I was torn in a number of ways.  I don't want to upgrade the review to make them happy.  I don't want to express my disappointment to make them unhappy.  And I also wonder if it's just me not being in a space to appreciate new music.  So in the end, orat least up to now, I have not reviewed them  :(  All this to say I would rather not receive these freebies for the above reasons, and luckily, apparently unlike some people here, I receive relatively few of these.

• Does it build tension followed by release, or does it just ramble along?
• Is the composition complex and unique, or just a regurgitation of the standard 12-bar blues progression?
• Does it surprise you, or is it plainly predictable?
• Do the passages flow together in a coherent story, or are they just a bunch of disjoint motifs pasted together?
• Does it employ varied time signatures and polyrhythms, or is it just banal 4/4 time throughout?
• Are the lyrics engaging and interesting, or just vapid drivel?
• Are the vocal melodies compatible with the instrumentals, or is the vocalist off in their own independent world?
• Is the vocal delivery pleasant and engaging, or overly emotive (too angry or too sappy)?
• Does the music convey a feeling (peace, angst, anger, love, suspense), or is it dry and sterile emotionally?
• Does it conjure up images or past experiences or dreams, or are you left perplexed as to it's message?
• Does the album flow together as a single theme, or is it just a bunch of unrelated songs?
• Do the musicians use any interesting instruments, or just the usual five-and dime suspects?
• Are the musicians masters at their trade, or merely (or barely) competent?
• Is the album mixed and mastered well, or is it lopsided, imbalanced, or acoustically flat?

dougmcauliffe wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/review.asp?id=2444439#social-comments "I've just bought this album yesterday" How can you rate am album 5 stars, "A Masterpiece of Progressive Music" after owning it for less than 24 hours. Lol. What is it with this album and the endless stream of 5 star reviews? I think its pretty nice and pleasant, but 4.29? No way jose, this a solid 3.8-4.0x. I'll go out on a limb here and put it this way, this album is not on streaming, the only people who are rating and reviewing it are people who are already likely massive fans of the band willing to shell out the 17+ bucks for the CD.

I personally "star rate" albums in my reviews based on the quality of the music and not the level of prog rock masterpiece'ness or whatever. But that's just me.

Boring is of course subjective, as for generic, different people make different associations. If saying generic, then I wish people would mention a bunch of albums of the genre that it is similar to. I don't like reviews generally that I feel don't try to say something reasonably objective about the music. Some just boil down to "I like it" or "I don't like it." I am often interested in the personal experience of the user, but I want feel like it has been insightful to me. Mostly I like reviews that might have a little humour, but more importantly give me some context for the music, make relevant associations ("if you like or liked this, then this might appeal"), describe the sound/ genres well and shows that that person has good knowledge of the kind of music being made. I do like ones that mention their favourite and least favourite tracks (with some basic description), since these days I often use youtube to check music tracks out. Reviews that are descriptive of the music, have some insight into the background, and make recommendations based on it are really worthwhile to me. I often do favour shorter ones cause I'm usually looking for certain kinds of information -- sometimes of the if you like this, try this type. The ones where people seem oblivious to similar music are often pretty useless to me. And those one where people write something like, "I hate this genre, but I decided to try this, and guess what? I hate this too!" Ones which use excessive hyperbole, vitriol or fanboyishness, and tell me that I should buy it, "you need this", or everyone should/ will like it are a turn-off too. Describing music well can he hard to do, and some are too experiential-based and lacking knowledge when it comes to the musical idiom.

I don't blame those who don't write interesting to me reviews, by the way, I can't even write a really interesting-to-me review, so I feel rather bad when I am critical of some others. It does get to me quite sometimes in reviews (and posts) when people make claims in an objective manner that are inherently subjective and those claims that are misguided/ don't bear scrutiny, and those that are not backed up well enough.

Edited by Logan - October 14 2021 at 12:30

Well, because each is a first review of a particular album, and you never know what album someone might go to first to read the review. What siLLy puPPy has done is provide an intro the the band so that a first time reader of this band gets background and context before discussing the actual album. I see nothing wrong with that.

http://www.progarchives.com/review.asp?id=361920

Hrychu wrote: http://www.progarchives.com/review.asp?id=361920 I have no clue if the "s reduction" is intentional. Is this a joke? An error? Sarcasm? I dunno, but it just looks odd. Also, as far as I remember this reviewer isn't active anymore, so it might be difficult to get a first-hand answer. :p What do you think, forum?

It is like a really bad google translate. Lol.

someone_else wrote: ^Rather an error than a joke or sarcasm, methinks. Maybe some error with the reviewer's keys, the s and the t redirecting to quotes, or - a bit more likely - some unintended string manipulation between typing and posting. If this is a way to poke fun at an album, I miss the clue anyway.