Review my review!

perhaps that is the different between you and I...I prefer a good challenge, you like the end result, no?

Two points:

a) it's hard to write a good review in any style, why make it harder and get a lesser result?
b) from the standpoint of the review reader, not the reviewer, who cares about whether the reviewer was challenged, and who wouldn't prefer a good end result to lesser one?

jimmy_row wrote: yes, JUSTIFY is a better word for it

proof that even the perfect make mistakes sometimes

A good track-by-track will have plenty of "flow", because the reviewer sees the album as a conceptual whole that leads smoothly (or rather, meaningfully) from one part to the next (even if it really doesn't)...and this is reflected in the review.

In theory, very rarely in practice though.  And it would still flow better not in a track-by-track format.

Why do the extra work just to reach adequacy when you can hit greatness more easily?

And I agree with Teo, people unfamiliar with the music will find this helpful...we've said it ourselves.

I still maintain that this can be done far more effectively in a non track-by-track format.  To each his own, though.

Sorry if the thread has been hijacked, but I think this discussion is interesting and useful.

Agreed.

Interesting. I still think it can be very valuable, especially in cases when one or two songs are what makes an album. You mention writing, which is important. But reviews are not only personal essays but also guides. Remember, we're not writing just for our sakes here. (or aren't we? Actually, sometimes it may just be an ego thing... it definitely is....) Ok, let's assume that we write reviews not only for ourselves but for people to use as reference. I've found that a good description is helpful before buying.

To be perfectly honest Teo, when I read your reviews (mostly just for Kayo Dot, tbph again), I skip over the track-by-track parts and read the rest, and I don't feel like I've missed anything much, really.

One of the things I've learned in learning how to write (I'm not going to lie, I'm a good writer) is that flow is superimportant in writing, and tbt reviews just don't have that.  I'm not saying don't discuss the songs, I'm just saying that you should incorporate talking about the songs into the flow of your review.  I really don't need to know what every second of every song sounds like in order.  When discussing the good parts of the cd, mention a few moments that show this.  When discussing the flaws in the cd, again, mention a few moments/sections that demonstrate your point.  When discussing what the cd sounds like, reference songs to show either the consistency of the sound or its diversity, or whatever.

What's bad is when you combine all three of those elements into one paragraph and repeat it over and over for every song.  It makes the review about twice as long as it needs to be and doesn't really say anything more about the album.

I don't understand...you said that a reviewer should use track descriptions to help prove a point; I said that a reviewer needn't always PROVE a point.  This is art, not politics.

On the contrary, the reviewer by definition must always prove several points (perhaps justify is a better word than prove):

why they like/dislike an album
whether the album flows well
whether the songs are well-constructed
what parts of the album work, what don't
etc

Those are all points on which any good review will provide a position on at least 2 and will prove/justify their position.


The problem with track by tracks is that they almost always have no flow, because the paragraphs about each track are seperate entities that bear no relation to each other.

Since when can you only prove a point if you're arguing?

And your second sentence is good except for the fact that track-by-tracks are always bad.  They are tedious every time.  I have yet to find one worth reading.

jimmy_row wrote: Pnoom! wrote: I didn't read it (sorry), but you get bonus points for it not being a track-by-track.  Whatever you do, never write a track-by-track review. OR, you can...and find descriptive, concise ways to describe each track so that the review doesn't drag. It has to do with trying to be creative.  If you want to ramble about what prog is and put everyone to sleep...go for it.  If you want to talk about how impeccable your taste is, go for it...you may even be applauded and...promoted.  Come up with a style and persona that suits you.

Oh certainly any self-respecting review will mention a significant number of the tracks.  What I'm against is:


INTRO

TRACK 1 Description

TRACK 2 Description

etc

CONCLUSION




IMHO (minus the H ), the best reviews talk about the album in general and reference tracks to prove their points.

To be safe just copy Pnoom's style so he doesn't criticize you to death.

Certif1ed wrote: You can write a track by track review if you like - I agree with Blacksword - it shows thought and that you've listened to rather than merely heard the album

It also makes for a boring review to read (back at you)

There are other ways to show you've truly heard an album rather than just listened to it (you got them backwards anyway).

^ Couldn't agree more.

As an old angry PA member used to say you're supposed to be describing the album to someone not writing a book report.