Track by track reviews are almost always bad, or at least tedious.

 

EDIT: except in the case of EPs with just a few songs.

2) Is it better to not go track by track, but to just provide a general overview of the listening experience, speaking more broadly about the songs as a collection rather than individually?

 

Yes.  Not only does it save space, it is also far more useful than noting every chord progression of every song.  Be sure, when doing this, to reference individual moments on the album, though, to show you've listened.

3) Are comparisons to other bands helpful or is it ultimately unfair because each band is so unique?

 

These are definitely helpful, but don't reference a band more obscure than the band you're reviewing (e.g. no "Magma sounds a lot like Eskaton" for a Magma review)

4) Quotes?  Historical facts?   Comments from the band about the music?  Good to include or not?

 

Only where applicable.  Band comments can be really good when used properly.  Historical facts shouldn't dominate the review, but they can be useful if they lend a point to what you're saying about the actual music.

5) What else do you want the reviewer to include or not include?

 

Some sort of objective analysis of its influence/importance, if applicable.

6) Short, medium, or long reviews?   Assuming all are good quality, do you prefer a concise 1-2 paragraph review or a mammoth mini-book?  Or in-between?

 

Medium length.  Short reviews don't say enough to convince me, and long reviews are a bore to read.  Medium can be anywhere from 2-5 paragraphs (400-1000 words, generally).

 

 

>Totally depends on the review and how it's put together. Reviews that say "Track X is simply awesome, the singer rocks, the guitarist is crazy and the keyboardist is really good" for every song - are obviously all filler and tells us nothing.

 

Better to judge each track on its own merit - if there are tracks that are really good, then detail on why they're good to the reviewer is much more interesting to me than repetitive statements of "This is good".

 

I also like the darker side - why a reviewer does not like a particular track. Often this tells us a lot about the reviewer's tastes, thus making the review helpful to the reader. One could buy an album on the grounds that a reviewer with opposing tastes to you dislikes it (I have actually done this!).

 

If all the music on an album is in the same sort of vein, then such an approach is a waste of time - it's only worth going into detail if each song speaks (or sings) to you in different ways.

 

>As above - but also it's helpful to provide some kind of introduction that gives a foretaste of what you think for those readers who don't feel invited in for the long haul, and also a summary of the album experience at the end for those who have entered the wonderful world you're creating a vision of.

 

 

 

>All these are useful - my approach is to go from the gut; I write reviews the same way I write music. If I feel something more is needed in music writing, I go away and do more listening research and technical excercise as required. If I feel led, during the course of reviewing an album, I might do additional research on something I think I know about the band's history and turn up other stuff I want to share. Or something in the music might remind me of something else, so I'll verify it (or not, depending on how well my musical memory muscles are working).

 

As for other things, it depends on what's being reviewed. I like to read about the technical morsels in the music, because I listen out for them - but I also like to know how they contribute to the experience of the album

 

So, a phrase like "John Smith plays a myxolidian mode scale in F# with added 13ths in a 7/4 time signature" is less interesting than "The F# myxolidian scale with added 13ths produces a rich jazzy flavour which meshes nicely with the 7/4 rhythm section, that reminds me somewhat of "Dance on a Volcano" by Genesis - so you get this kind of jazz Genesis feeling".

 

In short, anything goes as long as it's relevant to what you're talking about, and gives a clearer picture of how you perceive the music to the reader.

6) Short, medium, or long reviews?   Assuming all are good quality, do you prefer a concise 1-2 paragraph review or a mammoth mini-book?  Or in-between?

>There's little point in a short review of an album lasting the best part of an hour - especially an album of art rock that has taken time and care to put together - you just can't do it justice in a paragraph.

 

A review should feel the right length as you write it - if you have little to say, then say little. If you feel you're not putting enough into your review, listen to the album some more until you feel you have a real handle on it (even if you don't - who knows whether you've correctly interpreted the work of several other human beings working for a very long time, in the time it takes to review?).

 

 

I have spent a sizeable (and very enjoyable) part of my life so far researching, listening to, playing and writing about music, because it's a great passion. I therefore feel I have quite a lot to say about it. You may have noticed



Thanks...I'm sure this has been done before, but I want responses from current visitors, not ones from a year ago.  Cheers!

 

 

Hmm. I've been here a year or two - does that still count?

 

1  & 2.  It really depends on the album.  For example I couldn't see the point in providing a track by track review of Red Queen to Gryphon Three, because it all sounds more or less the same.  I'd say describe particular tracks if there is something striking or different from the rest of the album about them if you think it's important.  Sometimes I do track by track, more often I do not.

 

3.  If the comparisons are SPECIFIC, I think they are helpful.   Saying that Alan Holdsworth's playing has the accuracy and adventuresomeness that we expect from Robert Fripp is good.   Saying that Starcastle is a Yes clone is not.

 

4.  All of that is good if it is relevant and entertaining.

 

5.  Sometimes it is very important to put an album in it's historical context.  Something like Days of Future Passed or 90125 just cries out for somebody to explain why these were turning points.

 

6.  Short to medium.   Two or three paragraphs should be enough to explain what is unique about a particular album.

1) Do you like song x song descriptions, a play by play of each track?    Or do you find this repetitive and boring?

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'repetitive' or 'boring', but this is not something that usually captures my attention, and it is definitely something I avoid when I write reviews myself - especially if it involves listing the tracks as some people do.

 

2) Is it better to not go track by track, but to just provide a general overview of the listening experience, speaking more broadly about the songs as a collection rather than individually?

It depends on the album. Sometimes, especially when reviewing an album I know very well, I will touch upon every track (though not necessarily in order). On other occasions, I will only mention the tracks that, in my personal opinions, stand out from the rest (either in positive or in negative). As a reader, I prefer a middle ground - that is, identifying the highpoints of the album while at the same time treating the songs as a collection, and considering how well they work 'together'.

3) Are comparisons to other bands helpful or is it ultimately unfair because each band is so unique?

 

4) Quotes?  Historical facts?   Comments from the band about the music?  Good to include or not?

 

Definitely yes. I do often include them, and try to integrate them successfully in the fabric of my review, usually in the introductory paragraphs.

5) What else do you want the reviewer to include or not include?

 

Snippets from the lyrics, if particularly meaningful to the understanding of a given song (this is again something I do relatively often). Humorous comments are also something I appreciate a lot (not if they sound vitriolic or over the top, though - I've seen some examples here I would definitely not recommend following).

6) Short, medium, or long reviews?   Assuming all are good quality, do you prefer a concise 1-2 paragraph review or a mammoth mini-book?  Or in-between?