Reviews discussion

@Windhawk: I don't think we'll change the minimum number of words required for a review. I think the discussion was more about people setting that lower limit of 150 for themselves, in order to write something proper.

@NotAProgHead: We have members following certain reviewers - it would be a shame if one of those would not write a review for an album because others had already done that. Their followers would not get their regular portion of information. It may not be your way, but we have quite a few members who work that way. Oh, and stop hijacking Peter's color schemes

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: NotAProghead wrote: ..., in case of popular albums, rated hundreds of times, writing long reviews is madness!    Why? Your review can be the definitive one

zafreth wrote: I read many reviews and info regarding the album, before doing mine, i see that the job of do reviews  of an album  is like write a book, you do some search and research and use the info that have like a bibliography.

Oh well, some day I may have the time to write somewhat longer reviews in here as well; where I can go more in depth. Case is though, that my reviewing time is towards other sites which supply me with plenty of music; and they all kind of want the long versions for themselves. Hence summaries from me posted here; which is kinda bad as I -often- have the first review of an album.

Sometimes I do manage to be a bit more than extremely brief though, like here: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=181841

But still, if possible I'd think most of you would have liked this one instead...: http://usaprogmusic.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_simple_review&Itemid=28&review=192-Suspyre-When-Time-Fades

Anyhow, if there is to be an even longer minimum words attached to review rule; a consequence will be that we'll get fewer people coming in here to review. Higher quality probably, but not as many I'd think.

When it comes to description of an album, I used to follow this setup rather closely (and still is a guideline for me):
1. Introduction to the artist
2. Influences on this particular album
3. Analysis - how does it sound and why
4. Conclusion - who would want to buy / listen to this release in my opinion

I used to say a bit about justification of a rating as well, but doesn't do that as often these days. There's a limit to so many phrases to use to describe an album as very good, mixed, average and below average according to one's personal taste ;-)

Same goes for favorite tunes really.

I agree, if your review is one of the first reviews it is reasonable to follow the scheme:

TGM: Orb wrote: Angelo wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Angelo wrote: Longer is not always better and it may get harder to read. But at the same time we're not all trained writers, and it may take some exercise to get some _real_information_ into 75 words. So, in order to write an informational review, it may still be wise to take 150 words as a guideline for the minimum. Force yourself to write something with actual content... (regarding the end of the last sentence: is there a way to 'strike through' ellipses? )   That's true Angelo, it's wise to make 150 words reviews, specially for a couple of reasons: A decent review at least needs: 1.- Introduction. 2.- General description of the album. 3.- Best tracks 4.- Influences 5.- Justification of the rating Do you believe this can be done in 100 words? Ivàn It can be done, as I said, by a trained and experienced writer... Windhawk wrote: Heh, with a 150 word limit about half of my reviews will disappear. Are they really that bad and uninformative...? ...like Olav. Hm. Two points: 1. I don't think influences are a vital point, since a) I might not know the influence, b) it's perhaps a bit prejudicial, c) I really don't care about them much. 2. The general description can probably act as a justification in most cases.

Hmm. I never read Iván's post as saying all 5 should be separate items. If one paragraph fulfils the need of 2 items, they're still there...   Influences are debatable perhaps, as for older bands they are likely already in the bio. For new bands, that doesn't hold and they definitely should be part of the review to serve others than you, who might be interested.

zafreth wrote: Angelo wrote: Worse - it may be a fact that a band is a Genesis clone, in which case it's not a review anymore. A review should express the opinion of the reviewer, concerning the contents of an album. As the Ivan example of what have to have a review i add  this: Arguments why you think that album is good or not.

That is just using other words for "the justification of the rating", and "the opinion of the reviewer, concerning the contents of an album." if I'm not mistaken. Guess we agree on that then, Zafreth.

Angelo wrote: Worse - it may be a fact that a band is a Genesis clone, in which case it's not a review anymore. A review should express the opinion of the reviewer, concerning the contents of an album.

As the Ivan example of what have to have a review i add  this:
Arguments why you think that album is good or not.

NotAProghead wrote: Sometimes easily. Example of a short review: "The band X... is Gabriel-era Genesis clone". 8 words, first 6 of them are optional. Enough information, depending on your attitude to Genesis, to be interested or to avoid like a plague.

good man...  I'd suggest you rewrite them a bit 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: A decent review at least needs: 1.- Introduction. 2.- General description of the album. 3.- Best tracks 4.- Influences 5.- Justification of the rating Do you believe this can be done in 100 words?

Edited by NotAProghead - October 19 2008 at 13:33