My theory is that one cannot write an objective review about music from a genre that he/she doesn't like. The review is almost always negative, blaming the artist(s) for things that most artists of the genre would do in the same way. Such reviews are of no help for people who already like other artists of the genre, and want to find similar music of good quality.

Examples:

- Someone who doesn't like Death Metal reviews Opeth
- A "Metal Head" reviews 70s King Crimson

What do you think about such reviews? They are usually recognizable by statments like "I don't like Metal, but ..." or "Normally I don't listen to XYZ ...".

Objective reviews, who needs objectivity in a review, I like reviews as subjective as possible, what does the reviewer like about the album, or doesn't like about it. I'm not interested in the consensus view.

I think I can write decent reviews for genres I don't like, and they will be highly subjective, of course you should explain why you don't like it. I don't like objective reviews, they tell me nothing.

It's very difficult to have an objective opinion because it requires knowledge, and most people don't bother learning about things they dislike. It seems to be hard enough for people to have an informed opinion about things they do like!

But true objectivity is impossible. All you can do is present your opinion with a disclaimer (i.e., "I'm not a fan of this kind of thing, but here's what I think anyway"). This alerts the reader to your preferences and keeps them aware that you're stating an opinion- rather than the usual "this is the best/ worst ever and anyone who doesn't recognize that is stupid".

Like you just said objectivity is impossible so reviews usually lie somewehre in the middle of highly subjective and an attempt to be objective, i prefer the latter, but the only way to form an opinion on an album is read as many reviews as possible and see what most people write.

James said it.

I would add that such reviews can be useful, if prefaced with the "disclaimer," as there will be others with similar tastes & dislikes, who might otherwise unwittingly buy the album, and hate it. 

See my review of Haggard -- You don't like gruff, affected "demonic" vocals in your prog? Stay away from Haggard, then!

tuxon wrote: Objective reviews, who needs objectivity in a review, I like reviews as subjective as possible, what does the reviewer like about the album, or doesn't like about it. I'm not interested in the consensus view.

Woody Allen once said that "objectivity is subjective" ... quite true. I'm not interested in a consensus view either. But if you are biased against the entire genre, you don't really have a reason to express that bias against a particular artist of the genre. Where's the point in saying "I don't like Metal, and that's why Dream Theater sucks".

tuxon wrote: I think I can write decent reviews for genres I don't like, and they will be highly subjective, of course you should explain why you don't like it. I don't like objective reviews, they tell me nothing.

Of course such posts can be informative and entertaining, but the negative effect on the rating is not ok ... maybe there should be an option "no rating" in addition to the five stars.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: tuxon wrote: Objective reviews, who needs objectivity in a review, I like reviews as subjective as possible, what does the reviewer like about the album, or doesn't like about it. I'm not interested in the consensus view. Woody Allen once said that "objectivity is subjective" ... quite true. I'm not interested in a consensus view either. But if you are biased against the entire genre, you don't really have a reason to express that bias against a particular artist of the genre. Where's the point in saying "I don't like Metal, and that's why Dream Theater sucks". tuxon wrote: I think I can write decent reviews for genres I don't like, and they will be highly subjective, of course you should explain why you don't like it. I don't like objective reviews, they tell me nothing. Of course such posts can be informative and entertaining, but the negative effect on the rating is not ok ... maybe there should be an option "no rating" in addition to the five stars.

So in the end all you want, is positive reviews from the fans and no other.

Please no critisism, no negative opinions please.

A review can not be objective. Positive reviews are as biased as negative ones.

tuxon wrote: So in the end all you want, is positive reviews from the fans and no other. Please no critisism, no negative opinions please. A review can not be objective. Positive reviews are as biased as negative ones.

Not true. I don't mind negative reviews, if the negativity is related to the artist/album discussed. If you're just not into the genre, you should admit that you're not qualified to say something about it. In fact, "I don't like it" is all you can say in that case.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Of course such posts can be informative and entertaining, but the negative effect on the rating is not ok ... maybe there should be an option "no rating" in addition to the five stars.

One might argue that the statistical effect overall (including the 'biased' ratings) is the only thing even approaching objectivity. If an album is only reviewed by gushing fans, it will appear to have more importance than it deserves.

Not liking it, doesn't mean you don't know it.

You can't write reviews about albums you don't know, but if you know an album your sufficiently knowledgable to write a review about it.

Reviews aren't written for people who already have the album, they don't need a review. Reviews are written for people who don't have the album, or don't know the band. All information (positive and negative) can be helpfull in providing insight in the bands music.

I think I'm knowledgable enough to write about bands from genres that i don't like. The fact that I don't like a genre implies that I know the genre good enough to make that assessment.

tuxon wrote: I think I'm knowledgable enough to write about bands from genres that i don't like. The fact that I don't like a genre implies that I know the genre good enough to make that assessment.

I don't doubt that you are capable of writing good reviews about genres which you don't like. Many others aren't ... for various reasons, only one of which is that they don't like the genre. I've read a review on Into The Electric Castle on amazon.de where a guy complained about the poor quality of the vocals ... I'd prefer any qualified yet biased review over plain incompetence  

MikeEnRegalia wrote: [QUOTE=tuxon] I think I'm knowledgable enough to write about bands from genres that i don't like. The fact that I don't like a genre implies that I know the genre good enough to make that assessment.

So am I!

My personal favorite negative review is this one, because it EXACTLY describes how this record sounds like! Cannot be more informative than that!

NEU! Neu! 2
Review by http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=30 - greenback @ 8:36:51 PM EST, 4/11/2004
PROG REVIEWER

 —  NEU! = NOISE

Imagine: you record a basic dull & marginal song with minimal guitars and drums, and then you record it at 78 RPM, then 16 RPM, and make an album with that!! Why the hype for that? I can't believe I am the only one to give it the lowest possible rating! Take a dull rhythmic LP of your collection, place it on your turntable, play it without the electrical motor traction: spin fast the vinyl with your finger while listening it! Repeat the same procedure with a VERY slow finger motion! This describes the best how this record sounds!

lostrom wrote: I rather have information than opinions in a review! Opinions are for those who wants to shine themselfs when writing, information is for those who puts the reader first!

How can we respond to art without involving opinion?

"This painting is 6' by 8.' It was done with oils, on canvas. There is a preponderance of blue and red. The subject is a vase of mixed flowers. The artist was 42 when he painted it. He lived in Paris."

Rivetting!

Or: "The band has four members. They are named Peter, Paul, Steve and Bob, and they play guitars, bass, drums and keyboards, respectively. The CD has a photo of a red car on the cover. The usual time signature is 4/4."

Gripping, and so... informative!

As soon as I tell you who they "sound like," or attempt to categorize the music, or even tell you if I like it, I am veering into the verboten opinion territory.

Art appeals (mainly) to the emotions, not the intellect, and each of us responds in our unique way, based upon all the factors that make one an individual.

That's MY opinion....

Whoops -- sorry!

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Opinions can be interesting, too. I'd say that I don't want emotions in a review ... at least not if emotions are the basis/motive for writing the review. The motivation should always be to help to reader, to increase their knowledge about the item reviewed.

Yes, God forbid that we should respond to art with emotions! Let's have machines make it and rate it!

See "Art of the Third Reich...."

Sorry -- got a trifle emotional there.

Peter wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Opinions can be interesting, too. I'd say that I don't want emotions in a review ... at least not if emotions are the basis/motive for writing the review. The motivation should always be to help to reader, to increase their knowledge about the item reviewed. Yes, God forbid that we should respond to art with emotions! Let's have machines make it and rate it! See "Art of the Third Reich...." Sorry -- got a trifle emotional there.

Well. u got me all wrong, but u have your opinion and I mine...hahahahahha What I ment was that a review isn't a tool for the person who writes it, i's to give an image to the reader, if it's something to buy/like or not. Too many personal opinions and too little informative description simply ruins that for the reader, I think. Take it or leave it, That's MY opinion

Peter wrote: lostrom wrote: I rather have information than opinions in a review! Opinions are for those who wants to shine themselfs when writing, information is for those who puts the reader first! How can we respond to art without involving opinion? "This painting is 6' by 8.' It was done with oils, on canvas. There is a preponderance of blue and red. The subject is a vase of mixed flowers. The artist was 42 when he painted it. He lived in Paris." Rivetting! Or: "The band has four members. They are named Peter, Paul, Steve and Bob, and they play guitars, bass, drums and keyboards, respectively. The CD has a photo of a red car on the cover. The usual time signature is 4/4." Gripping, and so... informative! As soon as I tell you who they "sound like," or attempt to categorize the music, or even tell you if I like it, I am veering into the verboten opinion territory. Art appeals (mainly) to the emotions, not the intellect, and each of us responds in our unique way, based upon all the factors that make one an individual. That's MY opinion.... Whoops -- sorry!

Sorry, It was ment to be a respond to THIS post

lostrom wrote: Peter wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Opinions can be interesting, too. I'd say that I don't want emotions in a review ... at least not if emotions are the basis/motive for writing the review. The motivation should always be to help to reader, to increase their knowledge about the item reviewed. Yes, God forbid that we should respond to art with emotions! Let's have machines make it and rate it! See "Art of the Third Reich...." Sorry -- got a trifle emotional there. Well. u got me all wrong, but u have your opinion and I mine...hahahahahha What I ment was that a review isn't a tool for the person who writes it, i's to give an image to the reader, if it's something to buy/like or not. Too many personal opinions and too little informative description simply ruins that for the reader, I think. Take it or leave it, That's MY opinion

Ok -- I can go along with that. Thanks for explaining!

I see what you mean, and I use exaggeration to (forcefully) make my point -- not to insult you.

Glad you didn't take it personally -- interesting subject!

It's easy for me, when I want to have an idea about a band or album I don't know, I try read:

1. Reviews by people who love the album,relatively objective  reviews and some others from people who hates the album: Reading all, I make an idea about the great highlights only fans see, the good and high points an objective reviewer can see and the flaws that only a hater can see.
2. Opinions and facts: I also need  to know the obvious influences and technical facts, but the negative or posituive impact that an album produces in the listener is also important for me.
3. Emotions: That's one of the most important part of a review, if the music or painting or any form of art doesn't prodice emotions, then it's not art.

So reading as many reviews as possible and tryng to evaluate the position and knowledge of the reviewer will give me a relatively accurate idea of the album.

Iván

Peter wrote: Ok -- I can go along with that. Thanks for explaining!   I see what you mean, and I use exaggeration to (forcefully) make my point -- not to insult you. Glad you didn't take it personally -- interesting subject!

No problems, at least u had me explaining correctly, which I sometimes not do

There's no point in someone who doesn't listen to metal reviewing a metal album, unless (as in the case of Opeth), fans of the band are claiming that the band/album should appeal to people who don't normally listen to the genre.

If I read about a band then they have to have something about them that really stands out to persuade me to give them a listen. If a band claims to be innovative, persuades me to listen to them, and then I find it's not at all, then I'd write a poor review (someday..!). If, however, when reading about them I see nothing to persuade me to listen (and if I disliked metal, them being metal would quite possibly instantly dissuade me), then I'd just ignore them.

Thanks for all your replies so far ... I think we can all agree that good reviews will always contain facts, opinions and emotions. And even if the review is 95% emotive, it can still be very entertaining, although it tells little about the item reviewed. Maybe the best advice is to try to be sure that you know sufficient similar artists before writing a review. And to give the album a few spins AND enough time to grow on you

Peter wrote: lostrom wrote: I rather have information than opinions in a review! Opinions are for those who wants to shine themselfs when writing, information is for those who puts the reader first! How can we respond to art without involving opinion? "This painting is 6' by 8.' It was done with oils, on canvas. There is a preponderance of blue and red. The subject is a vase of mixed flowers. The artist was 42 when he painted it. He lived in Paris." Rivetting! Or: "The band has four members. They are named Peter, Paul, Steve and Bob, and they play guitars, bass, drums and keyboards, respectively. The CD has a photo of a red car on the cover. The usual time signature is 4/4." Gripping, and so... informative! As soon as I tell you who they "sound like," or attempt to categorize the music, or even tell you if I like it, I am veering into the verboten opinion territory. Art appeals (mainly) to the emotions, not the intellect, and each of us responds in our unique way, based upon all the factors that make one an individual. That's MY opinion.... Whoops -- sorry!

couldn't be more true

TBWART wrote: Peter wrote: lostrom wrote: I rather have information than opinions in a review! Opinions are for those who wants to shine themselfs when writing, information is for those who puts the reader first! How can we respond to art without involving opinion? "This painting is 6' by 8.' It was done with oils, on canvas. There is a preponderance of blue and red. The subject is a vase of mixed flowers. The artist was 42 when he painted it. He lived in Paris." Rivetting! Or: "The band has four members. They are named Peter, Paul, Steve and Bob, and they play guitars, bass, drums and keyboards, respectively. The CD has a photo of a red car on the cover. The usual time signature is 4/4." Gripping, and so... informative! As soon as I tell you who they "sound like," or attempt to categorize the music, or even tell you if I like it, I am veering into the verboten opinion territory. Art appeals (mainly) to the emotions, not the intellect, and each of us responds in our unique way, based upon all the factors that make one an individual. That's MY opinion.... Whoops -- sorry! couldn't be more true

Excuse me, my dear overall knowing gentleman!!! Please read the rest of our debate!! We turned up in having the same opinion, so don't make a thing out of nothing!! Ok????

Hello very knowledgeable debaters

My question to you all is why would you review an album from a genre you did not like? 

I would do such a review for a great deal of money or under threat of mutilation or death!

Sounds extreme and emotional, I know. I cannot see that such a review would be objective and I would question the subjectiveness - Is the review a truthful observation by the reviewer or is that person only writing what he wants the readers to see/hear?

Its my opinion that some of the so called worse reviews are totally objective and are entirely useless to the reader, who is after all, are looking for some hard facts as well as to get an idea as to whether the album excited or dulled the senses of the reviewer.

I cannot believe that anyone would willingly review something they disliked intently - for me it would be rap or death metal.

I welcome your comments.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Examples: - Someone who doesn't like Death Metal reviews Opeth - A "Metal Head" reviews 70s King Crimson

i agree with reviewers should stick to the genres they like for them most part

but i just have to say that your example are dead wrong

many Metalheads look down on Opeth, i would imagine Death metalheads especially

and there are a whole helluvalot of metalheads that love Crimson

no offence, but you using those examples is like giving a review of a genre you dislike

Aaron

Aaron wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Examples: - Someone who doesn't like Death Metal reviews Opeth - A "Metal Head" reviews 70s King Crimson i agree with reviewers should stick to the genres they like for them most part but i just have to say that your example are dead wrong many Metalheads look down on Opeth, i would imagine Death metalheads especially

I was thinking of Death Metal as far as the vocals are concerned. Being an Opeth fan, I know that they are difficult to categorize, so "Death Metal" describes them as good or bad as "Progressive Metal". But you're right, I should have said: "Someone who doesn't like Death Metal vocals reviews Opeth"

Aaron wrote: and there are a whole helluvalot of metalheads that love Crimson

Are you sure? I don't think that the average Iron Maiden fan has too many King Crimson albumsin his/her archive

Aaron wrote: no offence, but you using those examples is like giving a review of a genre you dislike Aaron

I think it's possible to write reviews with the intention of being objective if you appreciate what the artist is trying to achieve.

At least, that's what I try to do in my reviews. It's an attempt to blend what I enjoy about analysing music in technical depth with the non-technical "touchy-feely" likes and dislikes; e.g. I dislike Dream Theater's music on "Images and Words", but can't help being impressed by the precision virtuosity.

I've reviewed some of my favourites, but those tend to be my least objective reviews, as I "get off" on the subject matter. If a piece of music excites me, then I feel the need to share that excitement in the hope that others will feel the same thing. At the same time, I do try to get at the technical reasons behind my liking for the piece - no matter how tenuous!

When I review any album - even albums I dislike, I focus on the music. What is happening in the music that brings about the effects the band are seeking to portray? Do I understand what they're trying to do, even if I don't like it? What exactly are the band doing - what resources are they using (musical styles, instrumentation, etc.), who do they remind me of, what clever technical devices are they using - anything that's interesting in the construction of the music itself. Then I try to put that into more digestible English...

Historical tid-bits are always fascinating - and DJPanurge's fantastic background on the story behind "Kid A" and "Amnesiac" is exactly the sort of stuff I like to read in other's reviews.

I think my review of ELP's debut album strikes a reasonable balance between objectivity and subjectivity - I point out the standout facets of the music that I do and don't like and, even though I dislike the album on the whole, I still awarded it 4 stars - which is appropriate for a prog album that should be in every proggers collection!

In short, I think it's possible to admire what a band does even if it doesn't tickle the musical tastebuds - but there's no point reveiwing an album if all you're going to do is go in with all guns blazing against something you hate.

Peter wrote: ^ I (and others) have said it all before. Can anyone find (and post) that old thread about this very subject, please?

Here's one Pierre, I only remember it becuase I started that one! I think there are others though.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1080 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1080

Easy Livin wrote: Peter wrote: ^ I (and others) have said it all before. Can anyone find (and post) that old thread about this very subject, please? Here's one Pierre, I only remember it becuase I started that one! I think there are others though. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1080 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1080

Thanks Easy, you techno-wiz, you -- you're a peach!

That's one -- but not the one I was thinking of. I know that I took part, and I think that it may have been in the Collaborator's forum, after some of my fellow reviewers took issue with my (unflattering) Dream Theater review. I don't know how to post old threads like that, ....

Try this one Pete:

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3590 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3590

To post a thread link Peter, all you need to do is highlight the address of the page in the address line at the top, press CTRL+C together to copy it, then paste it into the reply screen using CTRL+V. I'll pop round and show you, put the kettle on...

Easy Livin wrote: Peter wrote: ^ I (and others) have said it all before. Can anyone find (and post) that old thread about this very subject, please? Here's one Pierre, I only remember it becuase I started that one! I think there are others though. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1080 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1080

I read that post in the forum and you ask some very interesting questions, Easy Livin.

Knowledge of the genre that is being reviewed is a distinct advantage. As I hinted in my earlier post, I would not review work from a genre I was not entirely familiar with or the music of which I disliked. My writing style would reflect that...not quite guns blazing but almost certainly "short, sharp and too the point".

That does not mean I am not up for a challenge. If some one handed me an Opeth album for review - I would do so - but it would probably require many listens and it would be a review done non-hastily and with thought.

I agree that reviews of albums that have been released the day before can not be subjective. Porcupine Tree's "Deadwing" is a great example of many reviews done before the dust has settled.

Like good wine, an album matures with age or in this instance with repeated listenings. Then one would hope to be able to write a balanced review both subjectively and objectively.

Easy Livin wrote: Try this one Pete: To post a thread link Peter, all you need to do is highlight the address of the page in the address line at the top, press CTRL+C together to copy it, then paste it into the reply screen using CTRL+V. I'll pop round and show you, put the kettle on...

BTW, thanks again, but that wasn't the thread either....

Oh well!

OK Peter, I think I found it this time, it was that wicked James Lee who cited your review.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1037 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1037

Easy Livin wrote: OK Peter, I think I found it this time, it was that wicked James Lee who cited your review.

Hoo-rah for Cheesy Oblivion!

That was the one -- third time's the charm, EL....

I admire your tenacity -- now go out and get a life, mate!

PS: The kettle boiled dry, and nearly burned the house down (plus, I had to drink all the ale, before it spoiled)!

Where were you? Trying to clear yer kilt contents through customs?

A life?, Not a chance!

Anyway, see I got on the bus OK, but the driver said my ticket wouldn't get me to Canada... Do you realise how far away you live!?

That was a good read, good threads do excist

Of course these threads where from a time I wasn't on the forum to dumb it down a little.

Easy Livin wrote: OK Peter, I think I found it this time, it was that wicked James Lee who cited your review. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1037 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1037

Yeah, don't you just hate those little know-it-all pr1cks who show up out of nowhere with their snotty attitudes? I know I do.

James Lee wrote: Easy Livin wrote: OK Peter, I think I found it this time, it was that wicked James Lee who cited your review. http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1037 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1037 Yeah, don't you just hate those little know-it-all pr1cks who show up out of nowhere with their snotty attitudes? I know I do.

It was a well-articulated/reasoned post which led to a refreshingly(compared to current standards) mature and intelligent thread.

I might post a load of sh*t most of the time,but it is because there is nothing of interest to get my teeth into....