a pretty difficult thing to master. So many people seem to do it these days, but not that many people do it really well. (My efforts always tend to be ham-fisted and formulaic). Personally, I tend to enjoy wordy stuff with a bit of flair. For me, it's not necessary to compare the subjects to other bands, or be too muso-ish in describing their sound. I find it far more effective when, like you say, feelings and images come into it...

but that makes sense. It's true that it's impossible for anyone to be truly objective when reviewing music. It's daft when people get offended by reviewers who disagree with their tastes.

i think honesty is more important than anything else - though some writing flair, articulacy, knowledge etc, would be good... if that honesty amounts to giving an opinion on the current state and direction of a band you've loved/known about for years, great.. if it comes down to giving a vivid response to something you've never heard before now, so be it.

if you're a long-term fan of a band though, particularly if you've written about them before, i think it is important to try and get closer to objectivity than you usually would, otherwise it will usually read like an ill-advised love-letter.

is nice. Instead of just spouting a load of crap.

That Brent DiChrhehdncdezo on pitchfork is the worst reviewer ever.

however, the definition of exactly how much knowledge is pretty hard to judge, surely.

that said, if i were to write a review of, say, a jazz album, i would adopt a more obviously subjective tone than if i were writing about current indierock.

i think that if something doesnt have a massive effect on you but a review is still needed (for this is how the "press" works often), then you can write about what other people might see in it and give it the benefit of the doubt. obviously this isnt going to be as good a review as something that you have a definite reaction to.

it's good.

So I'm fucked really.

I want a genuine response to the music, not a dry description with short, badly punctuated sentences then a half arsed summing up. I want adjectives, dammit. And if reference points are used, I want them used intelligently, not in a shitty "this sounds a bit like (whatever) except crossed with (whatever) not bad 3/5".

It can go to far though, and you end up with a big pile of self-indulgent twaddle that's actually just about the writer's ego rather than the music in question.

Plan B treads the line closely, occasionally producing the most hateful shite I can think of, but more often producing really engaging, revealing, insightful creative music writing.

all a review can ever be is an opinion, so why try to hide that? as long as the reviewer gives a decent idea as to why they like or dislike the record, of course.

when someone tries to come across as an authority and fucks up royally, it starts getting pathetic - which is pitchfork's main problem.

although the reviews in Vice are an extreme, they usually say far more about a record than one of Pitchfork's lengthy wordy pieces that really reveal very little.

I love reading and i love music - combine the two ; badda boom...erm... yeah it's great.

:)

...everything comes down to an opinion anyway and there's no fact as to "what's good" and "what's bad".

I think a review is a personal thing and there is no particular style that works or doesn't work for me - it depends on the writer and there are people who can and can't review well in various different 'styles' of a review.

What is important to me is getting a sense of who has written the review and where they're coming from as someone can give something 10/10 but want something different out of music to what you do so they're review won't be too helpful (although that won't make it bad).

The one thing I do think is important is that the reviewer tries to understand what the artist is aiming for (even if the person misses completely). I occasionally read terrible reviews (oddly especially in broadsheets) where the reviewer essentially criticises something for being something that it's not even trying to be (for example I once read a review of Donnie Darko on Amazon where the reviewer hated it cos "it's a rubbish horror film. It's not even scary").

The other thing that tends to fail is when the reviewer is more interested in showing off the brilliance of their writing rather than telling us anything about the item they're reviewing - especially when they're reviewing something they hate.

I think the worst thing is when someone reviews something they know full well they don't like and then criticises it 'cos it's completely unhelpful - if there's not a chance of you enjoying the act then there's not much point of you reviewing it 'cos the people who share your views wouldn't buy it anyway and the people who like that artist won't share your view on the CD.

Lastly I don't believe any amount of 'knowledge' enables you to write an objective review and similarly I don't think any lack of such 'knowledge' stops you from saying if you did or didn't like something. For me, at least, my music tastes are an emotional reaction. Essentially I like something or I don't and no amount of objective, rational argument will ever change my view.

"understanding what the artist is aiming for".

I don't want a rambling essay from teh reviewer or anything. All I mean is that it's unreasonable to, for example, give Belle & Sebastian a bad review 'cos it's not heavy metal.

Also I'm not belittling knowledge. It's simply that you CANNOT be objective in a review as there is no right or wrong answer to whether anything's good. Everything comes down to whether or not the reviewer personally enjoyed the music and to pretend there's any greater science behind it would be ludicrous.

Just came across this post again from a while ago (I bookmarked it for later reading 'cos I'm sad like that). I think I'm probably as guilty as anyone of most of the "no-no"s listed here at some point or other, but at other times, usually when it's a record I really dig, I can be inspired to not be shit. Personally though, I hate reviews that talk about anything but the music, and especially tell personal anecdotes (although I must admit to once or twice doing that just to fill a word count...)

Anyway, purely out of interest, how does one of mine match up to your personal tastes? http://jonathan-d.blogspot.com/2006/07/album-review-viva-voce-get-yr-blood.html One of my less pretentious pieces! Sorry to whore my site - genuinely interested in opinions though.

...that it obviously has to give something of the person that's writing it. In other words, what you said.

Because you can't really do a review as a statement of fact. Razorlight's new album got one star in The Times and five in Q. Meaning that unless you know where the writer's coming from, they serve no use as a "buyer's guide". And they have to be a buyer's guide to some extent, otherwise people might as well just write articles rather than record reviews.

always personal. all the best have been.

bangs, prindle, swells.

Very interesting

Having old threads raised from the dead is scary.
I like this one though :)