What makes a good review

Submitted by Aka on Tue, 2003-07-15 15:42

As i write the odd review here and there, as well as doing a bit of editing for other people.
I would also like to see more reviews posted on Nzm, so to that end...
What factors make a review good?
What bits are best left unsaid?
and the BIG question at the moment do you have to be in a band to know what you are talking about?

Comments

Submitted by Big_Stu on Tue, 2003-07-15 17:27.

I am assuming here that you are talking about reviews of live performances.

Last things first ... would you go and see this performer again? Why?

Descibe the performance. Describe the performers (musically) Give the reader a sense of what happened. How did you react? The audience? The performers?

Be "professional." Avoid abuse. Describing a performer as "a self abusing, mysoginstic donkey turd with all the talent of a flat worm" is likely to alienate people and ensure your name is struck from any number of door lists. If you have a negative reaction to a performer or performance say so, but don't personalise it.

Be honest.

Be aware of your own prejudices; if you don't like a particular type of music it is probably best to avoid reviewing that type of performance.

Be interesting. Arouse the reader's interest.

Be factual.

I think that it pays to be careful to isolate yourself a bit as well. If you are going to review a performance perhaps it would pay to avoid the mosh-pit ... too easy to get carried away with the crowd to be truly objective I think.

Try to write clearly. Most reviews will probably be limited in length so avoid a blow by blow description of the entire performance. Mention high and low points of the performance.

If you are reviewing a show where there are several bands performing try not to let the individual performances prejudice you. If the opening band absolutely rocks the joint it may make it hard to be truly objective about the bands that follow ... they may be awesome as well but suffer in comparison, But in this type of review it is fair to comment about how the overall show went. Do the various performers "fit" ( a personal eg. when the Bee Gees performed at Western Springs a few years back the opening act was Bic Runga. I felt that she just didn't fit ... I like her stuff but it just seemed out of place in that environment. Seemed more suited to something a little more intimate)

I hope this helps.

Submitted by Big_Stu on Tue, 2003-07-15 17:30.

And no, I don't think you have to be in a band to know what you are talking about. Many of the people who read your review will not be in bands either ... the review should generally be from the punter's perspective.

And lots of people who are not in bands understand the ideas of melody, harmony, rythym etc better than some people in bands! Heh heh heh

Submitted by Stefan on Wed, 2003-07-16 00:12.

// too easy to get carried away with the crowd to be truly objective I think.

Objective? You can try all you can to but it is impossible to be objective and that kind of beats the purpose of going to a gig. Be objective and distant and you lose the energy, the guts of the performace. You become too technical, too sterile. Experience the gig. Just make sure to take notes or something.

Submitted by Aka on Wed, 2003-07-16 03:59.

I find that I have to agree, with Stefan, I find if I sit down at the back with my note book, the 4th wall on the stage appears, leaving me cold and disinterested, and as Big Stu said.. //the review should generally be from the punter's perspective... this is impossible in you don't become involved.
I have also found watching a gig via a view finder equally limiting

Submitted by Big_Stu on Wed, 2003-07-16 12:05.

I dunno .... I'm not saying that you shouldn't "get involved" with the gig. As a reviewer you're not doing your job if you don't convey a sense of the experience. What I am saying is that you must be reasonably objective or else your review becomes nothing more than the the old " I saw so-and-so last night. They were fuckin' awesome!" To my mind that is not a review. Tells me, the potential punter, nothing except that for some reason (excess booze, dope, whatever) the person liked the band.

The other aspect of the review that is perhaps as important as the information for the punter is the information for the band. A good (in the sense of objective and well reasoned) review can help a band develop. "So-and-so played and they sucked" helps no-one. But justify your reaction and perhaps the band can learn from it.

I guess in a way I am looking at reviews as something more than just a gut reaction. But that is what I, as a potential punter, want in a review. Reasons to go and see a performer or buy their CD or whatever.

And one last thing ... keep the jargon to a minimum.

Submitted by Heather on Tue, 2003-07-15 17:55.

I think often reviews work best when the reviewer is writing it like they'd speak it - just writing down the stuff they've been saying to their friends about the gig all day. It's one thing that makes the reviews on these forums really good - most people just pop online to say "hey, that was a great / crap / middling gig last night etc" and don't put too many hours into perfecting the life out of their message.

One thing that annoys me a bit is when reviews read like diary entries - some focus more on what the reviewer did than the actual bands. It makes sense if you're doing a review on the Big Day Out - when the review is more of the festival experience than any one band, but for a single-stage gig with just three or four sets, I want to know about the bands. That said, I don't mind if the reviewer wants to mention some really freaky incident in the bathroom, and it's always good to know when the reviewer's feeling particularly jaded (or overexcited) on the night, thus possibly skewing their opinion of the gig.

Submitted by Heather on Tue, 2003-07-15 18:01.

//most people just pop online to say "hey, that was a great / crap / middling gig last night etc" and don't put too many hours into perfecting the life out of their message.

Obviously this can be a disadvantage as well since many people don't think before they type, but I'm talking more about people who post reviews or just simple thumbs-up reasonably regularly, and who can refrain from personal insults.

Submitted by Heather on Tue, 2003-07-15 18:03.

ooo, while I'm here - I know he gets a bit of flak, and I do think he can be a bit harsh sometimes, but I like Stefan's reviews. They're straightforward and informative.

Submitted by Aka on Tue, 2003-07-15 18:36.

I also like stefan's reviews.

Submitted by Stefan on Wed, 2003-07-16 00:08.

Thanks. I know I can be harsh. Sometimes I don't realise it. I get jaded sometimes and worn out and stuff. Oh and I really like my music, maybe too much. But to water things down I don't feel I'm being honest to my opinion. I also try to get some sort of consensus from people around me to make sure I'm not the only one that thinks so.

Submitted by goosus on Wed, 2003-07-16 02:09.

yeah, the first review i ever read on NZM was one of stefan's and i was really impressed. keep up the good work.

Submitted by velocity on Tue, 2003-07-15 18:28.

One point that's been missed thus far that I think is very important (and maybe it's because this is my own personal slant):

I think a review ought to be worth reading. I think a review should have structure: a beginning, middle and end. It should have a thesis statement, and points to support it. Most importantly, I think a review ought to be entertaining. It should, all in all, be a damn good read.

And, as a writer, it should be something I'm proud to put my name on.

Submitted by Vietnow on Tue, 2003-07-15 19:16.

are you a writer?

Submitted by grimmybug on Tue, 2003-07-15 20:48.

she's an excellent writer!

refer to link below to sample some of her brilliance:

[ http://www.nzmusic.com/topic.cfm?i=4216 ]

Submitted by goosus on Wed, 2003-07-16 02:07.

wow, that was really good. i hope to read more of your work, velocity.

Submitted by jimi on Tue, 2003-07-15 18:50.

Hmmm, I wrote a review a little while ago and got no comments..... it was pretty much my first one. Anyone want to give some feedback?

[ http://www.nzmusic.com/topic.cfm?i=4209 ]

Submitted by chewdogg on Tue, 2003-07-15 19:57.

i just read your reveiw and it's alot better than alot of the published ones i've seen....you have all the elements, your opinion, comparisons and a final judgement of the night as a whole...keep it up dude!

btw i take it you're in dunners...have you heard that new station "inferno"? what do think?

Submitted by jimi on Tue, 2003-07-15 20:46.

Hey cheers man. That's appreciated. I'm in Dunedin yes, but I haven't heard of inferno. What's the dealio?

Submitted by chewdogg on Tue, 2003-07-15 21:23.

lil student station on 107 fm. they have a launch party on the 30th at arc. they play alot of music the commercials miss....even their ads kick ass. the announcings a bit rough but oh well, it can be quite a laugh! you can't get it every where though (weak signal)

Submitted by limegreen on Tue, 2003-07-15 21:35.

isn't inferno part of one of the polytech programs. It happens once a year for about a month or something and then disappears again. Usually a few days before I get round to twisting the dial...

Submitted by chewdogg on Tue, 2003-07-15 21:41.

yep...i was part of it when we first called it inferno. but now we're trying to make it a real business. i'm hoping to come back down and do brekkie for them soon.

actually it's great knowing that someone has heard of inferno

Submitted by Prozaco on Tue, 2003-07-15 19:07.

short. witty. to the point.

Submitted by grimmybug on Tue, 2003-07-15 19:14.

this is a really good topic and so far everyone's made really good points :) sorry about the tangent and the gushy warm fuzzies, but it's great to see a topic that's gonna be helpful for someone actually trying to break into this kind of thing, i've got an interest myself but i don't think i'm a good enough writer, i'm better at being sarcastic and stating the blatantly obvious :Þ

back to it - i think as long as you're honest it's going to have a good foundation, knowing your stuff and researching the topic is also a thumbs up, & i reckon being able to tell people stuff they don't already know is going to make people remember it, point out the highlights and the lowlights and as heather said, don't make it a diary entry

Submitted by noizyboy on Tue, 2003-07-15 19:47.

// i'm better at being sarcastic and stating the blatantly obvious

sounds like you're over-qualified.

Submitted by grimmybug on Tue, 2003-07-15 19:57.

*quits job immediately*

screw this IT crap! i'm-a gon' go insult some bands and crush some egos! :D

Submitted by Tama Drummer on Tue, 2003-07-15 20:18.

I don't really like reading reviews, because most times I think differently

Submitted by Monkey Puzzle on Tue, 2003-07-15 20:46.

As a musician I often find reviews are quite opposite in opinion to what I think as well, but maybe thats because they are often written by "punters" and not performers, I guess it's quite hard as a musician to see things written about your own band or bands that you know well that you may not agree with, and still remember that the writer doesn't know or possibly even care how much effort has gone into making that performance happen, from songwriting to practice to hours spent on the phone setting it up, then the next day you read a bad review, it's hard to swallow your pride and say hey fuck it thats only one persons opinion, I know from personal experience that even if it's going to be a bad review it's alot easier to take if the writer gives valid reasons for the review eg, the sound quality was bad, th eperformance lacked energy etc, and not just slag the band because maybe they played music the reviewer isn't into or doesn't understand, we had a review once for an album release and the editor of the magazine had given our CD, which at the time was thrashy punk, to the Jazz/Classical reviewer, naturally the review was less than golden. I don't know if any of this rambling is useful to you, but at least I feel better now, to those who read the whole thing thanks for your patience.

Submitted by jimi on Tue, 2003-07-15 20:53.

What's wrong with other people's opinions being different from yours Tama? Music can't be whittled down into right and wrong, and I don't think disagreement is a bad thing at all. There's too little informed, passionate debate around the world.

Submitted by Monkey Puzzle on Tue, 2003-07-15 21:30.

Disagreement can be a wonderful thing, and even better if there's something that both parties can learn from that disagreement, it can be quite deflating to read a bad review, but at the same time very enlightening to see how someone else percieves your music, it's just the pointless sledging and name calling perpetrated by the ignorant few that give reviewers such a bad name with the bands they review.

Submitted by Monkey Puzzle on Tue, 2003-07-15 21:30.

Disagreement can be a wonderful thing, and even better if there's something that both parties can learn from that disagreement, it can be quite deflating to read a bad review, but at the same time very enlightening to see how someone else percieves your music, it's just the pointless sledging and name calling perpetrated by the ignorant few that give reviewers such a bad name with the bands they review.

Submitted by Monkey Puzzle on Tue, 2003-07-15 21:31.

oops, sorry must have double clicked...i'm not that shit hot with a keyboard!

Submitted by Tama Drummer on Tue, 2003-07-15 22:13.

well say it is a cd review, that person might say its the greatest ever, but then I go & buy & hate it!!
Its a personal opinion from someone that I don't know, that most times has different musical tastes than me.

Submitted by jimi on Thu, 2003-07-17 18:17.

Well, a good reviewer will make it as objective as humanly possible. And you can listen to cd's before you buy them, you know. Reviews can be really valuable for finding out about new music.

Submitted by mike020682 on Wed, 2003-07-16 04:52.

all i can say is for gods sake explain yourselves...
Giving a band a bad review doesnt help anyone if its not explained....
saying a band sux doesn't say anything.
and also i think that personal opinions are bollocks.
Like saying "its not my cuppa tea" doesn't say anything.
Thats your taste, you know, what you like, it doesn't say anything about what goes on.

[ http://www.superbad.com ]

Submitted by Heather on Wed, 2003-07-16 13:56.

//all i can say is for gods sake explain yourselves...
Absolutely.

//and also i think that personal opinions are bollocks. Like saying "its not my cuppa tea" doesn't say anything.
I like a reviewer to say this just because if the rest of the review is quite negative, in my head I can scale it up a bit. In fact, I wish more reviewers would admit this. If you can say "I hated the band for xyz reason", but then say "but that's just a matter of taste - the rest of the audience were going wild" I think that's a much better balanced review than just saying the band was crap.

Submitted by Monkey Puzzle on Wed, 2003-07-16 14:18.

It ultimately shouldn't really matter what the reviewer says as long as they are balanced in their opinion, still it's important to remember that it is only one persons opinion, as much as we may hate it or disagree with it.
Besides i've actually found some of my favourite bands by reading a really bad review nad then thinking "no, they can't be that bad, but if they are it'd be funny to hear" often it works the other way too, I see a great review of a CD or show and buy into it, only to discover that it was definitely NOT my cup of tea "Cave et emptor" let the buyer beware!

Submitted by Big_Stu on Wed, 2003-07-16 14:39.

//and also i think that personal opinions are bollocks.

Any review is going to be just that. What is important is that the opinion is backed up.

Submitted by carl on Wed, 2003-07-16 23:48.

your opinion is wrong

Submitted by Joanna on Thu, 2003-07-17 14:36.

See, I think it's important that you state your personal preferences before the review - I know at work I try to avoid reviewing house music cds because i have a bad predisposition towards them, in the same way that I'm desperately trying to find someone who doesn't immediately turn up their nose when I say "can you do a staind review for me please?". If something's bad, then I think it's fine to give it a bad review, but if you know you don't like something in advance, you won't be able to do an objective review.

Submitted by foetusboy on Wed, 2003-07-16 12:57.

I think a reviewer has to tell the truth, yet make the truth interesting for us to read. Reviewers need an angle. Some reviewers have a writing style powerful enough to convey their angle without having to pointedly explain it- quite clever really. A reviewer shouldn't feel like they always have to say nice things about the band they're reviewing. Some bands need to get better at accepting bad press as a part of life, and moving on.

Submitted by BillyMarilli on Wed, 2003-07-16 22:44.

review the reviewers, lets make sure they have taste. now lets define taste.

Submitted by robyn on Thu, 2003-07-17 04:00.

- Don't review what the gig/album is, but how it is.

- Stick with what you know. If you hate metal, stay away from metal bands. If pop makes you feel ill, put down the Britney CD and give it to someone else.

- Don't feel obliged to give a local band a positive review to support them. If they suck, they need to know this. Constructive criticism is not abuse.

- Include your opinion, your reactions, your feelings, but don't make the review about you. You're the reviewer, not the subject.

- Pay attention to stuff other than the music. It's the little details - stuff like audience reaction, the way the band interacts with the crowd - that makes the true picture emerge.

- Watch out for your mood. If you're in a shitty mood, drunk, chemically happy, that's going to act as a filter that may skew your perception of how things really are.

- Honesty really is the best policy.

Submitted by Joanna on Thu, 2003-07-17 14:51.

Listen to Robyn, for she is wise. Here's two reviews of one Placebo album that I wrote - the first is excessively self indulgent and I was told off for it - not just by her but I was offered constructive criticism by others as well, while the second is somewhat better, although not necessarily brilliant:

[ external link ]

Submitted by nottired on Mon, 2003-07-21 00:42.

Here's self-indulgent. I didn't bother reading what he actually thought of the album.

[ external link ]

Submitted by Micky Darp on Tue, 2003-07-22 16:16.

ahh - robyn hit the preverbial nail! rule #1 is dont do a review for a genre of music you are not interested in!

Submitted by lena o on Wed, 2003-07-23 12:36.

if you ain't interested in all genres you shouldn't be reviewing

Submitted by lena o on Thu, 2003-07-17 14:10.

1- reviewer must understand & apply the golden rule to the subject reviewed
2- review itself must adhere to the golden rule
viz a 'rock critic' i knew back in the day- some of his stuff is collected in a book- psychotic reactions & carburettor dung

Submitted by robyn on Fri, 2003-07-18 05:13.

Ah yes, "Psychotic Reactions and Carburettor Dung" should be on the recommended reading list for all wannabe reviewers.

Submitted by Geekboy on Sat, 2003-07-19 19:00.

Completely subjective and opinionated.
*smirk*

[ http://www.mediasite.de/geekboy ]

Submitted by St. Lucy on Mon, 2003-07-21 18:44.

I think that it comes down to honesty. Say what you think, an honest review read by three people is better than some piece of literary genius masking pretentious bollocks read by thousands, (note: R.I.U readership is up, yay!). I think a good review need not conform to ANY equation and can, in itself, be as entertaining as any given piece of music, gig, video, yada yada. I'm back by the way, been in rehab according to some guy from stardrunk, personally, I'd believe him. Then again, I'm a liar, and therefore would probably write crappy reviews. Hi Mr. Puzz.
Mark

[ http://www.mp3.com.au/stlucy ]