Why Analyse Songs?!

[RoaRing_Roach]

here are some thoughts...
I do NOT understand why most of the reviews have song by song (in depth)analysis!
Since it's a review,one is reading it in order to buy the album.Thus he has NOT heard any/some/all of the album's tracks.How on earth can someone explain you by wrinting,the structure/emotion/meaning of the song?If u dont listen to it trere's no point in someone explaining it to you...So INSTEAD of writin useless IMO opinions (which always are controversial) about each album's track,try giving out information about:

1.the production of the album (good/bad,producer,cost,place)
2.OVERALL feeling (comparisons between older/newer albums of the artist or of similar genre albums)
3.time/duration comparison
4.highlight the album's best moments(amazing vocals,funky grooves,well matched bass-guitar riffs...etc)
5.trivia things (that are always intresting to read...like odd stories related to this album-e.g. the 30min myth for paranoid- or the artists' statements for this album)
6. Pros/Cons-generally with you personal point of view-just a few lines

(there is a review http://www.musicianforums.com/sputnik/album.php?albumid=2447 which is all :thumb:

[Permanent Solution]

I think I do a good song by song review style that doesn't suffer from the flaws you describe, though maybe not. I'll let you decide:
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?reviewid=4097

[Storm In A Teacup]

Why in the hell would it be important for people to know where an album is produced and how much that it cost? People can't do your second point if it is the bands first and only album. Your 5th point is just stupid also.

Edit: Not trying to sound mean I do understand why you don't like Track by Tracks.

Edit: I just went to your example of a good review and it's Linkin Park's Live in Texas which isn't of new material and also it isn't that good of a review really.

[Shadows]

I don't think track-by-tracks are very helpful, but for different reasons. Most TBT reviews are just a few lines on each song. The in-depth ones basically tell you exactly how a song sounds (ie, this part, and then this part, followed by this part). Overall, they don't say much other than what songs the reviewer does/doesn't like. They really don't describe the album or give any details.

Some can be good, I really don't place much weight on them. I prefer ones that give the reviewers' opinion as well as describing various aspects of the album they did/didn't like.

[Britney Diva]

Personal choice, or something. Even magazine reviews pick out certain songs for at least basic analysis, most people's reviews are simply expanding on that. You have to remember that sputnik is a fan site. Most people know the albums they review well and want to go in to a lot of detail on songs.

[Jom]

I do NOT understand why most of the reviews have (in depth)analysis!

Derr...

How on earth can someone explain the structure of the song?

It's not hard to do that if you listen to the tracks.

If u dont listen to it trere's no point in someone explaining it to you.

Disagree.

So INSTEAD of writin useless IMO opinions

Operative acronym highlighted.

And now my favorite part.

Talk about instead:

2.OVERALL feeling

Derrrhrrhrrhrhrhrhrhrhr.

4.highlight the album's best moments(amazing vocals,funky grooves,well matched bass-guitar riffs...etc)

Derrhrhrhrhrhrhhrhrr.

5.trivia things (that are always intresting to read...like odd stories related to this album-e.g. the 30min myth for paranoid- or the artists' statements for this album)
6. Pros/Cons-generally with you personal point of view-just a few lines

Derrhrhrhrhhrhr.

///

This entire argument was so painfully circular, you can't even address it.

[Neoteric]

Bha, close this.