Album Rating: 3.8

I thought his review was so powerful because it was so different in its focus from all the other reviews I've read

Album Rating: 5.0

there being a slightly better way of doing it implies there's a good way of doing it in the first place. i don't think that's true at all. if we were trying to describe music in reviews we would just use a tbt. it's descriptive and represents the whole album. if we were trying to simply provide/defend our opinion, then we'd talk about w/e is relevant to our opinion.



maybe for someone the instruments aren't noticeable enough one way or another to be worth writing about, but the lyrics are really affecting.

Album Rating: 5.0

there being a slightly better way of doing it implies there's a good way of doing it in the first place.

maybe for someone the instruments aren't noticeable enough one way or another to be worth writing about

can't we all agree that this difference in preference just depends on what people want to get out of a review?

I think reviews that focus on things like the artist's place in the music, placing the album in context, interesting subtexts, etc. are far far more interesting than a piece that focuses more on "the sound," and I think reviewers are under no obligation whatsoever to the reader to tell them what it sounds like.

I understand somebody wanting to know what something sounds like and being disappointed by the aforementioned type of review... but then again, I think reading a review / going into music with that mindset is limiting and ... problematic? disappointing?

reviews properly performed become a companion piece of artistry to the music rather than a mechanical description of the album. again, it depends on what the reader wants, but why not just go to LastFm and look at "Similar Bands" and a short description if you want to know that?... I think part of the appeal of a place like sputnikmusic is that it's a place where people come to hone a craft, not learn a technical trade.

Album Rating: 5.0

I agree with all that (re:original post), but at the same time you have to elaborate on what makes the

album unique and why, in context, it matters. You have to reach a certain level of specificity for

this to be accomplished. athom did this but the question is, for me at least, did he go deep enough?

Is it enough to identify the concept of the album and talk about why it's important to you? I think

Propose sees it as self-serving and alienating to someone unfamiliar with the same type of feelings

Adam has and I don't really agree with that but it's something to consider.

i get that. i just also think that people with intelligence can distinguish between the two, no?

and re: FDH

I agree - writers walk a really fine line when the review becomes basically a diary entry. at that point my interest in the review really depends on how familiar I am with the reviewer, more than anything. so (obviously) I think different circumstances call for different levels of specificity, but I don't think there's any bare minimum of description that needs to be achieved for a review to be "good."

like I said though, it's a tough line to balance on. some of my favorite users/writers on sputnik (see: Aids and Adam Knott) I think have written some really dismal reviews* in the past just because they get far too sappy and I'm reading it like okay but so what?. (actually, I'll include myself in that company, see: Northstar - Pollyanna). at that point it just takes very solid, interesting writing to pull off that effect.

*on the other hand I'm aware that said reviews were likely written more for themselves than for others, which is perfectly justifiable.

Album Rating: 5.0

I hear you. I think some of my critique comes from my familiarity with Home Like No Place Is There. On one hand, it has me wishing it was more specific because that's the route I would have taken, on the other it's me wondering if I would appreciate the review if I hadn't heard it yet. I think I would but idk I'm thick sometimes.



Also I think I need a third hand because I fucked up that construction

Album Rating: 3.8

Man I wish discussions like these were more common

cue nostalgia for 2009 sputnik when this was the norm not the exception on basically every thread

Album Rating: 5.0

Look! An interesting discussion on Sputnik, who would have thunk.

Album Rating: 3.8

Shit it sounded like 2009 was a good year

Actual discussion is admittedly rare nowadays but there are still smart and interesting people to talk to on the site

Album Rating: 5.0

Sadly I don't think I'm one of them.

Album Rating: 3.8

I don't know you that well yet so I'm not going to judge but at least you're not a troll

Album Rating: 5.0

"That's just wrong"



I mean it's not really, if you're implying there's some comparative value then you're implying there's some, well, value to be judged in the first place. i mean by definition better = more good, if there isn't a "good" scale then...



"I'm one of those people and it was easy to hear how the instruments affected the mood of each song"



Well yeah but that's kind of what artistic restraint is about. You write about what's important, not everything that's relevant. I think Sea said it well though

Album Rating: 5.0

The problem with having a good discussion is you have to respect the other person for it to be productive so obviously that was never going to happen with Propose (and a lot of other people but that's neither here nor there)

Album Rating: 4.0

what i take from this discussion is that the purpose/"quality" of a review all depends on what the author is trying to

accomplish, and what the reader wants to get out of it. reviews that describe the sound and the music itself are probably

the most "useful" for someone wanting to learn about the album and the music itself, but more personal or creative

reviews can be a lot more interesting if executed correctly. personally i think the best reviews are the ones that combine

both, giving you some idea of the sound but also bringing new ideas/insights to the table

Album Rating: 3.8

Pretty much clim

It depends on the album, if its one like the Hotelier album which a lot of people (including me) have a personal and emotional attachment to then I think you can't really describe it in a better way than Athom's review did

On the other hand, an album which is more focused on music and not on lyrical or emotional attachment deserves a review which describes the sound. You wouldn't write a review like Athom did for a Dillinger Escape Plan album for example

Album Rating: 5.0

The real important thing is you should have a reason for writing the review (this manifests in the angle/thesis). If you're writing just to describe what you hear then don't bother imo.