artificialbox: review/writing questions

artificialbox 08.07.24	I think there were threads for this type of stuff on the forums before they got nuked, but now a lot of those resources are gone. womp womp.
Ryus 08.07.24	i guess 1 depends on if you want to a review to purely be about the music and what it sounds like. i tend to like reviews that do that rather dive into biographical information, which is often interesting but not really what i look for in a review. there's obviously a balance and sometimes that info is really relevant, but in general i like the art of trying to explain in words something as abstract as muic w.r.t. #3 i personally dont because im lazy and i review as an off-the-cuff stream of consciousness kind of thing. if i planned it out i probably wouldnt ever end up writing it
Hawks 08.07.24	My main thing with reviewing is #1 trying to properly explain what said album means to me personally and/or the feelings invoked while jamming said album and #2 doing the best I can to describe exactly how the music sounds and likening that to things/feelings in real life. Idk if that really answers any of the above questions but just wanted to throw in my thought process when writing.
clavier 08.07.24	1. Over time I find myself caring more about context to the point where I'm often reluctant to write about artists in genres, or at least specific scenes, I'm not well-acquainted with. At least some cursory knowledge of context is helpful because it allows the writer to situate the music and make appropriate comparisons/contrasts. In certain situations I think there's also value in providing more extended information about the background of the artist, e.g. the creative process for a particular album, notable personal events that may have affected the making of the music, etc. 2. Probably 6 hours or more; I don't find that speed is necessary or something to be aiming for. 3. I also just jot down notes; in the beginning I would plan out the structures in advance but eventually gave that up once I became more comfortable with reviewing. The shape of the review tends to reveal itself. 4. This probably depends on what you want to do, and also what you expect your audience to know about the artist/genre. I personally lean toward providing at least a couple examples of what tracks sound like because, well, the sound is the very basis of what the review covers. In other words, I don't find this a severable element from the vision/context/etc. 5. I'm the same way with not wanting to stop, and not having written anything in over a year I'm not exactly an authority on getting over writer's block lol. No advice here unfortunately, besides getting so obsessed with an album that you feel compelled to say something.
Sowing 08.07.24	1) Context enhances the quality of a review, typically, but I've also written about bands I was listening to for the very first time. I would say if the music excites you, write about it no matter what because that passion will shine through. 2) This varies. I've spent anywhere from 1 hour to several weeks on a review. It depends on what my goal is, I guess. If it's something I sort of just want to make people aware of, I might jot down a quick 2 paragraph summary. If I really want to expound upon themes/sounds/imagery et al, then obviously that takes more effort. 3) Usually I just listen to the music and the words start flowing, almost like a stream of consciousness style. But other times I'll be at work/with family or in some other setting not conducive to focused listening/writing, and all the right ideas and perfect wording will just start popping into my head. When this happens, I text or email myself the general words/ideas floating around my head and then organize them later. 4) I have no issue with reviews that simply describe how the music sounds, and they can even be better if the review is from a promo/advance where the album hasn't been released yet, because then the reader has more to gain. Ultimately, a review should touch on both though; being able to blend descriptions of the music with underlying themes/lyrics/emotions is a sign that the writer has a clear grasp on the album and isn't just rushing out a review. 5) I still don't know the answer to this, and I suspect that's because it is different for everyone. I've had success powering through writer's block, waiting a day, and then reading it back to myself to iron out the clunky parts. I've also had success just totally walking away for like a week, and then revisiting when inspiration strikes.
Dedes 08.07.24	I'm not fond of keeping notes, I feel they don't always integrate into the way one -actually- ends up structuring a review, but I write extremely off-the-cuff, usually takes an hour or maybe two. Writer's block is a menace tho lmao, however as long as the focus is held on what you feel in any given moment idk if you'll ever any truly bad output. I've had that writing about the wonkier side of music i.e my Ultha review, which is why I think it's important that you really know why you love an album before you try to sell someone on it.
YoYoMancuso 08.07.24	with regard to writer's block, just be willing to write something terrible. a bad paragraph is a lot easier to improve than no paragraph at all.
Shamus248 08.07.24	1. context is important. lack of knowledge definitely scares me bc i don't want to tackle a new artist and completely misrepresent who they are and what they're about 2. shorter ones (often for EPs or shorter albums) can take 10 mins for me sometimes. others take a day or so. some i've been sitting on for years because i don't know quite what to say 3. i definitely jot down bullet points and things i want to emphasize before i churn out the finished product 4. i dunno if there's a right or wrong way. i try to balance, because i def want to describe the sound, but i often get caught up in emotion lol 5. sometimes i power thru right then and there, sometimes i shut down and put the pen away
artificialbox 08.07.24	you are all awesome, thank you for taking my questions in earnest. much enjoyed reading the responses so far. @yoyomancuso that is probably the most helpful approach to writers block I've ever heard. I guess the trick is to just be aware that it's a bad paragraph and to not publish it until you have time to mull it over. love it.
pizzamachine 08.07.24	People are gonna bitch no matter what u do so do what u want and prepare for flack
ToSmokMuzyki 08.07.24	first, i get inspired to take the piss. then i take that piss
budgie 08.07.24	wghat kind of nerd writes music reviews online
artificialbox 08.07.24	ikr -_-
JohnnyoftheWell 08.07.24	people who care about fostering a good standard of discourse, which explains budgie's review count better than anything
JohnnyoftheWell 08.07.24	1. Context should always respond to the needs of the review, and it is very important that these are clearly visible at all times. Why are you writing the thing to begin with? Lots of possible answers, but the underlying 'point' will always be to give your audience a new lens to approach the music, and since this in many cases will also extend to the artist+their platform, or the genre etc., it's very obvious that context will often be absolutely crucial. But not always Sometimes you're just writing a testimonial of your opinion/experiences in the hope that they're interesting/enlightening/entertaining for the reader (including if they disagree with you), sometimes you're just writing because you believe your opinion is important enough to share (and often you prove yourself wrong specifically because you put yourself above context), sometimes you're writing because the act of writing is a valuable way to get deeper into an album, sometimes, especially for older records, it can be helpful to take the album out of context (which still involves acknowledging context obvs) to flesh out a fresh perspective. Sometimes your piece will be genuinely informative, which is always a good thing, but you should never be regurgitating barebones context or established narratives as a crutch to prop up thinly-conceived pieces with limited reasons to exist or be read (see the first para of Sowing's Donda review for a particularly visible example of how not to do this, and then the first para of his most recent Zach Bryan review for a much more helpful insight into how a little context can quickly bring a broad audience of different levels of familiarity under one roof (could have picked any staffer including myself for a pos/neg example pair, but these i think map out the difference v clearly)) 2. 4-6 hours is probably my mode too, but this is often over multiple days (usually a good thing!) and can be substantially less. Writing under time pressure is often immensely helpful. Imo any review should have multiple days of thought and research behind it, or else an extremely strong first impression 3. Yes always mostly, if by 'plan' you mean mentally organise the areas to cover within a broad structure - don't always feel a need to write this down, and if you've picked the right points, you'll often find that they spark off fresh insights while you're there writing them down and reflecting on them further. Keeping the structure loose (but with a clear overall trajectory!) generally helps accommodation these
JohnnyoftheWell 08.07.24	4. You're not describing the music, you're describing your experience of hearing it for an audience of musicians and non-musicians (with emphasis on the latter). It does not have to be technical and precise; it does have to be specific and evocative. Some people do an amazingly vivid job of setting down what goes on the other side of their eardrums when they hear whichever album, but this is usually through mapping wider associations or figurative language. Even if you're focused on the tiniest part of an album, you should always be broadening the frame of reference rather than attempting to recreate a soundwave on paper; summarising what-happens-in-a-song is often necessary for substantiating your opinion, but it should never be more than a means to the end 5. Short term, take it as it comes. Sometimes you ignore it to stop your weak motivation from failing the strength of your thoughts and intuitions, sometimes you're genuinely too tired to do yourself justice by pushing through in the present moment (or otherwise flogging a dead horse), sometimes attempting to write a review an album exposes more reasons why you shouldn't have written on it than should and you have to be honest with yourself and bin the draft. Long term, I find that I can always write so long as I have the right thoughts and impressions, and these are more likely to burn out than my willingness to write them down. Recharge. It's also possible to get fatigued of your own writing habits or perceived quality standards - agreed with Yoyo's implication that you can easily be your own worst enemy here - and writing something either irreverently or just in a style you'd never normally attempt can be a good way round this. Find a new way to approach the form! Make it 'new' again - break out of your old habits for a little bit and you'll find them much more valuable if you choose to go back to them later
budgie 08.07.24	didnt need to be rude johnny that hurts my feebigns
Mort. 08.07.24	dont listen to anything johnny just said answer to all your questions is, its all just vibes bro just vibe it
JohnnyoftheWell 08.07.24	yeah my bad, when i said 'You're not describing the music, you're describing your experience of hearing it', what i actually meant is that all writers and all readers are trash and you should use this as an excuse to dunk on mort as often as possible
Mort. 08.07.24	noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
JohnnyoftheWell 08.07.24	throw him in the dungeon, smithers
budgie 08.08.24	johnny be nice to mort
ToSmokMuzyki 08.08.24	holy shit so much jizz on the page https://youtu.be/i5ZqO8iJ0Ck?si=9-R5SCyqEwIh_h7u&t=14
Calc 08.08.24	"I swear I've read a lot of really great reviews that spend 95% of the time discussing the vision and lead up for an album and only briefly touches on what it actually sounds like" i hate this shit.
YoYoMancuso 08.08.24	"I guess the trick is to just be aware that it's a bad paragraph and to not publish it until you have time to mull it over. love it." This is, word for word, how I obtained my master's degree
NightOnDrunkMountain 08.08.24	In my opinion, describing how the music sounds like is less important than attempting to paint a picture on how its elements are knitted together and presented, and more imporantly, why. Watching a few videos of Daniel Barenboim talking about sound / music may be helpful to get a new perspective on this. I also think too much contemplation on the text can turn towards a negative direction. I wouldn't spend days on a review, as initial reactions to an album are almost impossible to not be honest. I would ideally spend a couple of days listening closely and then note down my thoughts as clearly as possible. Being spontaneous doesn't mean being sloppy. Reviews are never written on stone, humans "change their mind, if facts change". In every review, a degree of knowledge is expected from the reader. Like when reading a scientific publication, where the authors are not obliged to re-introduce the whole field but instead open with a small introduction helpful for later describing their specific topic, the reader should somehow be aware of the genre or band in question at least vaguely. I like reading game / movie reviews but honestly very often, I catch almost none of the references and analogies, which is totally fine. In short: 1) Context is really important 2) A few hours, maybe a day 3) Notes / bullet points during listens help a lot to not miss out on stuff you wanna mention in the text later 4) Similarly to no. 1, vision / message should not be neglected in order to give a concise overview 5) Split your bullet points per paragraph, then you'd have an idea how to continue. I strongly agree with what was mentioned above about writing a few sentences you don't like, because fixing them is easier than looking at blank paper
AsleepInTheBack 08.08.24	1) depends on the album 2) depends on the album 3) depends on the album 4) depends on the album 5) depends on the album
Hawks 08.08.24	There's that professional staff insight that is oozing from this site.
AsleepInTheBack 08.08.24	fwiw Johnny has already nailed it, and that’s left for the rest of us is to flail Though the one adn point I would have (more a practical/sanity point than anything) is that holding yourself to too high of a standard or too strict a rule set is the path to madness. Experiment against all the variables you mention. Do a high context heavy write up, spend days or weeks on it, refine that fucker, and see what happens. Do a low context visceral vibe forward word salad in 40 mins and see what happens. Do everything in between. See what/how you like to write, as much as anything - that seems (in my experience) to be the key to longevity as a writer. For example, I suck at (or find it v difficult to write) those hyper detailed history-of-scene-and-artist pieces, because they involve research, patience and a lot of work that I struggle to fit into my current life. Stupid silly descriptor heavy pieces that aren’t too long and seek to unpack (or at least evoke) the important parts of an albums aesthetic and context, but implicitly, through the descriptors, is what I find comes more naturally to my brain, but also takes less time and is less burdensome on time/energy, meaning I’m likely to write more. Are my write ups less important and useful than more well realised pieces? Probably, but if I only sought to write the difficult stuff, I’d have quit writing a long time ago. A lot of it has to be for the simple joy of it.
pizzamachine 08.08.24	Don’t forget to write using words
robertsona 08.08.24	I’m usually already familiar with an album by the time I decide to review it, but in those cases and otherwise I listen a few times and take notes and Google around and then write in 30-45 minutes and post and then look at the review on sputnikmusic for errors that I then edit directly on sputnik. The issue with this is that my reviews sometimes end up in a place that’s confusing relative to the beginning even if some of the ideas are good. This is also how I wrote essays in college: in one insane burst; 5 page papers in 90 minutes, 10 pagers in one night. It doesn’t seem advisable. I yearn for context in some sense. I remember an Electric City comment on an old review of mine, of Deerhunter’s CRYPTOGRAMS: “To what end?!?” The context doesn’t have to be historical, but I think when Needledrop hits the “the production is CRUNCHY but the guitars have the deedle dee sound” for the fifteenth time I start wondering why anything matters. The description of the sounds needs to be anchored in some other framework that helps us understand, put basically, the success or failure of the album on some mix hopefully of the terms it sets for itself and the terms the listener sets for what good music sounds like
fogza 08.08.24	I don't know if this falls under context but I do like to read interviews with the artist re: the specific album. Sometimes that's not available or the interview is poor (vague answers from the artist or bad questions from the interviewer) but reading about what they were going allows me to match up my listening experience with their goals. Obviously other listeners might feel that's successful where I might not and vice versa, but it's a starting point. I tend to view an album as an attempt to communicate; is what they intended to communicate coming across?
chemicalmarriage 08.08.24	Shoot from the hip
Jots 08.08.24	1. in terms of specific details about the band and/or the album's "intent": it can provide some fodder, but it's worth considering the many albums that were released devoid of context or "album rollout" yet were still critically appreciated. imo, context can be a crutch. maybe worth touching on in terms of validating whether or not you believe the album lived up to/reflected the context, sure, but it's not make-or-break. now.. in terms of the reviewer having general knowledge about the genre/scene/style/influences etc. etc... it's important if you intend to reflect on this, and carry any sort of authority on those terms. i can't count the number of times i've read a review where it's very clear the writer is only interested because they're piggybacking off of p4k or fantano or whatever, and is making claims they can't enforce (e.g. claiming the artist is innovating within a style, when in fact there's like 100 bands that have done the same thing already, but they don't have the knowledge to make those references. a good example of this is when Fantano reviewed Revenge, but compared the drumming to Liturgy). basically, don't write a cheque you can't cash. I've reviewed albums outside of my wheelhouse. it's fine: just focus less on trying to sound like a genre-veteran and focus on the themes of the album and how it succeeds in terms of conveyance. 2. excluding the time to listen to the album, anywhere between 15 minutes to a couple hours. it just depends. 3. yes, generally. it's good to help strengthen/structure the review and dial down any repetition.
Jots 08.08.24	4. i think touching on the literal sound just enough that the reader will understand, in concrete terms, what the music sounds like is important. because even if it only takes 5-10 seconds to search the album up, the album is probably gonna have some degree of variety over a 20-60 minute (or whatever) runtime. so, it's helpful to give a sort of synopsis. this is particularly valuable within saturated genres where you kinda need to "sell" the listener on why the album sounds special, in literal terms. that said, as a reviewer, i've still focused a lot more on what the album accomplishes artistically. in my opinion, that's much more significant in terms of the album's quality, and it's something a reviewer actually needs to devote time to in order to surmise. anyone can hear a snippet of an album and say "it's math rock, with distorted post-punk-inflected bass, disorienting time signatures, gruff vocals, Swan-core guitar passages" or whatever lol. an AI bot can probably do that for you at this point. convincing someone of whether or not it's worth setting aside an hour (+ or -) of their time to digest a piece of music is a different story though. far too many reviews just sound like extended promo blurbs, imo, and aren't even worth reading. as a reader, i like to be lead to believe the reviewer sincerely was affected by the album, good or bad or otherwise.
Jots 08.08.24	5. i often found if an album review resulted in writer's block... it's a sign that the album wasn't particularly evocative. idk. good, effective art should conjure something. if it fails too... maybe it isn't that potent in the first place. that said, it's also possible that, as a reviewer, I need to "hit the books" a bit. maybe i need to revisit other comparable music. maybe i need to consider the themes of the album and immerse myself in other art with relevant themes. but, not every review needs to be a pulitzer price winning piece of writing. if it analyzes the album, and you cover what you believe is the "essence" of the album, and you make your case... meh. sometimes you just know when a review is done. ------ I haven't published a review in several years, but i sorta had my ethos about the process, fwiw.
JohnnyoftheWell 08.09.24	> i can't count the number of times i've read a review where it's very clear the writer is only interested because they're piggybacking off of p4k or fantano or whatever, and is making claims they can't enforce > anyone can hear a snippet of an album and say "it's math rock, with distorted post-punk-inflected bass, disorienting time signatures, gruff vocals, Swan-core guitar passages" or whatever lol. an AI bot can probably do that for you at this point > far too many reviews just sound like extended promo blurbs, imo, and aren't even worth reading 💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
artificialbox 08.09.24	getting caught up on reading through all of these comments. tons of valuable insight here and I hope it's useful for other people to read through as well. Really love what AsleepInTheBack said about experimenting and kind of having a stylistic goal for each review to find what you enjoy doing. What Fogza said about reading interviews to gain better context is super clutch also. There's been a couple times where I think I know what an album/song is about and then I read/watch an interview and realize I had completely misinterpreted the message and have to scramble to edit my review before anyone notices lol. A few people touched on writers block being a sign that maybe you shouldn't actually be writing about whatever subject you chose, which is a hard pill to swallow but probably a good thing to be honest with yourself about. I think sometimes it does just boil down to fatigue or just not being in a creative mindset, but I can defs count a few times I've tried writing about an album that I think is really cool and then realizing that I don't actually have anything of value to say about it... ouch.
Manatea 08.09.24	1. Context helps but some of my favorite reviews I’ve written have been totally devoid of such. I also feel like context can be unhelpful in some cases where some situation with a band that is not related to their musical output can color how the music is received. 2. I’ve written reviews in forty-five minutes and I’ve written reviews that took me days. Totally depends. 3. Nope… 4. Everyone else said it way better than I could. Music is so subjective and I love a lot of music that a lot of people detest. I think what’s important is the audience I’m writing to and being able to really describe the music to them. 5. Take a break and get back to it. If I have writer’s block I just keep listening to new music until I find something that I want to write about. Hope that’s a tad useful.
InfernalDeity 08.09.24	Trying to describe how an album sounds is a futile effort. I include short descriptions of what's going on in certain tracks, but I highly doubt that it will help the reader understand the album any better. 90% of my reviews are focused on trying to recreate the emotions the record has harvested. Even that in itself is a futile attempt. Music is going to stir different emotions in different people. With that being said, I use my reviews to express myself and show the reader how that album impacted me.
artificialbox 08.09.24	I dig that approach. kind of relates to what Jots said “as a reader, i like to be lead to believe the reviewer sincerely was affected by the album, good or bad or otherwise”. seems like a good goal to strive for.
AnimalForce1 08.10.24	I like this thread a ton! 1) It really really depends on the album for me. In some cases, it helps, especially when the album's tone and energy is linked to the circumstances surrounding it. A St. Anger or Vapor Trails review would need that context, for example. 2) A few months back, I was able to pump out a review within a day or two of listening to the album. I've slowed down considerably now, I usually take about a couple days post-listen to get a solid review down, mostly just because of motivation and energy things. 3) I have ideas and things I want to touch on in my head whenever I sit down to write a review, but I never actually outline. I've always been a much better seat of my pants writer, both in terms of creative writing and reviews. 4) I always want to try and find some way to describe what the album sounds like. There are gonna be people who look at reviews after they listen to an album to see what other people think, but there's also gonna be people who look at reviews to see if they'd enjoy the album or not. To that end, I think describing the music can be very helpful for that latter camp of people 5) So, I also deal with this problem frequently, and my best solution has always been to just take a break and listen to music or play some games, let my brain rest on something else for a bit. If that doesn't work, I'll listen to the album I'm reviewing one more time, try to let the music guide me, as cringy and cheesy as that sounds