. . .
I ask this because they perform so poorly on this site that I’m considering axing them altogether. For content in terms of pageviews and comments, they rank dead last. (Interviews are next to last.) The natural inference is that readers aren’t interested in album reviews.
But readers haven’t stopped being interested in music. It’s just clear that for presenting content, the album review is the worst form for doing so, in that the fewest people will read it. If I present the same information in other forms – album streams, track premieres, cheap circus tricks – more people will read it.
This reminds me of clothes. You can be the best person in the world, but people still judge you by the clothes you wear. It’s not fair, but it’s reality.
I can think of some reasons for the overwhelming unpopularity of album reviews.
. . .
We’ve reached a saturation point for albums.
There are too many albums released. So most album reviews will be about albums unfamiliar to the reader. And most album reviews on the Internet aren’t written well-enough to be compelling despite unfamiliar subject matter. How many times have you seen a blog lined from top to bottom with album reviews, and just moved on?
Downloading and streaming make functional album reviews obsolete.
By “functional”, I mean reviews that describe what an album sounds like and recommend whether or not to buy it – the classic consumer product review. People don’t need reviews anymore to learn this information. They can just download and stream music and decide for themselves if it’s good or not.
People care more about bands than music.
I’ve come to the cynical conclusion that people are more interested in the soap opera aspects of life than its finer aspects. They care about artists, not art. Hence the noise around bands like Watain, Ghost, and Liturgy. Hence also people “hating” bands. (People who hate bands must live such privileged lives that they lack anything more worthy to hate.) People don’t discuss bands’ music; they discuss non-musical things like costumes, hairstyles, and personalities. This is like professional sports. People don’t watch MMA to see nuanced displays of fighting skill; they watch MMA to see personality A versus personality B. Metal is as much of a soap opera. Its Charlie Sheens and Lindsay Lohans just play in bands. Music is a circumstantial byproduct.
Most writers don’t write well enough to carry content solely through text.
Me included – hence shiny distractions like images, videos, and audio streams. Album reviews can serve a higher purpose beyond being consumer guides. They can actually make you think. They can use the album as grist for discussion. The “review” is a starting point for thought, not an endpoint for consumer-level behavior (buy/don’t buy). Few writers aspire to this, and fewer succeed. This is probably called “criticism”, though that word has such negative connotations that I avoid it. I prefer to call it “stimulation”. Very little music writing is stimulating.
. . .
The result is a huge disconnect between what music industry types and music fans want. Bands, labels, and publicists flood my inbox daily requesting reviews of their wares. But fans don’t want to read reviews. They still want to hear music and find out about bands, though. So industry types should be seeking “coverage”, whatever that is, not reviews. There are a zillion albums out there, and few people have the time or inclination to sit through them in their entirety and pronounce judgment – especially when fans don’t need such mediation anymore.
I find a great lack of creativity amongst publicists, whose job is to market – yes, they are marketers – music. They ask for reviews and interviews, and those things are the musical equivalent of box office poison. For better or for worse, they need to find different ways to present music to people. I suppose this wouldn’t be necessary if writers could write. But that ain’t happening on the Internet. Bring on the album streams, track premieres, and cheap circus tricks.
. . .
Well, I love reading reviews, but then, I love writing them as well. I think someschmuck.blogspot.com reviews tend to be below average (okay, terrible), but I think sites like this – “legitimate” music sites – are exactly where reviews should be. When I get my new copy of Decibel each month, I thumb to the reviews section first.
For the most part reviews are redundant, regurgitated nonsense. It seems kinda pointless to read a longwinded review when I can stream an album and form my own opinion. i say post the music, state some interesting facts and open the forum up for discussion. Your reviews are well written but it seems like you could use your time more wisely. Alot of reviews I read just end up comparing newer bands to older bands so much that I just want to listen to the older bands.
I’ll be honest, I don’t care about reviews at all. And by that I mean I don’t care about the reviewer’s opinion or thoughts. I barely read any reviews. I’m interested in finding new music, stuff I haven’t heard of yet, so whenever I come up a review of some band I don’t already know I skim through it trying to see what it’s about, if there’s a chance it’s worth spending time on listening to this album.
I don’t give a crap about bands, I’m only interested in their music. Most of the time I have no idea what the musicians look like, dress like, their names, opinions or whatever. Could be all made by robots randomly making music on computers for all I care (and maybe interviews ranking next to last in your readers interest would mean you’re wrong about your third point?)
Basically for me, band name + artwork + loose description of genre is all I need. I let my bandwidth and ears do the rest. As a label or a band, have a bandcamp account, make sure I can find out about whenever you have new stuff out, and that’s it. Everything else is obsolete.
That might sound a bit harsh but that’s how it is, I’m listening to music for my own selfish pleasure, not to feel like I’m part of a community or anything like that, so I really couldn’t care less about everything that isn’t the music itself.
Yeah, I don’t have much use for reviews, and I write them for Lambgoat, lol. I’ll check out a new track instead any day. As far as written reviews go, I prefer 3 or 4 line blurbs instead of full length reviews.
How about writing for writing’s sake, though? Is there anyone who loves both heavy metal and the elegance of the English language? An extremely well-written review can make me feel the same way a short story by Faulkner or a travel diary by Bryson does. I think Cosmo has that ability. I think Roger Ebert has it for film. I think plenty of reviewers do. Album reviews serve both the function of function, i.e., to tell me what a record is like and whether I would enjoy it based on what I know I like, as well as the function of being a piece of writing. How many of you would come to Invisible Oranges rather than Random Mexican Leak Reposting Blog #548 if it were built with a similar mindset?
In theory I agree with that, a written piece can be interesting in itself, whether that is a music review or anything else. I just haven’t seen many, if any, that are worth the trouble. I guess if I want to read something interesting or meaningful or artistic or whatever it is I’m looking for I’m more likely to find it elsewhere.
I think you nail my view here, mostly by mentioning Roger Ebert. I don’t always agree with Ebert. I think he has gotten inexcusably soft on some really shitty movies lately (maybe he’s too happy to be alive these days, damn him) and I think he knows next to nothing about what makes a good horror movie. Nonetheless, I read his stuff without fail. He is one of the few writers whose work I read simply because his name is on it. I read his reviews of movies I never had any intention of watching because they can be insightful and funny, and I just enjoy reading them.
As Cosmo mentions, though, it is hard to be one of those writers — which may be why Ebert won the Pulitzer Prize.
I think reviews can serve another purpose, too, which is to establish context for criticism. Call it “taste-making,” if you want. A good reviewer can tell you not just what’s good or bad about a particular album, but WHY it’s good or bad, and in so doing, engage the reader in a discussion of what sort of albums we should expect of artists these days. This, also, takes talent. A bad reviewer might say, “The new album by BAND starts out good but gets boring by Track 7.” A good reviewer might say, “True to form for a lot of releases from LABEL X these days, the new CD from BAND clocks in at a full 74 minutes, which is about 30 minutes too long.” It’s practically the same statement, but it gives the reader a lot more to chew on.
Of course, the problem with this is that too few reviewers are willing to write a truly critical review. Publicists want to market their products, and unpaid metal reviewers want to get free CDs, ’nuff said. Mind you, that’s not meant as a criticism of the reviews on this site, which naturally I haven’t read.
When I stated that most reviews are redundant and regurgitated nonsense, it’s probably because most new metal falls in the same category. Sickofmotion is right, we are flooded with so much stuff that I can usually weed out the weak shit by judging band name, artwork,record label and overall presentation. If they make it passed that I stream a few songs and if I like it I download it and eventually check ‘em out live. Thats my process unless I see em live first or a friend turns me onto them.
I agree with your comments on reviews in general, although I disagree with the rather insulting generalisations you make in the paragraph where you argue that ‘people’ care about bands more than music. Do you consider yourself superior to everyone else in that respect? That’s certainly the impression I get from that paragraph.
I should add that I’m not at all saying people shouldn’t write about music, it you’re feeling passionate about something you should write about it and share it, someone else might discover something great thanks to that. I guess I’m more talking about “official” reviews from people who are too jaded to care, doing this as just another work and are more interested in passing as a good writer than in the music itself.
True. I think reviewers have just run out of creativity due to the lack of creativity in misic. It’s a vicious cycle. I mean it must have been awesome to write a review of the first Sabbath album or early maiden because it was so original. It’s gotta be tough coming up with descriptions for some 10th generation doom or black metal band that is most likely gonna be gone in a year. Look how popular those ‘kill em all’posts have been. I’ll bet you would get more feedback on reviewing classic albums people are still passionate about.
Well, I can understand how they would rank low for comments. I mean, if you’ve never heard an album and just read a review, you’ve probably very little to add to the conversation until later, until you’ve had time to actually ingest and absorb the album yourself.
Maybe it’s ’cause I’m old. I fucking live for album reviews. Especially here and and even more so by Adrien Begrand. I became a Ludicra fan, hell a Profound Lore fan, because of the reviews here. That experience has sent my metallic listening off on a whole new tangent these days.
Also, there is the component of reviews wherein you think about an album in a way you’ve never done before. I love that too, especially when I’m pondering something new that I’ve not been able to fully wrap my mind around.
And I love reading intelligent reviews that add weight to my own critical arguments for/against a record. Record reviews are just…fun, damnit. Don’t take them away!!!
This is an interesting one. I’d actually disagree with a lot of the conclusions you come to, especially that people are more interested in metal artists than their music – I’d have called it the opposite way around. Look at the current fuss about Amy Winehouse playing live shows drunk, and then compare that to a band like Shining. The general underground opinion of the band’s music is far better, in my experience, than that of Kvarforth’s various shenanigans. That he is apparently a diagnosed bipolar schizophrenic doesn’t matter – it’s all about the music. People will quite happily moan about, say, the cover art and general outlook of eg Halmstad and call Kvarforth a loser for self-harming but say they love the music itself. They don’t like the band because of the soap opera; they like it despite that.
I’d disagree with other parts, too. If there’s a saturation of music, surely reviews serve a greater function by sifting through it all and telling people what is actually worth going to the effort of listening to. I haven’t the time to download 50-500 albums and listen to them all just to see if they’re any good – I have to limit myself, and I find myself listening to most music these days primarily to write reviews of it! This breed of modern music fan who can apparently download everything and listen to it all for himself must surely be a minority?
I suppose being a reviewer myself, and quite old-school in outlook, this is all pretty biased. But your final point – about aspiration to criticism – is what I believe is the right target for a review site. A lot of bands and labels simply don’t have the money to offer free streaming samples and so on, and one of the reasons the underground is still going in the face of the Roadrunners of the scene trying to saturate everything is because of people like us, who bring the less-known bands to the attention of those who don’t have the time to hunt them down. That and sheer bloody-mindedness, of course. Ultimately, I’d urge you not to stop the reviews – I’ve found bands through here that I never would have done otherwise, and as I tell myself when wondering why I bother sometimes, if you’ve managed to make just one person happy by introducing them to a band that they didn’t previously know about, then you’ve done your job.
You’ve introduced me to many bands I wasn’t aware of that I now love. So consider your goal achieved.
yes.
i assume readers have already heard an album and come to their own conclusions. i try (not always succeed) to make it more of a conversation about the album than a one way judgement from on high.
i also think reviews are pure filler. they simply exist to give me something easy to post while i work on more conceptual things that take more effort and thought and generally provoke better conversations.
I love to write, because I love to read… if that makes sense?
I hope the people who read and enjoy my “work” do so because they are looking for something interesting/distracting to read – essentially reading the review because they like to read and appreciate reviews in and of themselves. You might say the review is an artform in and of itself, inspired by the music. It might not be true, but you might say it if you want.
Occasionally I will write a review with more of an agenda – but it will (usually) be a positive one. For example sometimes I feel (and this is purely a personal thing) that certain albums have been pre-judged or judged unfairly and occasionally I feel like a review might allow someone to think differently or interpret and album in a different way and that maybe that might help some people enjoy the album more/differently.
That’s probably more arrogance than altruism, but it is sometimes why I write, to redress the balance slightly. Even if I’m wrong.
I love reviews – I used to follow the WRC review group consistently, I seek out multiple reviews of albums I’m interested in, and I’ve probably read half the reviews on AMG and EM over the last 15 years.
I also enjoy a lot of the culture-related material on IO. That said, I can’t see the site functioning correctly without reviews; it seems important to have some grounding in the group process of appreciating new material and fitting it into the existing canon.
No one (not even Cosmo) has the time to listen to all the new music coming out. People whose opinions are respected (or at least, whose biases are known) will always be necessary to perform the early steps in the filtering process.
On an entirely personal note i like reviews that place albums in relation to wider events, which is hard to do well and certainly difficult with very new releases.
The reviews on IO have always been the least well written part of the site, they lack the fanticism to make them truly compelling and often say very little that you can’t get from a one sheet anyway.
I depend greatly on reviews from certain folks (IO, Decibel, Grind and Punishment, HSS, and a few others). You guys are my filter and I depend on you to go through the crap to find the good (no pressure). I may check some other things on my own, but my assumption is reviewers make time to listen to music and have pretty good taste.
I don’t comment much on them because odds are, I haven’t heard it yet and other than saying “Thanks for turning me on to another band”, there isn’t much else to say.
I think a lot of us have reviewers we pay attention to more than others(even in magazines). I’ll read about any band Kevin Stewart-Panko praises and probably check out eventually. He hasn’t let me down yet.
New forms of “reviewing” have evolved along with mp3s. Simply describing a release and “judging” it is no longer needed. Reviews can be entirely personal now and that’s nice.
In terms of pointing people to new releases? Mp3 links + critique of hype/press release, not necessarily critiques of the music. The thing is…as all critical standards or notations of taste/selection disappear the entire art form will suffer. 1 billion+ reviews, fine. Writers who actually know what they’re talking about? Rare as hell, the same as always. And how will the next generation of writers know how to form critical tastes, opinions or determine aesthetic criteria? Find your favorite writers and stick to them.
I personally come to Invisible Oranges for discussion points more than for an opinion on an album. I think reviews tend to generate less feedback because the reader hasn’t formed an opinion yet because he/she isn’t familiar with the material.
Are they obsolete? Absolutely not.
A small amount of people might like it…but those people love reading a well written review.
i’m not a fan so much of reviews, but maybe more of a ‘fan presentation’. remember how a friend would tell you ‘dude…you got to check out this record’? that’s what i dig. i don’t need ‘in-depth analysis’, but just a nudge of a ‘here’s something i’m diggin and it is loosely XYZ QPR’ and i’ll be happy to take a listen, but yes reviews usually seem to be more about the reviewers quest for creative writing rather. think of the review as a lead in a journalism story. get the important stuff in the first 25-30 words and that be it.
I can highlight my favorite trait of a standard review, applying to music but could be music, books, anything. 95% of music is 95% derivative. That does not mean it has low independent value. In that remaining 5% is an twist, a moment of uniqueness that just “makes” the whole package. For me, one unexpected symbol reverberation may make the essence of an entire song or one line of dialog make a 2 hour movie worthwhile. The best reviews draw my attention to these details that I would otherwise miss while being completely overwhelmed with a million new releases. Without reviews to direct my ear, I truly would have heard it all before.
A small practical note is I read just way too many blogs through RSS. The only time I click through and get counted is when I want to get the media. That probably accounts for a tiny sliver of the click ratios you observe, but others have given other strong reasons for the differences in number of comments. #1 reason will always be that we are lazy consumers.
Yes, reviews are obsolete to me, for quite the simple reason:
They are more likely to make someone NOT check out an album than the opposite.
I really like album reviews; in fact, I pretty seldom listen to album streams because of my man-on-the-go lifestyle, which generally prevents me from spending an entire album’s length worth of time to sit in front of the computer and listen to something. If I read a review that makes the album sound like something I might be interested in, then I’ll listen to a stream or buy (steal) the album.
If I addressed why your album reviews did so poorly, I can tell you that, as a regular reader, I mostly don’t like the same kind of music as you do, so the albums that you review virtually never appeal to me. So I never read them.
Well, as someone who writes album reviews, I’m obviously biased, but I’m almost always more interested in reading album reviews than anything else. I know a lot of people (including many commenters here) will prefer to have a full album stream posted and listen for themselves, but I honestly never find myself just surfing blogs for streams. Much of this is probably because I am privileged enough to have the means to purchase an ungodly amount of the music I want to listen to, but beyond that, I’ll usually read a review of a band I couldn’t give a shit about before I’d ever listen to a stream of their new album.
That having been said, I feel like the primary draw of IO for me has always been your, for lack of a better word, ‘think pieces’. You can treat criticism as a dirty word if you like, but I think it’s an increasing rarity in music journalism (or hell, journalism of any kind), and should therefore be embraced. I read just about every review that’s posted here on IO, but I find myself more consistently prodded and provoked by your reflections on how music works, its cultural significance, its relationship to other art forms, and whatever else comes to mind.
So no, I don’t think reviews are obsolete, but I think they are probably nearing obsolescence as the functional, purely consumer-minded tool described above. Precisely because one can find either a legit stream or twelve easy locations of a leaked .zip file with a few key strokes, album reviewers have lost whatever authority comes with having exclusive access. To the extent that this clears the way for more interesting writing about music, then I’m all for it, even though my own dog in this fight is nothing other than my own narcissistic interest in hearing myself write.
i would disagree about reviews, but with a caveat that there are certain reviewers i weigh far more heavily than others – this blog, or simon reynolds (though i disagree with him on nearly everything), or reviews in the wire, which is the only paper mag i subscribe to anymore. reviews in general? eh. the personality/ideas/dominant pov driving the reviewer are more important.
I love the reviews here and frequently find out about new things through them. Streaming is great but context from a familiar critical voice is better. I for one would be sad to see new reviews axed in favor of navel-gazing items on classic Metallica songs (which I read too, but sorta feel bad for enjoying).
I don’t mind reviews, but I don’t buy records solely on a good review. In fact, most reviews spend more time explaining who produced it, and why they (the writer) are more important than the record. Now, if it’s J Bennet inserting his Gonzo style, I could read reviews all day long. When I get my Decibel each month, the first thing I go to is Cry Now, Cry Later, but we’ll save that for another time.
If a reviewer who’s taste is aligned with mine ( much like your Cosmo) gives a record I’ve never heard a 9, well, I might want to get my ass over to Reckless and pick it up. But the quality of reviews (metal and other) is usually subpar.
What I want is a description of what style they play, how it sounds, if it’s better or worse than their previous record and if there’s any sort of weird vinyl colors. I don’t care what they told you last time they crashed at your place, what outrageous outfits they wore on Halloween, who did the artwork, or what other bands they usually get grouped with. That’s shitty writing. If I don’t know band A, and don’t know band X, how am I supposed to get anything out a review that just says Band A sounds like old Band X.
I agree that there’s too many bands, releasing too many albums, and going on too many tours. Maybe I’m just old and crabby
>When I get my Decibel each month
Well there’s your first mistake…
the worst thing about Decibel is Cry Now Cry Later. It is pointless dribble. Bennett writes great articles but his reviews blow…but we’ll leave that for later..
I appreciate album reviews from sources I trust, such as this site. This site’s review of Dragged Into Sunlight’s “Hatred for Mankind” was responsible for introducing me to what has become a new favorite of mine. Please, just pretend you’re the band playing to one or two people in the crowd. You might wish your audience was larger but those people are going to go away with a story to tell, “They played like the room was packed!” and while you might not get the same accolades…know that some people do still care about music and the art of reviewing it with a discerning ear.
Unless its a well known band then maybe the format of reviews should be changed to very short and to the point. Personally I dont like reviews that are full of the reviewer using big words trying to sound like … whatever. Just get to the point, what other bands is this band like, what are good points and bad points and who would like then. Then also include short music clips, that would be good. That being said, I do like reading reviews of bands or albums I already know, kind of after the fact, to see what the reviewer thought.
People care more about bands, that comment is true, and not the music.
Mark
As someone who’s just started out blog writing, with reviews providing a key focus for initial content, I’d say not quite. Now that my sound biased, but I genuinely believe that if it’s worth talking about, it’s worth the time putting your thoughts and opinions into that review.
I think UA hit the nail on the head there.
I’m not the best reviewer in the world – far from it – but I’m not just trying to ham and egg it and just write what everyone else thinks. I want my reviews to feature what I felt when I listened to the album. I reviewed Enslaved’s ‘The Sleeping Gods’ and described ‘Alu Misryki’ as a song the metal claw was invented for. Some of you might not agree with that, some of you might – and admittedly, I didn’t hold up said claw at the time. But I headbanged to it the first time I heard it and if the mood (or beer) took me, I’d sure throw a claw into the air. And yes, that might seem clichéd, but I don’t mind mentioning that to potential readers. I try to approach the review as a fan, rather than a critic.
Admittedly, the reviews aren’t the main reason I read your blog, though I enjoy everything that goes into it. There’s numerous bands that don’t get coverage in the UK until they start heading out over there and through this blog, I’ve discovered bands I’d probably still know nothing about if I hadn’t read about them here or on other blogs. Reviews are as much a part of that process as anything else. If there’s such positivity running through the description of the band’s music, then it’s worth my time to check them out. Mutant Supremacy were a good example of this.
I will always try to direct readers in the direction of a band’s Bandcamp/MySpace/Facebook/etc, or a stream or download if its available. Of course people are going to have their own opinion on it. Morbid Angel’s new album was a great example of that – I enjoyed reading even the positive reviews of that one, and the first listen of that record was indeed greatly anticipated. I actually tried best I could to bleed out any previously formed opinions before I heard it – and I gather that’s exactly part of the point you’re making at least.
Reviews, in general, probably have reached saturation point, but without them, you’d just have Band X shouting ‘listening to our crushing new record, its the best thing we’ve done yet’. We’ve all heard that a million times before – a review can at least set expectations which you’ll compare against once you’ve heard the record for yourself. I’d rather not discover bands purely from their own self-confidence or purely because they’d got x amounts of ‘fans’ on Facebook.
Reviews are far from obsolete, but yeah, a review, whether a few paragraphs or a few lines, with an album stream is the way forward. It’s just another evolution in progress.
Monsieur Lee, I am pretty sure reviews are still popular but in a rather different form than those presented here on Invisible Oranges. Don’t worry, your cynicism is more than justified: the Pitchfork 1-10 scale to the hundredth decimal place strikes me as the preeminent mode of reviewing in today’s world. I think people just want neatly packaged rating to describe the “quality” of a music purchase. Naturally, the reviews on Invisible Oranges continue to do otherwise.
Running a music review site myself, I find you present an interesting point. I think some people still look at reviews though to save themselves the time of downloading the tracks or album. It’s hard to judge a song or album by 30 second clips and not everything is found on youtube. I think long winded reviews are probably skipped over. In todays 7 second world of instant gratification, most people don’t want to read a 3 page review.
The same can be said about comments. With the web being so saturated in “social”, how many people take the time to read all the comments attached to articles/reviews? I think the review is still valid, but benefits lesser known bands more than popular ones.
I would like to see you keep reviewing albums. I agree with the previous points that were made about trusted album reviewers acting as an important filter for those of use who don’t want to stream 25 crappy albums in order to find the good one. The problem with most reviews on other sites is that they have long pointless sections about non-musical garbage, rather than useful information. I typically read only the last paragraph of album reviews because that’s where most review writers finally get to the point. The reviews on this site don’t usually have that problem, so I tend to read the entire reviews. I’ve found a lot of good music on this site, so thanks for that. If you do get rid of reviews, I still would like you to tell us which albums you think are great/sucky.
Re: The paragraph concerning People care more about bands than music….
Dear God, you absolutely nailed it. Thank you.
Maybe I’m just crazy, but I love album reviews. I have a couple of reasons:
1)I love reading about music, even when it’s poorly written and unoriginal. It nonetheless gives me new ways to think about stuff, and album reviews are a great place to find comparisons to other bands and observations about just what to listen for when enjoying an album
2)Reading a review takes, what, 5 minutes? Listening to a whole album can take a whole shitload longer than that. I love to read reviews, decide if it sounds like my kind of album (regardless of whether the reviewer liked it) and then hunt for song samples or whatever
3)Reviews introduce me to new music on a very regular basis. Sure, there are certain labels where I’ll always check out new music (Willowtip, Profound Lore, etc.) but in general there’s so much stuff that reviews just give a nice, accessible window into the maelstrom of metal releases
In other words: KEEP DOING ALBUM REVIEWS! I love reviews, and the reviews on this blog are especially good.
It really just depends on whether the review has something worth saying. Cosmo, you do.
To be honest, I’m usually more interested in reading about most new music than listening to it. Maybe that echoes your third point, but I think it’s because a) I like reading good writing (when it’s available) and music is my favorite subject to read about, and b) I don’t even get to listen to my favorite older music as much as I’d like to, so when I’ve got the time to do so, I’d usually rather hear that stuff.
Sometimes I wish I couldn’t read about music at all, though. When my obsession with metal began, this current glut of blogs and music sites didn’t exist. I just checked out new music blindly, and my impressions were never affected by the popular consensus of the internet or strongly opinionated reviewers. Though it shouldn’t be so, sometimes my enjoyment of new music is diminished by the swarm of negative opinions about it online. The worst thing is when I encounter this sort of thing before I even listen, and that happens often.
That being said, I can’t stop reading blogs and messageboards. I’m too thirsty for music discussion to quit.
Hey Cosmo,
I’m in the minority of people who find reviews one of my favorite parts of this site. (PLEASE don’t axe them) You, and your writers actually take the time to craft something enjoyable to read, whether I’ve heard of the band or not. I rarely post a comment, and probably only view it once or twice, but the enjoyment I receive from them is immensely higher. And for the record, I’ve never clicked an album stream you posted. Although I appreciate you providing them.
As for why they’re so under viewed? 1. No rating system probably turns of a lot of readers in our instant gratification lifestyles. Having to read or possibly reread multiple paragraphs to decipher your level of enjoyment, could be to much to ask of some. 2. Links offer more reasons to visit a second, third, or fourth time if you want to see something again. Also it’s more likely to be shared with friends.
It basically comes down to what people expect from a review, do you want affirmation that the latest album you’ve been listening to “rules.” Or do you want well thought out creative writing that stimulates conversation. I come hear to receive the latter, and I believe there are people who want more than a number out of a review.
I’m sorry but this is exactly why I enjoy interviews, reviews, etc.
Guys like Lester Bangs, Chuck Eddy, even Julian Cope have a great writing style that I enjoy above everything thing else…they just have that ability, that ’special sauce’, that really elevates the media and makes it enjoyable (I like to read too, so maybe there’s a literary connection here…books vs. word bites, long attention spans vs. short ones?)
Stewey from LHP had that going for a while. Pitchfork did too, in the beginning. It’s what you do with what you got that counts. Do it well enough, and you will get noticed…maybe not right away, but in the long run, and where it counts.
I personally thought that those Slough Feg guest article were some of the best things I’ve ever read on a blog.
I have to say that most reviews both in print as well as online (maybe especially) are completely worthless in the era of being able to stream (or download a month before an album is even released) music and judge for yourself. It may be a handy barometer for exposing one to bands they aren’t yet familiar with, but most reviews that I see are so crammed with lame hyperbole and personal “non-obejectivity” about the actual music and what it sounds like that it’s just fucking stupid.
I have two specific examples of this that cover two ends of the spectrum.
1.Stewart Voegtlin-Smarmy hipster bullshit wrapped in phoney troo metal schlock, constantly yammering about not liking things that are pretty pedestrian, and moderately popular at best…all while complaining about Mastodon’s choice of footwear and throwing in a Bob Dylan reference (fuck Bob Dylan, BTW!) or some dead French philosopher just for the sake of stroking his own bloated nuts.
2.Jeanne Fury-If I read one more review by her that focuses on a band’s fans and what kind of posters they have on their walls or what gauge ear plugs they wear, rather than what said band actually sounds like my head might explode!
Just like there are way too many mediocre bands, labels, and blogs…there are way too many “writers” with literally nothing better to do than clog thinkspace with their inane blabbering about things they have a personal gripe with. These people are the FoxNews of the music world. Get a job, get a life, shut the fuck up already!
Also, please shut the fuck up about whining about/bashing Decibel already…we all get it, you’re the most super old school, underground, kvlt-metal, snake wizard that has ever dropped a needle on a Venom album and you only read zines from 1991 that had a circulation of 12 copies printed in goat semen and virgin’s blood…fucking dorks.
>Also, please shut the fuck up about whining about/bashing Decibel already…we all get it, you’re the most super old school, underground, kvlt-metal, snake wizard that has ever dropped a needle on a Venom album and you only read zines from 1991 that had a circulation of 12 copies printed in goat semen and virgin’s blood…fucking dorks.
Hyperbole/Ad Hominem weren’t just rivers in the Ancient World. Also, see:
http://i.imgur.com/NrwpW.jpg <–
You're welcome.
Backed re: Jeanne. I feel like her reviews could be less macho and a little more descriptive of the tunes themselves.
I like Decibel quite a bit, but similar complaints could be lodged about the review style in general. Snark levels be nearin’ critical mass, cap’n.
love album reviews..but album reviews are not why i come here if that makes any sense…i find the articles and interviews far more interesting….
I agree with Goat. Reviews are even more important now because there’s just too much crap out there to sift through. I don’t have the time to stream every new album. It’s a lot faster for me to read a review to see if the album is worth taking the time to sample and possibly purchase. Also, if the reviewer has done some research, it’s a good way to get some additional insight into the band and their music. Sometimes the context of an album can be important or at least interesting.
I also disagree about metal fans caring more about bands than music. I’ve read countless arguments supporting the separation of music and artist in regards to bands like Arghoslent.
It is rare that I take reviews seriously for many of my interests – music, movies, games, etc. I tend to find a couple of trusted sources – people I know personally, some site or publication, or opinions from a particular community – and go by their recommendations. The internet gives all kinds of fandoms a fairly uncritical voice, and sifting the signal from the noise can be tough.
However, the reviews on this specific site have been instrumental in introducing me to new bands or giving me reasons to check out genres of music I otherwise wouldn’t. They’re generally written well and are infrequent enough that I figure if you’ve taken time to publish the review, it’s probably something I should bother to check out. Just putting a stream up isn’t enough for me because I like to know why this particular thing is worth my time. The streams help me check it out, but I’m not just going to click on a stream wondering if I’m going to like it. That goes right back to the signal-to-noise problem. I wouldn’t want to see them go entirely, but I don’t need to see more than already get published.
For the most part, I skim the first few paragraphs of reviews, generally looking for keywords that connotate Dan-will-like-this-ness (slow, brutal, ugly, etc.), search for a stream or free download, then listen to the first track. Rather than longer reviews, you could do short articles that give one-paragraph reviews of five or so albums at a time. I would read the hell out of that.
Maybe for you, if they’re not performing.
I really feel these things are relative or subjective based on the context of the writing. I’m not sure what your mission statement is at IO is.
When I started blogging, my intention was to tell people about music I liked. I really wanted to replicate the thing I had in school where I had a group of trusted friends that recommended music with each other. 99% of the reviews on my site are positive. They’re also for bands and musicians that do not have tons of coverage.
I have the exact opposite problem. No one seems to care at all about any kind of editorial writing I do. When I look at the site metrics, it’s reviews that bring the readers in. I have to conclude that reviews are not universally obsolete, their relevance seems to be context specific.
I think maybe you make a good point for REDUCING the number of reviews you put out. If I see an album reviewed for an artist I’ve never heard of, I tend to skip over it. However, I have read reviews that have turned me on to music I otherwise wouldn’t have heard of (Thanks to IO, I now know about Blut Aus Nord). Other times I will read a review for an album I’ve already heard just to get a fresh perspective on it.
I’d hate to see you axe all the reviews just because they aren’t as popular as some of the other features. Maybe try this:
1. Reduce the number of reviews to a point where you’re only reviewing a few elite albums that you feel everyone should hear. I know you consume about 50 times the new music I do on a daily basis, so this is probably easier said than done.
2. Axe (almost all of) the bad reviews. Why would I want to take time to read a review that tells me not to listen to an album that I wasn’t going to listen to anyway? Bad reviews should be reserved for only very high profile acts. **cough** Morbid Angel. If I’m taking the time to read a review, it’s in hopes of it being a stellar review that makes me immediately want to hear the album.
I read the reviews in Decibel pretty regularly and appreciate them for what they are. When I come to this site, I’m looking for something a little more personal to the writers, who are excellent. If the writers want to fill me in on a new (or old) album that they feel very strongly about positively or otherwise, than that is something I’d like to read.
You forgot one thing. As a society we are reading (and thus writing) less and less. People want everything shorter and easier. We have busy lives don’t we? Just as magazines turned to blogs, reviews turned into a few paragraphs. I came here for the writing. If I like something I try to find the artist’s site or look on YouTube. Everyone may have their music bias and not want to read certain reviews. But a well written anything on a peace of toilet paper will keep me here. It may not get me to buy every album I see as the market is indeed saturated.
@UA-If you aren’t Stew, you’re got his trademark cliches down…Midol, touche!
@Cosmo-I actually enjoy your reviews here more than most of the other stuff you post. It seems to me that you really only give attention to things you’re enthused about, and even if it winds up being something I’m not interested in checking out that enthusiasm always makes for an interesting read.
To be fair, and mildly more positive than my post above…there are several people online and in print that are worth reading because of a similar vibe. Lurker and HSS always provide food for thought while generally seeming to just review things they are excited about. I don’t need to think critically about things that I already know I don’t like, someone making fun of Bullet For My Valentine, or Christian emo metal as a “review” isn’t entertaining or enlightening…it’s just boring and a waste of my time.
Purely in my opinion, reviews are kind of a self-limiting thing, probably on any site where you can track the pageviews of individual posts. If someone isn’t into Sludge, when you post a review of an album from a Sludge band (or, for that matter, an interview featuring the band), that person is more likely to bypass it. I don’t think it’s due to people being more into bands than music — if that were true, the interview stats would be much higher. It’s that in such a fragmented and divided genre, you wind up with people that are strictly into one or two sub-genres and skip tightly-focused pieces that don’t apply to their own personal preferences. A Doom fan might skip a review of a Black Metal album because it’s not in their wheelhouse. There are plenty of commenters and visitors here who might be into a vast variety of Metal sub-genres, sure, but the more all-inclusive discussion posts (like this, or “Top 2 Metal Bands That Got More Savage With Age” or “When Wax Becomes Flesh”) can pull a wider array of single- or dual-interest fans into the mix in addition to them.
I’ve had that hunch, too, about genre fragmentation. It’s a shame that music fans get so siloed in their tastes.
Hear, hear. That’s one reason why I find the Heavy Metal Be-Bop series so valuable. Looking for common ground. But somehow I think it might actually be *easier* for a Metal fan to be into Jazz (or Country, or Electronica) than to bridge sub-genres.
Not to spam, but I actually posted a response to this here. I thought there was some interesting stuff here. I’m not sure that people are so much more obsessed with image than with content as you’re implying, but I think you’re definitely right about saturation, shitty writing and lack of creativity. But there may well be some benefits that people are still getting from the old system as well.
The disconnect between music industry and what fans want is the most interesting part to me. My band works with a publicist, and it’s true — all bands are on the hunt for that elusive killer review. But its not a review that we’re really after so much as a seal of approval from a fan-approved ‘tastemaker’. Tastemaker might be the least appealing label for anything, ever. But if you pay any attention to the world of marketing or PR, you’ll see they’re all fixated on this notion of ‘tastemakers’ and their influence over the legions of web-dwelling peers. Boiling it down that far makes it sound depressing on both sides, and I guess it is. But with band saturation at a high, and attention spans bottoming out, it’s really all we can do as musicians to try and make it. I imagine NPR’s stamp of approval was pretty important for Agalloch. That’s what we as musicians are trying to get out of it: the means to reach an audience, and a reason for that audience to invest even a minute of their time to listen to our shit.
Reviews are one way to get there, but I think the mp3 download or album stream paired with a concise and, ideally, thought-provoking description or discussion is just as valuable, and a bit more accessible to readers. As a reader, that’s probably what I want. I wouldn’t say do away with the concept of reviews altogether, only the formality of reviews. Since this site doesn’t do the number or star ratings anyway, it seems like a logical progression.
@The Path Less Traveled Records had it right I think: filters. Whether it’s mps3s or streams or videos or reviews I look to a limited number of sources I feel are reliable at setting me up with music worth considering. Because there is just too much out there.
What I have always wanted to read (even way back in pre-digital times) would be reviews written 6-8 months after a record’s release date. What albums make it through the phalanx of releases and earn their keep over time?
“They care about artists, not art”. Nope. They care about satisfying their ego. Have you ever seen people telling great words about albums, while the very next minute they wouldn’t recognize relative songs they hear on a dj set? I’ve worked at 7 clubs until now, I’ve seen it happening all the time. Have you ever encountered the phenomenon of people supporting every single release of a band called Iron-fucking-Maiden because “it is all about Iron-fucking-Maiden”? Masses don’t care about art, they don’t care about exploring new music. They prefer sticking to what they know because their connection to art is mostly epidermic. Check the clicks every time you upload a Metallica-related text. They never lie.
Reviews are indeed dead. When you can stream or download an album before actually buying it, why should you read someone else’s opinion of it? I used to read reviews to select the best albums to buy back in the lp/tape/CD years, With the Internet they became obsolete.
I like websites who stream albums or songs and add a bit of info or even an interview, all on the same page.
Labels publicists no longer have a clue on how to promote bands.
Album reviews are far less important to me now than they were say 20 years ago. Hell,i bought Left Hand Path,Altars of Madness,Slowly We Rot,etc on the good reviews i read in whatever metal rag i could get my hands on at the time;Metal Maniacs,RIP,etc. Now,i can listen to the music and form my own opinion on whether to buy or not without any glowing review. I still miss the old days though,so much music,so little time,people dont really listen to albums anymore. Its all about the song nowadays it seems. Oh well,love reading the show reviews on this site,they come in handy for me,seeing thats the best way to experiance music. Someone here wrote a spot on review of a Converge/Trap Them show a few weeks back i enjoyed reading.
Ronnie James Dio unintentionally (or not) made an interesting observation in an interview from years ago discussing an upcoming album, I guess whatever the last one was. He kept referring to it as “product”, as in “we’ve got product coming to shelves in a couple weeks” “we hope to sell x number of product” etc.
That seems to be the problem with metal and music at large- a glut of product and little art.
My favorite element of reviews is going back and reading them after a few initial listens to the album, it’s like getting a fresh set of eyes on the material, a nuance the reviewer may have noticed that passed you by or a suggestion of subtexts/themes that you may have interpreted differently. Most albums I won’t read a review of until after I’ve heard it.
Love the album reviews – my favorite thing on the site. Endless posts on Metallica’s early recordings, not so much.
@Wash, that’s an excellent point you brought up about streams in conjunction with a concise description.
Of note, I find the site No Clean Singing does this extremely effectivley. They include lesser known bands along with big name acts. With the lesser knowns, they often include the bands’ social media links, you tube clips, and even prior releases for free download. I find it to be an effective way to promote bands as well as give a quick yet fair evaluation of the material. I think they address the task of filtering the endles deluge of music in thes modern digital age quite well. I think future successful music sites may use this “functional” approach more often.
Even though your reviews get the least hits, I think they still provide value. I compare website reviews with the analogy of printed periodicals: I feel ilke IO is akin to The Economist or Wall Street journal, Something like Metalsucks is a tabloid like The Sun or Weekly World News, and NCS is a more functional day to day tool for ino /entertainment like the New York Yimes or whatever local daily paper you buy. Though the quality may greatly differ, they all have their inherent value, or at least they serve their puposes.
You, sir, have made a friend for life. Or at least until next week. Thank you for those very kind words.
Is the review dead? Yes and no.
I think it is safe to say, post Web 2.0 (total saturation of blogs, social networking etc) the vanity/fan/hater type review is essentially dead. Before the advent of streaming and the near universal availability of everything via (il)legal download sites such as Metal Encyclopedia were a hodgepodge of useful but more often than not utterly useless drivel. Much like the Facebook method, everything is reduced to love it/hate it and people manipulating numerical data in the mistaken belief that the application of a number to an album somehow stands as the pinnacle of insightful and objective critique.
This type of review, indeed this kind of site is now bucking under its own obsolescence. Further, the random Joeblow@someblog cut-and-pastes of press releases or reviews is not only lazy but essentially just littering. The internet is already a cluttered place, why make it more so.
Personally, I love reviews. Perhaps it is because I am an English teacher? Perhaps it is because I love reading and writing (so, back to the previous!)? Then again, perhaps it is just nostalgia? I grew up reading reviews in the pre-internet era where a single copy of Metal Hammer would last me a month!
So, are reviews dead? Like I said, yes and no. The other kind of review, practiced by Cosmo here on IO, the review which provides enough context and description but also reveals something of the listener’s engagement with the album is far from death. It may be an unpopular medium, but then again it has always been a specialist genre.
Like just about everyone here, often I can simply just download an album, listen and “make up my own mind”. But what is interesting and valuable to me about reviews is that they function as a conversation between me and the writer. A well written review, using analogy, using real English, a review which goes beyond description but goes toward interpretation via engagement – that’s for me. Having read almost all of Cosmo’s reviews, I feel like I have somehow gotten to know him. Not the actual person but the person in the text. The taste/logic/reason behind the text. It is with this person that I dialog with when listening to music. It provides a frame of reference, a language and a logic outside of my own to apply to music both familiar and unknown.
In fact to put it succinctly, I like to read reviewers more than reviews. And just like bands, the really good writers, the ones we resonate with are few and far between.
So if we can agree to sound the death knell on the “track-by-track” and ban phrases such as “not as brutal/fast etc…” and “not as good as x” as well as give up on scoring systems, I think we can move toward something interesting and original.
Well, damn. I was thinking of writing a counterpoint to the thesis of Cosmo’s post, trying to express the points you just made, but what’s the point now? You’ve said it better than I could hope to do. Well done.
I don’t think I’ve posted, but I read/check the site every day.
Wanted to say definitely do reviews, they are great at introducing bands to people, especially with interesting commentary.
Thank you.
I like reading album reviews, at least on this site. But, really, I think Cosmo is a really good writer and album reviews sorta “squish” his talent. His pieces about music history and trivia or the intricacies of recording are way more interesting. To me at least.
i read reviews and like all writing, and music for that matter, its about sifting through the pile to find whats worth it. some reviewers are really good and some aren’t. I find more music through reviews than probably any other way. I do enjoy blog site that have reviews and tend to read a lot of them. I like comparisons to other bands, doesn’t mean i always agree, but its nice to pointed in a particular direction once looking for something. I think its natural to question things that we do and think about weather they are worth while every now and again. But this blog in particular has turned me on to so might fine things. So my vote is yeah. But at the same time if you choose not to do it anymore, someone else will pick up the reigns and drive that bitch where it needs to go.
NO, PLEASE DO NOT STOP! I probably listen to less than 80% of the bands you cover, yet I read every single review. Concise, original, well-structured reviews are so rare these days, especially in metal, that I read yours mostly for the writing. Stop if you must, but just know that they will be missed.
I like short reviews / some kind of description that tells me what to expect. Then I can stream music. No need in long texts, it doesn’t make sense for me. But I still care about interviews cause metal is more than music for me. I prefer to read them in classic paper zines but web is also ok. And I still care about articles like this one
Tomek – Thanks for your comment. Your graphic design work is cool. I’m not huge fan of using Photoshop for artwork, but you are very good at it.
For those interested, here’s Tomek’s portfolio:
http://www.kanze.pl
Perhaps you’re thinking to quantitatively here rather than qualitatively. Just looking at web hits or algorithms doesn’t really tell you qualitatively what the reader gets out of the experience visiting your site. Even though you may get less hits from a review of some unknown band (duh?) those are the people who are interested in “discovering” something new, and ultimately they are the early adopters who support emerging music that will later generate bigger web hits in the future.
Anyway, if you merely feed your follower sweets and cheap thrills they’ll all lose their teeth and get diabetes.
I must admit a special interest here since my band is unsigned and depends on support from sites such as this one for exposure. We don’t have one of them fancy publicists and whatnot. I’d hate for you to axe the record review right before you get a chance to hear our newest album. Then again you could just post the stream from our bandcamp and call it a day, but that would be disappointing. There are so many blogs that do that, and I wish they’d write something rather than just posting a random stream and link.
I vote keep the reviews!
We see the world through similar eyes Cosmo. An insightful piece for sure.
Ya spelt Lindsay wrong!
Fixed Ms. Lohan’s name spelling – thanks for the catch!
I wonder whether your stats might be skewed a bit by the fact that many IO regulars subscribe to the RSS, or check out every post via the site itself. That would leave only casual visitors represented by your stats, visitors who have probably arrived at the site from a google search. If that’s the case, then the reason reviews are less popular may be that review posts have fewer tags than your other, more general, posts, and so are less likely to get google hits.
I personally find the reviews the most interesting bit of the site. As someone else said, that may be because I like to write them myself. But what I look for in a review isn’t the sales advice or straightforward description that you (rightly) see as outdated, but an insight into what the music does to the reviewer’s brain. I’m an analytical guy by nature, and I like to pick apart the music I enjoy and try to make sense of it’s effect on my brain. The more I do it, the richer my response is to all music (even shit stuff). When I read other people’s insights into a record, I often come away with some new way of looking at music that I can apply in my own listening. So don’t stop the reviews. Being able to feed off other people’s criticism is vital.
(Sorry to anyone who these points before me. I only just found time to read this article, let alone the 85+ comments.)