Post Reply - Review Etiquette and Rationale |
Post Reply |
Message |
Topic - Review Etiquette and Rationale Posted: 31 May 2012 at 1:03am By adg211288 |
I write for my own website first and foremost. How 'professional' you want to call that is up for debate, since we're entirely non-profit. Though being part of a community that helps you find new music is rewarding in its own right. Call us(me) semi-professional if you will, after all I do receive promos from some labels.
I have a semi-set in stone style of reviewing which I sometimes intentionally break depending on how the words flow. I seem to have sub-consciously picked up a trait from Jonas with starting review like "Album is that whatever number album from so and so band" etc. It's a good way to get going, as I often find the hardest line to write is the first one. The rest of my reviews typically cover the same stuff in varying length. It's all about how the words flow. Some albums I find need more said on them than others, especially if the album has both positive and negative aspects to cover. Take my recent Augury reviews. I prefer Concealed, yet I wrote a fair bit more for Fragmentary Evidence. My familiarity with a band can also affect my reviews. Sometimes if its my first encounter with an established band I will says that the review is from the perspective a newcomer. If I'm familiar with the band though they may get graded based on what expectations I had from them as much as from their genre. I also have varying standards from different sub-genres since with metal as diverse as it is if I looked for the same positives in every sub there'd be some subs always getting lower or higher reviews. As such I tend to be more critical on some, such as symphonic metal, where I'm really not interested these days if all you can do is be a poor intimation of what Nightwish or Epica is already doing better.
|