Review Etiquette and Rationale

I've given an artist I really like a very low rating before. I consider the review respectful for the most part although I did end it by saying I only recommend it as a spare beer mat - the frustrated fan in me talking there. I'm talking about this one:  http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/the-scythe--review.aspx?id=228877

Yeah sometimes no matter how hard I look I can't find much to say about an album, especially ones I gave mid-range ratings to. 

UMUR wrote: I�ve read very short reviews, that were very useful and long ones that were a complete waste of time (and space). It all depends on the reviewer and his/her writing style.

I�ve read very short reviews, that were very useful and long ones that were a complete waste of time (and space). It all depends on the reviewer and his/her writing style.

UMUR wrote: ^I think I prefer the bare bones concise reviews, but that�s subjective and one of the great things about a site like MMA. You have the opportunity to read reviews by many different people, who write in their own style (long ones, detailed ones, not so detailed ones and short ones). Some you�ll trust and some you won�t. Some you�ll prefer and some you probably won�t read that often.

Yeah, I prefer shorter reviews, too. I generally do not read review that are very long - except if it is a release that I am really interested in or if the review is very well written, humorous or innovative (I think this has to do with my day job which requires that I do a lot of reading, meaning that I am generally reading-saturated in my spare time - and the same thing goes for writing).

I prefer writing short reviews for the same reason (also, I am generally very busy IRL, so I rarely have time to write elaborate and lengthy reviews). That being said, I do enjoy experimenting with different review styles, such as the fanboy rant or the metaphor-riddled review or the vocative review or the would-be academic review, and I plan to do some nonsensical reviews for some avant-garde metal releases (I think they'd be very fitting).

I find negative reviews more challenging to write because I really don't want to be a dick and just bash the release, plus I always try to find at least some positive aspects of such releases (or at least aspects which other listeners might find positive). I do enjoy reading negative reviews because they can be very entertaining - like Wilytank's brilliant dialogue review of Black Veil Brides' "Set the World on Fire". One thing I refrain from is attacking the musicians personally - ad hominem reviews have no value whatsoever in my book, because they say nothing about the music itself and they just make the reviewer come across as a dickhead.

And, in general, I like the variety of reviews we get here on the MMA. That's also one of the things that I really appreciate about this site.

I like the fact that the reviews on this site, are written by "regular" folks contra so called "professional" reviewers, who often IMO aren�t better at writing reviews than many of the people here. They are just as subjective in their opinions as everyone else.

I agree... which is why I found that whole situation, when a rabid Sun caged fan went on a massive rant because Stephen wrote a negative review of their latest album, quite interesting. I remember that the guy ended up concluding that the MMA was not a worthy site because we're not professional reviewers (somewhere on Facebook where the whole "conflict" originated). It should be mentioned that Paul from Sun Caged took a much more constructive and diplomatic approach to the whole situation and the distinction between professional and amateur reviewers.

Hahaha! I'm on fire of late - all over the shop, I need a decent night's sleep for once!

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.

dreadpirateroberts wrote: ^ true, too many of the worst, worst, worst reviews I've ever read have been by professionals - like the turkey who reviewed LZII for Rolling Stone - can't recall his name, but it sucked.

One other thing I like about EM is the ability to add a witty review title.  Now I don't go out of my way to think one up and often I just take a part of the lyrics, but titles to reviews definitely add some more personal touch to the review.  Unfortunately, there's people who take the boring approach: [band name] - [album title], and those reviews don't catch my eye as much.  Titles aren't necessary, but they can sure make reviews noticeable.

^I think I prefer the bare bones concise reviews, but that�s subjective and one of the great things about a site like MMA. You have the opportunity to read reviews by many different people, who write in their own style (long ones, detailed ones, not so detailed ones and short ones). Some you�ll trust and some you won�t. Some you�ll prefer and some you probably won�t read that often. I like the fact that the reviews on this site, are written by "regular" folks contra so called "professional" reviewers, who often IMO aren�t better at writing reviews than many of the people here. They are just as subjective in their opinions as everyone else.