Freesound Forums

Ok, this is the follow-up of a discussion that was interesting but posted in the wrong section. The main question is: what standards do you use when you review music. .Milan wondered whether one can review a song properly when one doesn't understand or like the genre of that song. LS stated that he understands that if one doesn't like a particular genre one can still review it using standards such as innovation and progress, i.e. whether something is a repetition of what we know already or whether it is new. (guys, correct me if I'm wrong)

I'll give some more input. Reviews are always biased but a bit too often I came across reviews that run like this: "I absolutely hate genre X or band Y so it is beyond me why the editor gave this record to me for a review. Anyway, I'll give it a fair try [... ] and my conclusion is that this record sucks." Exit 'fair' try...
And having done quite a few reviews myself I think that I really can't judge music I don't like at all. Reviewers are biased. So, in answer to .milan: it takes knowledge and appreciation to understand and assess a certain song / musc. And in answer to LS: I don't think that one can give unbiased reviews. But of course I would like to hear your opinions on this matter.

For me it depends why I'm reviewing it. For example if I'm reviewing it for myself (do i want to spend money on this artist...) then i will review it with my tastes in mind. "Do i like the bass/drums/guitar/vocals?" "No?" Then a no to liking the song, and thus i would give it a 'rubbish' review.

The second reviewer state i put my self in is different to the afore mentioned however, i encounter this most days being in a music tech class, people play me tunes and songs they've made. Firstly i think "Do i like it?" "No? Then Why Not" If its because of the genre, i try and see it from their perspective - i know this is impossible but i try, and doing that i can still say whether it is 'good' or not from a person with simialr music tastes. I also review it in a musical sense (i.e. in time, in tune, does it work as a song)

No-one can ever give an unbiased review, its not possible, but i believe some people try one of these methods, if not both. For me it depends if its for my benefit (a song on the radio "Do i buy their album?" or for theirs (a friend playing their track to me "Would i buy their album/this track"

I also review it in a musical sense (i.e. in time, in tune, does it work as a song)

Yes, I agree that this is something that can help a review. But then again, there are also difficulties here. For example, if you were to review a cd that features soundscapes, how can you review that with technical standards? I don't have the answer but I'm curious to know because I faced this situation in the past.

but then again it depends who you are reviewing it for.

If you are reviewing it for someone who has personally asked you "can you tell me what you think" i would see what it makes me feel, e.g. mood wise, explain it to them and if they say "No, i wanted it to make you feel happy" when it made you mellow then explain why.

If its a review for other things i would still sort of do the same "i think the artist was trying to capture the happy mood that the intro creates".

You can still analyse it musically - making a city soundscape, the cars noises are just there, when if you were really there you'd hear it approach from the left and disappear to the right, i advise some panning is need etc.

LG
.Milan wondered whether one can review a song properly when one doesn't understand or like the genre of that song.

Actually, just the "understand" part. I think that if you've taken the trouble to understand a genre and you have a bit of self-discipline, you can leave your feelings out of a critique.

LG
For example, if you were to review a cd that features soundscapes, how can you review that with technical standards?

By "technical standards", are you talking about production values? Musical values?

Ok, I see.

@ Streety, Milan: I understand your point. I agree with you guys that it is possible to do a review if one tries to understand what the artist was up to. But it requires a professional approach and I've seen quite a few reviewers who can't make a distinction between what they like and what they have to tell in a review. And speaking for myself: I still find it difficult to judege electronic dance music (house, trance whatever) because I just can't see how to do that properly. Perhaps I should invest more time in that

@ .Milan: I mean production-wise. For example panning, dynamics etc. But then reviewing becomes a rather clinial process with less room for emotion (or not?)

- LG

LG
I agree with you guys that it is possible to do a review if one tries to understand what the artist was up to. But it requires a professional approach and I've seen quite a few reviewers who can't make a distinction between what they like and what they have to tell in a review.

So, should those reviewers shape up? Or should we stop expecting a professional approach because it's too difficult for reviewers to handle?

Streety
but then again it depends who you are reviewing it for.

And perhaps also on why they want you to review it -- what kind of information do they want, and why have they come specifically to you to provide it?

This is my first forum blatherment ever. So forgive me if I make faux pas, etc. I have reviewed other people's music, mostly hopeful music makers, of various levels of accomplishment. On Broadjam.com, where hopeful ones get some kinda site credit for grading each other's efforts.
It was very difficult...maybe easier when going into genres not familiar to me. I found that the key is listening, while trying honestly to "remove one's filters," because it's not just random accident that someone makes music. I try to hear what attracted the composer/performer. Not always successful.
Such things as musicianship, production values, and other measurable criteria will always provide something to talk about, and can be encouragingly offered; but if composer's motivation is blatantly offensive, that must be said.
But who is anyone to put down someone else's true source of music?
I'm sorry to pontificate; it's a function of getting older, I guess--M

So, should those reviewers shape up? Or should we stop expecting a professional approach because it's too difficult for reviewers to handle?

Or perhaps they should be honest about the fact that they can't give a fully unbiased review. But for me personally I always use reviews as a first guide and read them only to see whether it would be a good idea to get more knowledge about a certain record. So, it is probably up to the reader to decide whether a review is useful or not.

Interestingly, a newspaper in the Netherlands run a cover story about the value of reviewing literature. If I recall well most contributors agreed that reviewers in literature have become interlocked in their own discourse and often rate books very differently than the readers do. For example, the Da Vinci Code was considered to be garbage but it sold pretty well...

Such things as musicianship, production values, and other measurable criteria will always provide something to talk about, and can be encouragingly offered; but if composer's motivation is blatantly offensive, that must be said.
But who is anyone to put down someone else's true source of music?
I'm sorry to pontificate; it's a function of getting older, I guess--M

No offence taken. I understand your point. From my (small) experience, musicians often appreciate a critical review as long as it has a good argumentation. Again, the professionalism of the reviewer is as important as is the readers' ability to make a distinction between a good and a bad review.

I always try to be positive and encouraging when it comes to a place like here. I appreciate when people share their compositions with us, and try to limit my responses to two types; praise or constructive criticism. I honestly do like most of the stuff people post here. It's refreshing, and I find that it can broaden my musical taste if I give it half a chance. (I just finished making a Freesound smart playlist on my iPod, complete with the ccMixter editor's pick podcast. )

If there is something that someone posts that I don't understand or don't like at all, I find either a simple "thanks for sharing" or not commenting at all to be preferable to just slamming them because I don't like their style.

I think constructive criticism is really the key here. If you find at least some part of the work you like, figure out why and suggest to the person how they can improve this or their next composition.

That's my $0.02 USD.