Thread 127538745

Most people are bad at reviewing music because they can't actually explain what makes it good without just listing off random stuff, expecting the reader to care. The first sentence of this review already expects you to have listened to Master of Puppets beforehand, and provides no other context about Metallica's work beyond the meaningless term "extended-form thrash" which could be applied to plenty other bands. The reviewer attempts to describe the production, but gives up before justifying their opinion. I can imagine what "bone dry" metal sounds like, but why is the absence of a significant low end a good thing? Notice how quickly they change subjects: "It all works though," but what are they referring to? Moreover, the reliance on vague adjectives is a crutch. Nobody knows what "scooped guitars" means besides pedal enthusiasts, and saying that a melodic passage is "beautiful" without pointing to a specific phrase, flourish, solo, or anything borders on disingenuous.

The rest of the review, short as it is, doesn't attempt to talk about the music. Instead it suddenly shifts to the lyrical content and acts as though the topics chosen for each song are indicative that it's worth listening to. This phenomenon is one of the worst aspects about music discourse because it treats the reader as an idiot. I can tell that Hetfield will sing about the "corrupt legal system," it's literally on the album cover! All of this is bad but the most insulting part is the last sentence. "Nothing feels like it doesn't need to be there." I want you to read this aloud to yourself a few times and hear how ridiculous and vague it sounds. It's the equivalent of saying everything is in its right place, which is a pointless platitude. Expecting an hour-long album to not drag at any point is a lofty statement to make, and without backing it up you're effectively daring the reader to take your word on it. Pure laziness, and these are the takes that get featured and shown to everyone.

>>127538745 (OP)
Writing to review music is like doing interpretative dance to review a novel.

imagine wasting your time writing reviews lmaooooooo

>>127538745 (OP)
The review is bad because it's too long and ponderous and also has a strongly Reddit vibe to it.

>>127538788
so they should make a song to review it?

>>127538745 (OP)
The only reviewers that are decent at all are specific genre experts.

Like Scaruffi, I'd listen to him about prog rock but nothing else. These type of people are wellsprings of information simply because they've heard EVERYTHING in their particular niche. However, when they step outside, they drag all of the opinions they've finely crafted about the one genre into judging others, and it's totally inappropriate, not helpful, misguided.

Like JDawg, I'd listen to him about brutal death metal but not death doom, because he fucking hates death doom. That's kinda it.

thanks chatGPT i'm gonna read shit by humans who can read thanks

>>127538830
at that point they become Christgay trying to judge metal by the same standards as...I guess Little Richard or something

>>127538745 (OP)
What purpose should a review serve? On a music score-aggregation website like RYM, it's just there to explain how the person feels about the album. What images, thoughts, or feelings did the album conjure up? What they touch upon is what stuck out to them. If something didn't, then there's no reason to mention it. To me it's fair. What I dislike is when some autist tries to describe everything that happens on a record with words, and then to provide their opinion for each of those pieces. I dislike it, because nobody listens to music that way, so it comes off as forced and unnatural. Plus focusing on specific parts misses the forest for the trees.

Many reviews are also bad because they rely on what I would call the "Descriptor Effect." This is because instead of using their own words to explain the content of the music, they list off preset vibes and established genres that just end up making the album sound like a formless collection of stuff. This reviewer actually understands the value of context in their first paragraph, and lends creedence to the idea that Deftones are back after a bit of a lull in their discography. But they fail to explain this because they can only see Private Music through the descriptors.

What is the "vibe" of Diamond Eyes besides having heavy guitars and lush atmosphere? How does that sever it from being associated with shoegaze or black metal? They go out of their way to call the music "dark ambient" and "post-metal" as though these genres were conscious decisions from the band during production. Even if that were the case, saying this can invite vastly different interpretations from the reader that the music cannot live up to. When I think dark ambient, I think of Lustmord or Zoviet France. When I hear the word post-metal, I want to fucking vomit.

I actually want to be charitable here because the person who wrote this review is young, but that just goes to show how low the standards have become. When I see someone say a band "locked the fuck in" and "did a thing" I can only assume they're incapable of achieving deeper thoughts about the music they like. And there's nothing wrong with that, except when others read these amateurish musings and go on to write their thoughts the same way. Do you understand how many albums in 2025 I've read reviews for where the entire thing is nullified by claiming it's "peak?"

>>127538926
The problem is that most people can't actually explain how they feel about art in any real capacity. And for whatever reason, they get mad when you point this out, calling you "autistic" as a baseless insult.

>>127538815
No, point is is that they're fucking POINTLESS. I used to read album reviews all the time on Metal Archives until one day I realized there was never one time where I went "damn, they have a good point" or "damn, that's a really poetic way of putting one's feelings" It's all faggoty navel-gazing. Write reviews for yourself, fine, but I will never ever read someone's essay about a piece of music ever again.

>>127538930
>>127533150
this anon did it here with this Rosemary Clooney tune he describes it as sounding "Motown-like" whatever that means (presumably like 60s R&B?)

Deja Vu [Atlantic, 1970]
Of the five (or seven, I forget) memorable tunes here, N's "Our House" is a charming but cloying evocation of puppy domesticity, while both N's sanctimonious "Teach Your Children" and C's tragicomic "Almost Cut My Hair" document how the hippie movement has corrupted our young people. S half scores twice and in-law M provides the climax. Which leaves Y's "Helpless" as the group's one unequivocal success this time out. It's also Y's guitar--with help from S and hired hands T and R--that make the music work, not those blessed harmonies. And Y wasn't even supposed to be in on this. B-

>>127538930
Deftones are nu-metal

>>127538988
Their first two albums and one track off White Pony before they became alternative rock with slightly aggressive production strictly to appeal to non-metalheads. Godflesh, Converge, Ministry, all these alt-metal bands inevitably soften up their sound over time.

>>127538745 (OP)
I don't write music reviews, but if I did, I'd have to write about it like Beavis & Butthead or a total bimbo who just goes on vibes, because I don't understand the technical stuff at all, and I don't want to sound like this person. I understand what a guitar is, and that a bass guitar and the drums work together. A lot of music is pretty dumb though. It's mostly entertainment for people who want to party on their day off.

So for this Metallica record. I might write something like:

>"This album is a good summary for people new to Metallica and just want to hear the band go a little bit nuts. You really hear Hetfield in action as he's singing songs about nuclear war wiping out humanity. That gives a sense of the grand, emotional stakes involved. I like this sort of Metallica. It took me awhile to finish it though because the songs are pretty long, but also because of all the times it made me stop and think."

>>127538962
>The problem is that most people can't actually explain how they feel about art in any real capacity.
You're not really the arbiter of how other people actually feel about things, so statements regarding the accuracy of their descriptions are completely baseless. What is a problem is when people have strange ideas of what it is they're trying to accomplish with a review. I don't care that someone can transcribe everything that happens on a record, because I can listen to it myself ffs. I care about how the record resonated with them, because that's not something I can get from just listening to the album myself.

>>127539101
as i've said you're more trying to get across the vibe the song creates for you rather than describing its sounds from a purely technical POV

>>127538745 (OP)
did you just review a review

>>127539101
>>127538981
On that note I'm not sure how he came to the conclusion that Poison's Slip of the Tongue was a satirical record making fun of cockrock (as if Brett Michaels could be that clever).

>>127539126
What is the purpose of a review in your eyes? You clearly think there is some specific purpose, otherwise you'd have no leg to stand on criticizing reviews for not adhering to it. What should someone be trying to accomplish with a review?

>>127539162
he somehow liked the album but couldn't actually bring himself to admitting he did so he just pretended Poison were a joke/parody band

>>127538745 (OP)
"I'm the baby" - the review

there is of course some objective standard for music quality else we'd think Death Magnetic was on the same level as RTL and nobody thinks that

>>127538745 (OP)
They have no idea what they are doing.

>>127539198
And at the same time it is universally agreed that Pat Boone's cover of Tutti Frutti sucked enormous dick so that is indeed true.

>>127539051
>George Michael was a fine pop singer. Some have treated him as a gay icon, in part because of "I Want Your Sex." Now, I have to say that this is a pretty great song that recalls the best of Prince. But you also have to watch the video, because it's very hetero, practically softcore porn. You'd have to say it's one of the most heterosexual works ever performed by a gay person.

>The man was quite closeted, yes? Until he was arrested for public sex. Now, he was also remembered by some music critics after his death as a symbol of human liberation. I suppose. However, I have a funny feeling he was loaded to the gills with addictions and compulsions. Look at his recording arc, you can see he was a good artist who couldn't make art anymore. Also dead. Maybe that was part of the human road to freedom, but I somehow doubt it.

>>127539198
the question is more, how good is a given album in its own format? if you're Cuckgau you may never be sold on any of Metallica being "good" music of course but anyone who is emotionally invested in metal would say DM is crud compared to their prime.

>>127539274
I think he was probably right when he said you can never judge an album until you hear it because you can be surprised and find you enjoy something when you didn't expect to.

>>127539246
a the same time one might point out that with Judas Priest despite of Rob being gay their music is almost aggressively heterosexual whereas actual fruits making fruit music would be like that closet case Benson Boone.

Art doesn't exist in a vacuum retard, context can make a piece of music much more interesting

>>127538930
>or so I thought

>>127538745 (OP)
The problem with music reviews is that music as a medium is inherently much more passive and less involved than other mediums such as film, TV, or video games. It's a lot harder to find qualities to discuss about a piece of music given all it involves is hearing it so you have to reach for vague, intangible things like "texture" or "bone-dry sound" that are unclear at best and made-up bullshit at wotst. Other mediums involve more active audience involvement, from watching a movie to playing a video game, making then more "complex" and thus possessing more qualities someone engaging with them can meaningfully talk about. Even the most annoyingly pretentious film snob can find more to say about a random arthouse film than a music reviewer could about a piece of music; they can talk about a film's directing, visuals, writing, acting, presentation or plot, and have more to say about its themes and have people connect with them even if they never caught or understood the themes on a first viewing. Meanwhile, music reviewers have to go out of their way to pay attention to and read lyrics which, while important to a song's meaning and atmosphere, kinda falls flat given most people who listen to music don't go out of their way to actively read the lyrics of songs they listen to; I doubt even most of us here do that (I certainly don't, at least). There's just more to chew on with other mediums than music from my experience.

I liken it to how live albums always used to be popular for that certain segment of people who hate polished studio sounds and prefer live rock.

>>127538815
They already did, this album explains exactly what I think of kendrick, rap in general, Taylor, k-pop etc... https://open.spotify.com/album/6VIqkOcjJ1agKcC6WWhBOV

>>127538745 (OP)
>>127538930
I agree with everything you said here which begs the question: How do I write a good music review?

My favorite type of music review (and really any for that matter) is the one that gives context about how the album was made and then how they personally connected to the album. It gives a new perspective on things you wouldn't care for originally, also it's interesting.

>>127539387
You don't. You leave it to the people who get paid to say incompetent things about incompetent people.

>>127538745 (OP)
You really are a man, not a woman. So stop talking like a woman, but you write like one.

>>127539387
it actually raises the question. to "beg the question" is to make the circular argument. when you say "begs the question" you think you're saying "begs FOR the question" because you're an idiot.

>>127539414
Thanks for the correction. Tangentially related, but when people say 'could care less' instead of 'couldn't care less' it drives me insane.

>>127539309
that is true when you miss the context of something it's harder to "get" it

>>127539274
that reminds me of the guy in a St. Louis used record shop who was trying to sell me on the genius of Teresa Brewer. apparently he saw something there the rest of us sure never could.

>>127539444
same. checked.

Ask yourself that about rap. On the surface it's about all the usual themes normal guys identify with like strength, power, being an outlaw, crushing all those who oppose you, bemoaning the evils women bring on society while at the same time trying to fuck as many women as humanly possible. So why then does rap sound so bad? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

>>127539101
>I care about how the record resonated with them
do you want to see people describe why the record was the soundtrack to their life in the summer of 06 or whatever, as if it was an online recipe

>>127538788
good job making the quote worse

>>127539474
don't b8 that 50s pop schizo guy

>>127539336
myself i also tend to prefer studio versions of songs and always find live recordings too diffuse for my taste

>>127538745 (OP)
No one cares, OP. Fuck off.

>>127538930
Music reviews are better as a video format than a writing format. That’s the problem

>>127538745 (OP)
Reviewing music is easy, I do it all the time, first : as soon as the song stops, rate it 1 to 10, based on how much you liked it, at the end, add everything up, and divide by the number of tracks, done.

>>127538745 (OP)
YOU'RE A FAGGOT AND YOUR FATHER IS DYING OF AIDS

>>127538745 (OP)
ON GOD ALMIGHTY YOU ARE DYING OF AIDS LIKE THE FAGGOT YOU ARE. YOU'RE A WHORE IT IS VERY CLEAR

often you can tell within the opening bars of a song if you're going to like it or not

>>127538745 (OP)
>and saying that a melodic passage is "beautiful" without pointing to a specific phrase, flourish, solo, or anything borders on disingenuous.


>To Live is To Die features beautiful melodic passages especially bar 48 where cliff plays a c# to a g# to a d to an e back to a c# then on to an f# then a c # and so on using a dotted semiquaver rthymn sheet music included below highlighting this beautiful phrase

>>127538830
I agree with your point, but Scaruffi's background is in classical music and his reviews and opinions make a lot more sense when you look at them through that lens. I don't necessarily agree that only his prog reviews are worth reading.

>>127538788
You don't sound smart and never will

>>127538477
the bad thing about modern pop is they push this aggressive girlboss vibe but the actual music doesn't match up to it. in the 90s at least they made some effort to have girl rockers. here is like they're trying to affect some unholy merger of Britney Spears and Bikini Kill. like they want to have the attitude of rock but not the sound of it.

>>127539855
Actually I'd ask that as well why they seem to have lost interest in cute girly girly sex dolls like Mariah was.

>>127539807
classical music fans are often the very worst because they truly believe that their opinions are backed up by an objective reality where classical music is the greatest music that could ever be made. their opinions about anything after stravinsky are pretty much 100% useless

>>127539824
>t. written over 200 reviews on RYM