What Would You Rather Review (Quality)
I've been doing the whole critic thing for a while, though this site is the first to earn so much dedication, others falling in the background to family problems or higher learning ventures and possible careers. However, the theme for many people I speak with curious on my writings for any site follow a simple "What would you rather..." theme. So, why not take some time and periodically answer some of these questions. The first question, of course, being what I would rather review. Not necessarily the platform or medium, which is a whole other entry entirely, but the quality. So, here you go.
| #6: Boring/Filler |
|
I seriously hate reviewing CDs that are boring, generic, sound like everything else (basically carbon copied like any Deathcore bands like mention Job for a Cowboy), or just feel like filler material to pad the disc out. If there's nothing special about the material, I lose interest. These are a real pain in the ass because they interrupt the flow I might have going, and these reviews can take hours to do, even for a simple twenty five, thirty minute CD. Lux Mundi by Samael, for a recent example, was almost forty nine minutes long. However, it took me about four hours to write the review! Between literally putting me to sleep, standing up and walking around to avoid passing out, losing focus and having to replay a chunk of songs, or the majority of forgettable songs on the release literally being forgotten and having to be replayed, one time through took what consisted of a total of three to four playthrough before I even started up the review, to which I had no idea where to start because three sentences in I basically had the review laid out aside one song that stood out and deserved practically an entire paragraph of it's own. It's these CDs I loathe and put off as long as I possibly can.
|
| #5: Good |
|
You know when you buy a CD you've never heard before, either band band name, or the material inside you're about to listen to, and after a few songs your indecisive and indifferent to it? You know what you're hearing isn't bad, but at the same time it's really nothing special, treading that line between garbage and good? Or how about an album that actually is really good but you can't really describe why? Yeah, those CDs drive me up a wall, but I'd much rather them then a collection of poor, unenthusiastic filler material that's been done to death. I'll sit there and listen to the CD over and over again, and try to formulate exactly what I know is wrong into words if it's a moderately good CD, but if it's not and just winds up being an "it's not bad, but not that good" effort, I seriously have no idea what to say. Half the time I have nothing at all to say. And while that in itself is perhaps one of the best ways to explain the CD, simply saying "You know, it left no impression with me whatsoever", as a reviewer you can't just say that. I've spent days on albums like these trying to figure out what to say, only to come up with broad descriptions at best.
|
| #4: Carbon Copy |
|
These obviously are easier to do. When you have a band that doesn't necessarily use a band as inspiration, but instead seems to completely rip off another band, it's often pretty obvious. While some basic similarities will exist with many bands today, this is when you hear a song and despite a different vocalist you'd swear on your mother's life that what you just heard was a new song by band a, when really it's a song by band b, to which you lose your mind. These work in different wants, they can either be absolute garbage, which are tupically easier of the two options because the faults are more prodominant and you can pick them out a lot easier, however it's hard to not sit there and say "Band a did it better". Meanwhile, you also have the chance of it being really good, or perhaps better then band a, which is typically a shock in it's own. This is the point where comparisons can play an intricate role in the review, but you can't base an entire review on comparisons, and the problem is that it's so easy to do you'll have an entire review done up like that before you get into anything. Another problem is that because much of it is comparable, it's hard to try to explain things without always looking to band a to make the case. It's a little trickier, but bands that carbon copy music are typically easier to review.
|
| #3: Masterpiece |
|
These are the kind of albums that really have something to offer, get my blood pounding the second they start up, keep me attentive the entire time, and really bring something unique, or just very well done to the table. I actually love reviewing these CDs because they're much easier, but they often take me much longer to review, so I tend to use these more as albums to restore my spirit after it's been broken by bad CD after bad CD, but making sure I get the review live by it's release date. Don't get me wrong, sitting back and hearing albums that make me want to get up and mosh or just run to the nearest living thing and kill it with how hyped the album had actually made me is a fantastic thing because it's hard to find, and I love discovering these kinds of CDs that literally move me, but these are perhaps my second choice of what quality material I'd love to review more often or on a regular basis. |
| #2: Patterned |
|
Bands that follow patterns. These are some of the worst bands out there, but they can make my life so much easier in the sense that you describe one song, you know what the rest of the album is going to be. Point it out, then point out any tracks that are different, and then try to sum it up. A lot of these bands are those that follow the Killswitch Engage "scream verse, sing chorus". I call it that because this band really pushed that style forward more then any band before or after them, specifically thanks to their more commercialized success upon signing to Roadrunner Records. It may seem like being lazy, but it's not since every song essentially follows the same idea, which often means the music is going to sound rather repetitive of the track or tracks before it as well. Now, if it's a patterned "good" CD of filler material, instantly I want to punch a baby, and regret for choosing to review the CD sinks in quickly. It won't typically take longer, though depending the level of boredom, it can take another playthrough just to make sure I'm not forgetting anything.
|
| #1: Absolute Garbage |
|
Ask any reviewer and he/she will immediately tell you that the obvious garbage is the easiest to review. Out of all of these qualities, it's the ones that are so blatently bad that are the most enjoyable to review, especially in a critic's eye. First of all, astonishment that a band is playing such garbage in the first place hits, which sadly leads to your mind not paying attention to the music for a while depending on how deep in shock and disbelief you are. Then the thought of "how could a label put out such garbage" sinks in. Once all that is over, it's easy to pay attention to the "Where's Waldo?" garbage music rendition of the game, pick out all the faults, vent about why it's garbage, and the CD basically reviews itself since it literally hands you every bad thing it has. You can basically sit down and just write the review along with the CD instead of resorting to notes after one or two spins, and you'll be spot on accurate. Sure, enough of these will leave you weary, and that's when you resort to a "Masterpiece" to review and restore your faith in the world, but I'd much rather review ten CDs or absolute garbage then any other form of recorded material's quality.
|
|
|
| Submit to Social Networks |
|
|
|
|
