"Did you even listen to the album?"

faceman

Inspired by my thread in a completely different forum!

I remember many years ago, FHM magazine reviewed the Metallica album, St. Anger and i felt that that reviewer hadnt listened to the album either at all or in full. He commented on the loud over bearing guitar solos despite the fact there are no solos on the album.

It got me thinking about album reviews. to me, it can take time for an album to grow on me. So while i might hate it at first, after a few listens i become accustomed to it and then decide how i like it. Sometimes a short time after, it may grow dust in er, the confines of my mp3 player, never to be played again!

So how to music reviews rate in your opinion? each to their own? Do you feel the reviewers really listen before reviewing or listen briefly and post a review in their mag just to meet a deadline?

Nolanger

It depends on the magazine e.g. Q would give the new Coldplay/Keane/Razorlight album a good review because that is its readers' preferred music.
Hot Press would give most Irish band's new album a good review because they want to support the local music industry.
NME gave the Stone Roses album 7/10 in its initial review but then a few years ago named it the best British album of all time!

Froot

Nolanger wrote: »

NME gave the Stone Roses album 7/10 in its initial review but then a few years ago named it the best British album of all time!

Yeah, I guess they never heard of Led Zep so

Nailz

NME are the most idiotic reviewers ever, and when I say "ever", I mean "ever"!

fillmore jive

Nailz wrote: »

NME are the most idiotic reviewers ever, and when I say "ever", I mean "ever"!

id say hot press would be in the same league tbh. even with irish bands if theyre a bunch of saps, sure damo rices first album was voted the greatest irish album of all time.

Nailz

That's pure nonsence, any of Rory's or Thin Lizzy's albums would shìt on it! Let a alone any modern Irish album!

kerash

faceman wrote: »

Inspired by my thread in a completely different forum!

I remember many years ago, FHM magazine reviewed the Metallica album, St. Anger and i felt that that reviewer hadnt listened to the album either at all or in full. He commented on the loud over bearing guitar solos despite the fact there are no solos on the album.

It got me thinking about album reviews. to me, it can take time for an album to grow on me. So while i might hate it at first, after a few listens i become accustomed to it and then decide how i like it. Sometimes a short time after, it may grow dust in er, the confines of my mp3 player, never to be played again!

So how to music reviews rate in your opinion? each to their own? Do you feel the reviewers really listen before reviewing or listen briefly and post a review in their mag just to meet a deadline?

Nah, I doubt they listen to the albums half the time, i dont bother with reviews anymore. There was a magazine recently that was exposed to have reviewed the album despite the fact the writer had not heard the album since advance CDs were not made available (he gave it 2 stars:p), black crows werent too pleased!! http://www.blackcrowes.com/Release_MAXIM.html

haha, Nas hadnt finished his when they gave him 2 1/2 stars,
http://gawker.com/5003385/maxim-reviews-yet-another-album-without-listening-to-it

I fairness, I've never looked to Maxim for music reviews!

Actually on second thought, I do read Q now and then so i'd pick Q as an overall, but I wouldnt go by them as a rule...

Nailz

Rolling Stone is probably the most professional reviewer. They fùcking well should be, giving the sums of money they get paid!!

smackyB

Pitchforkmedia.com is a good site for album reviews. They're a pretty pretentious lot (to put it mildly) so don't expect to agree with a lot of their reviews but they do cover virtually every album release and they pick up on a lot of unheard bands. They have also recently launched pitchfork.tv which has lots of hi-quality music videos.

For an Irish perspective I'd have to go with Hot Press or the Ticket from the Irish Times.

Btw has anyone picked up a copy of State magazine? Any good??

Creamy Goodness

Nailz wrote: »

Rolling Stone is probably the most professional reviewer. They fùcking well should be, giving the sums of money they get paid!!

yeh the band that declared weezer - pinkerton as the worst album of 1996 only to come back in 2005 to re-review it?

idiots tbh.

drownedinsound and pitchfork are pretty much the only reviewers i trust bar my own ears.

ZakAttak

If the album in question has been made by an act from somewhere outside Europe the reviewer will tend to give the album a good review, so that they seem 'multicultural' (Ted not a racist, Ted not a racist).

The whole world of print media is in decline (magazines, newspapers, journals etc.). Its hardly suprising that this has been coupled by a drop in the standards of writing.

The Madaline McCann case shows you how desperate newspaper editors are for readership- Music magazines can't run the same story, however, they can sensationalise and exaggerate just like any tabloid.

catch--22

Cremo wrote: »

yeh the band that declared weezer - pinkerton as the worst album of 1996 only to come back in 2005 to re-review it?

idiots tbh.

drownedinsound and pitchfork are pretty much the only reviewers i trust bar my own ears.

I think you could easily find an example such as that for every established music magazine. I remember Q giving a pretty poor review of Travis' 'The Man Who' only to go back and re-review it after it became a huge hit. (Mind you, a lot of people might agree with the first rating).

RE: OP - It wouldn't take too long for a music reviewer to get noticed by a half decent sub-editor if they haven't really listened to the album. Any reviewer worth their salt would have it on heavy rotation for a week before putting pen to paper. But I suppose when you look to FHM for reviews you get what you pay for!

Driver 8

As knowledgable as Pitchfork are, their reviews are horribly precious, and only they will ever know how a record that gets 6.3 is different to one that gets 6.4, it's all a bit too High Fidelity for me.

JC 2K3

I find PitchFork to be quite good a lot of the time, but they can be inconsistant.

John

Any review that ends with a numerical rating can't be trusted.

BaZmO*

At the the end of the day it's all just opinion. For me, I'd only ever read a review to get a quick guide as to what the sound is similar too, but then the review can just turn into an exercise in pigeon-holeing. The other reasons that I'd read a review is that it's either funny or informative.

Reviews are kinda pointless nowadays anyway. They might have had their place years ago when it was difficult to hear new music but with the internet you can just go onto youtube or myspace and make your own mind up as to whether you like the band or not.

There's been plenty of albums down through the years that have been slated but yet I've loved and on the flip there's been plenty that have been lauded and I've hated.

ZakAttak

Reviews are kinda pointless nowadays anyway. They might have had their place years ago when it was difficult to hear new music but with the internet you can just go onto youtube or myspace and make your own mind up as to whether you like the band or not.

==> Exactly- I don't think there will ever be a situation like what Black Sabbath had in their early days (where every critic slated them but they were selling out stadiums and shifting truckloads of albums at the same time). Nowadays if you're curious about a band you only need to check out their myspace page- which, sadly, hands over even more power to Murdoch & co. But its a lot better than having to rely on hot press critics; the kind of people who use the term 'funky' to decribe anything that has a slightly complex drumbeat.

Everyone can be their own critic now.