An in-depth guide to writing your first Music Journal
 

http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squi...rustration.jpghttps://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/im...1dZlHPK9lOFhh7[
I know Tore wrote a guide to or help with writing reviews, but it's now closed and after consultation with him or her, I've decided to try writing my own. In addition to giving tips on writing reviews, as well as other ideas on how to “spice up” your journal, assuming you have one, I'll field questions should anyone have any.

But first, some disclaimers:

1. This is of necessity going to be a long and possibly evolving guide. I'll be adding to it as I go along, but anyone who knows me from my writings will understand this will be long-winded and detailed. So I'll try to encapsulate the important points in headings, so that those who want to can skip my usual waffle (those who want to read it are more than welcome!)

2. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should write their journal, or come across as a know-it-all. This is just a guide, with suggestions and ideas. You are completely free to ignore everything I say here, however the basic stuff like spelling and grammar should be taken on board if you want your journal to be read by others.

So, with all that in mind, off we go!

1. Well, I'd like to start a music journal, but it seems so complicated!

If you're looking at starting up a journal, but are a little daunted by the process, I can help with that. If you have a journal but are unhappy with its structure (or lack of same!), content or direction, perhaps I can be of assistance there too. Having written close to 400 separate album reviews over the last year (I know: I have no life!) I think I'm relatively qualified to put forward some advice and suggestions, and explain how to get the best out of your journal, and make sure others do too.

Of course, this is all my own personal opinion, based on my experiences with my own journal, and everyone is free to do what they like with their journal; no-one is under any obligation whatever to follow the guidelines I'm setting down here, and that's all they are, guidelines. But if you do, you may find that it really improves your journal, gets more readers and garners more interest in what you write, and that writing itself may cease to be a chore and become much more fun.

1a. Album reviews
Looking then at album reviews first, because, let's face it: they're going to be the main staple of anyone's music journal. Most if not all of us started journals because we wanted to share our enjoyment of certain bands with everyone, and that usually comes about by the medium of reviewing their albums. It isn't, of course, the be-all and end-all of a music journal. You can theoretically have anything you like in your journal --- I just recently began discussing my favourite TV shows --- but a large percentage of the time, it's going to be music related in one way or another. Perhaps the link with music is tenuous, but usually there is one. Somewhere.

1a (1): Using the English language

The first point I want to make, and it's an important one, and applies not only to album reviews, but everything you write in your journal, is what I like to call S&G: Spelling and Grammar. Now, some of us are not the world's best spellers, but that's no excuse. I personally am a great speller, always having had an interest in the written English language, but even for someone who finds it hard to spell properly, there are dictionaries (online and in book form: yes, they exist!), spellcheckers which come with virtually every word processing program available and for those who are really stuck/lazy, there's me. I'll be happy to check and correct any spelling or grammar in any articles anyone wants to post. Just send them to me in a PM here or email me at trollheart@gmail.com.

Spelling is basic, but even at its heart it's simple: you either spell a word correctly or you don't. Grammar is a little more involved, but can actually be more off-putting to a potential reader than bad spelling, although that's also annoying. Bad spelling can sometimes be explained away as someone being in a rush, not double-checking, not understanding the context in which the word they want to spell is being used, or a hundred other reasons. But bad grammar is just laziness and shows a basic refusal to understand what you're writing. And if you're not that bothered, how can you expect someone reading your articles to be?

So try to pay attention both to your spelling and your grammar. Some word processors have built-in grammar checkers too, though I find these are often more a hindrance than a help, as most of them are created in America, and their grammar (and spelling) will often differ from how we use it. But you shouldn't really need a grammar checker: it should be basic common sense. I mean, which is correct of the two sentences below?

I haven't heard of none of these albums before now
or
I haven't heard of any of these albums before now.

Answer, of course, the second one. Yes, that's a simple example, and grammar can be much more confusing. But again, anyone who is unsure is welcome to send me their work to be checked and, if necessary, corrected.

But spelling can also be a simple matter of thinking things through and taking your time, or looking something up if you're unsure. If you don't know the difference between the usage of “their”, “there” and “they're”, you can really confuse your readership. Similarly, one letter out of place can change the whole meaning of a word, or even sentence. Consider this: This album is now available from itunes can change, with just one letter, to This album is not available from itunes. See? And that's more than likely not a spelling error, per se --- who can't spell “now”, after all? --- but just someone rushing and not taking the time to check their work before submitting it.

One more point: punctuation. Yes, we all have problems with when you use a colon or a semi-colon, but commas and full stops (or as you Americans would have it, periods) should always be used in the correct place. Not enough of the former makes a sentence seem overlong and too many just makes it look silly. But you don't have to use colons, semi-colons, hyphens etc if you don't want to, as long as you remember to break up your sentences with a least a few commas and end them with a full stop/period.

So, that's enough about spelling and grammar then. But if you master both of these disciplines and use them properly, your piece will look and read a lot more professional, and people will enjoy reading it more.

1a (2): And so it begins....

On to the actual review itself then: what do you need? Well, obviously you need a heading, as Tore points out in his/her original guide. It should consist of, at a minimum, three main parts, which should really be self-explanatory, but just in case, they are: TITLE OF ALBUM, ARTISTE and YEAR RELEASED. You can switch the first two around if you want --- I usually do it the way shown --- as long as the information is there. So you would have as an example something along the lines of “Script for a jester's tear --- Marillion --- 1983”, to which I would usually add the label, and you can also mention other things like Producer, Studio, anything you want to really, but a word of caution: don't overdo it. Certain information can be divulged within the article; there's no need to have it all in the heading. As a personal rule, I stick to Title/Artiste/Year with Label in brackets, but that's just me. Whatever works for you is good, however once you have your format you should stick to it, as people will expect to see this.

You can then highlight the heading in various colours and fonts, available from the menus at the top left of the “post article” dialogue. I usually highlight the whole heading, then choose Font, Size and Colour. This makes the heading stand out and be very visible. Usually it's expected that either beneath or immediately above the heading you have a picture of the album sleeve, which can be easily retrieved from any online source (Google/Wiki/Yahoo etc). If you're a total beginner (and there's nothing wrong with that) and need a step-by-step guide, click (How to review an album: music journal step-by-step guide 2012)here, but I won't put the details in the main thread so as not to bore those who have done this sort of thing a hundred times and know it inside out.

I normally then start with a brief introduction, either to the band/artiste or the album itself --- the former usually only if this is the first time I have reviewed their material --- perhaps a quick history, or some idea of what contribution the album has made to either the band's own fame or music history in general. Something like, using the above example:
Marillion's debut album, one which helped spark the resurgence of progressive rock in Britain in the eighties, “Script for a jester's tear” remains the standard for prog rock bands even today, and while many compared Marillion to Genesis, there is in fact a world of difference between the two bands.

You don't need to write paragraphs and paragraphs, but a few lines is at least preferred. Of course, you don't have to do this: you could just launch right in describing the album, but I always feel it helps to set the scene for your readers. Remember, just because you love (or hate) the album and know it backwards doesn't necessarily hold true for everyone. Some people will never have heard of, for instance, Marillion, and will want to know who they are, what sort of music they produce, if they're still around and so on, so a basic grounding is never a bad idea.

My other important point to note when writing a review: WIKIPEDIA IS YOUR FRIEND. Of course, no-one wants to read a regurgitated version of what's on Wiki regarding your specific album or artiste; plaigiarism is frowned upon, here as anywhere else, and anyway it's lazy. If all you're going to do is copy-and-paste someone else's article, what right have you to call that review your own? But you can use the information in the Wiki article to flesh out yours. You can, for instance, find out about the band or artiste --- details you perhaps were unaware of --- and you can also get a proper tracklisting, see who plays what, who writes what, what chart position, if any, the album attained, and so on. There are also often interesting little anecdotes pertinent to the album or band or artiste in these articles, which will help bring life and character to your review. Just remember: if you copy anything verbatim from Wiki you MUST advise your readers this is the case. Quotes are fine, but reference them.

I personally find Wiki a huge knowledge and research resource, and almost every album I review, no matter how well I know it, I find out more about when I look for it on Wiki. Another good source is Discogs (www.discogs.com), where you can get the liner notes or additional information on many albums, although it is by no means a complete resource. You can also use Wiki as the source for the image of the album you are reviewing, as shown in the step-by-step guide. If there is no picture available, try Googling it under images; there's usually something out there.

1a(3): Duh, what should I write?

How do you actually review your album though, now that you've got past the heading? Well, the short answer is there is no particular or standard way to do this. I personally tend to write a short (or sometimes not so short!) introduction, often bringing in elements from my own personal association with the music being reviewed --- for instance, it might be the first time I got into the band, could be the first album I bought, etc --- and then go through the album track-by-track, with a wrap-up usually at the end, but that's just me. I often quote lyrics, of which more later; some people do not.

Many people do an overview of the album, referring to certain tracks to make their point, eg Pink Floyd's “Dark side of the moon” is a classic album, with a mixture of powerful, expressive instrumentals like “On the run” and “Any colour you like” and stone classics like “Time” and “Money”... all of which can be expanded upon, or not, if you prefer. Then sometimes people will just pick a few tracks to concentrate on.

You can do it any way you like. I run a section in my journal called “The 200-word album review”, which, as its name suggests, tries to review an album in two hundred words. With a restriction like that, there's no way you're going to be able to go track by track, and that's a challenge I set myself, which I enjoy. But there's no reason you should do that too (I have it copyrighted, by the way! :)) --- whatever method suits you is the way you should do your review. Whatever's comfortable. Don't try to emulate someone else's style, as it is, after all, their style, and you'll just come over as trying to copy them. Develop your own, make it yours.

Next time I'll discuss how to structure your review --- well, how you CAN structure it, if you want to do what I do --- and how to make it interesting to read as well as accurate. Until then, feel free to leave any comments, questions or indeed articles you want spellchecked or grammar-checked.

Brilliant idea Trollheart. I'll probably take a few pointers myself!

This should be stickied in the journal section.

Hey, this is great! Good suggestion from Zero, this can be stickied or even moved wherever you'd like it to be, Trollheart. Let me know, I'll do it for you.

Thanks guys! Sticky away if you can, I don't know how.

Thanks for the positive comments! :)

1a (4): The sound of a forehead repeating striking a keyboard, with attendant groans
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...dStreetSig.gif
Yes, indeed, the way many of us feel when faced with our first review. There's a real temptation to think “look, I just love this album, man, so why doesn't everyone else?” and not to put too much effort into your review. But as I mentioned in the last post, no matter how great you think an album is, there will be those that a) disagree and b) don't know the album. Regarding the first category, people who don't like the album, or indeed artiste, you're probably doing something in the wind there that is not advised if you want to stay clean. People who dislike an album are very unlikely to be suddenly swayed by your argument, no matter how well you write. It's just a fact of life: people make up their minds and it takes something momentous to change their opinion, if it ever does change. Chances are, they won't even read your review as they won't be interested in it. As for the other category, the ones who don't know the album, these are the ones you have a good chance with.

1a (5): Setting the scene

So try to explain all you can about the album: any contribution it made to music history (“Black Sabbath” redefined a whole new sub-genre of metal”, for instance), perhaps where it comes in the artiste's catalogue (debut, third, most recent, last etc), any notable people who played on it, like guest musicians, arrangers, producers. Was the cover art created by anyone famous? Has it become an iconic image in its own right (Dark side of the moon) and so on.

The key thing to remember is make it interesting: don't just bombard your readers with facts and figures, but don't make the information too sketchy either. There's a fine line between what people are prepared to read and what they're not: when it gets boring or you're overloading their minds they may lose interest. Some, of course, may thrive on this sort of mega-information, but they are likely to be in the minority and you can't take the chance, as you're trying, generally, to appeal to as many people as you can, in order to get as many readers as you can. And preferably, repeat readers.

1a(6): Track performance

There's nothing wrong with going into some sort of detail on each track on the album --- I usually do this --- but you have to know how much space to allow for discussion on each track. You may love track 1, hate track 2 and be ambivalent about track 3, so do you spend four paragraphs describing how great track 1 is and just barely touch on tracks 2 and 3? Preferably not. You don't even have to go track-by-track. Many people just cherry-pick from the album, using certain tracks as representative of it. You've no doubt read those short reviews in the music press, where they have a limited amount of space, and just barely nod to one or two tracks. You can do this too, if you want. There are no real rules, no right way or wrong way to review an album.

But remember, though this is your journal and, for the purposes of your review, your opinion is the only one that matters, in reality that's not the case. If you make a big noise over a certain album or track and someone reading it disagrees, and they're prepared to post a comment, be prepared to take their opinion with good grace. Answer them if you can, but --- and this shouldn't have to be said, but I'll say it anyway --- refrain from unseemly “flame-war” tactics.

In other words, don't start shouting down someone who doesn't agree with you, or expresses a differing opinion to yours. Posts like “You don't know what you're talking about!” or “Go back to listening to boybands!” may fly on general music forums, but here within the members' journal section you're expected to be a lot more cordial and tolerant. Think of this journal as your home, or office, and behave accordingly. Don't steal the paper clips, though.

Similarly, if someone posts nasty messages in your journal (this is very unlikely, as the mods monitor all posts --- yes, yours too --- and won't allow anything to be posted which they consider inappropriate) respond with a polite rebuff, and if necessary seek aid from the mods. But these things should not happen if your reviews and other posts are well-written and balanced. Just about everything that goes into a member's journal is taken to have the invisible prefix IMO, and that's all it is: your opinion. Unless it's a clear, solid, undeniable fact, like sales figures, chart positions, names of musicians or stuff like that, everything else is opinion, and everyone is entitled to one, but yours is not the only one, or necessarily the right one. Couch your posts in that manner, so that people reading them understand that this is what you think, not to be taken as fact, nothing carved in stone.

1a (7): Words don't come easy to me...

Lyrics: should you quote them? Often it helps, particularly if you're trying to make a certain point about what the artist is trying to say, (Don Henley in his song “Goodbye to a river” mourns humanity's need to control everything: ”They put that river in a box/ It was runnin' wild/ Man must have control””) or to back up something in your review. Quoting lines and lines of lyrics is really not the thing to do: it will get boring and detract from your review. I usually throw in a few, though not always, and only when they illustrate the point I want to make. If you are going to quote lyrics though, make sure they're correct. Either use the album liner notes (unless you know the song so well or it's such a famous song you couldn't possibly get the lyrics wrong) or search for them online. There are many websites dedicated to providing album and song lyrics. Just search in Google under [artist name] lyrics. If you can't confirm the lyric but are reasonably sure that it's correct, say so in your review. Something like “I think this is what he sings” or “It sounds to me like” and so on. Nobody's perfect, other than me, ;) so don't try to present your knowledge as encyclopaedic. Of course, that's not an excuse for just not bothering to look up things either. But if you've tried and failed, throw in your disclaimer.

1a (8): Don't drop that ("F") bomb on me!
One small, somewhat amusing but often frustrating point: no forum allows swear words --- well, very few, and this is not one of them --- so the system is apparently setup to automatically catch any words that it should be flagging: the “f” word, the “c” word, the “n” word and so on, but this can lead to quite ludicrous occurrences, because the system is unable to determine when a “banned” word is used out of context in a totally innocent way, so that when I tried to use a word for laughs that rhymes with biggers and begins in sn, the “n” word, as the system saw it, was asterisked out. I had to use snickers instead. And only today, I tried to say something like rock-***-country, and as you can see here, it blanked out the three letter word that begins in c, ends in m and has u in the middle, because its use is banned. Never mind that it was being used in a totally non-abusive or obscene way: once it saw the word the system immediately raised a flag and I had to find another way of saying what I wanted to say.

So, again this is something that should not need to be said, don't use bad language in your posts. In the first place it looks and sounds unprofessional, and in the second, your posted article (if it gets that far) will look ridiculous, with asterisks all over the place, and people probably unable to make out what it is you're saying. Even if these “f” or “c” words are in lyrics (or album titles) you want to quote, you'll need to find a way around them. Of course, you can always box clever: fkuc is I think still able to slip under the radar, as is cnut or ctun, but best of all is not to use these words. I also don't think appealing to the mods for an exception will work, though I could be wrong: I think the system is automatic and there's nothing they can do about it.

So the idea of reviewing the album “**** you!” by **** and the ****ers is probably not going to be a good one... :)

I'm off to bed now, more tomorrow.

Anything for a fellow Simpsons fan! Only moderators can stick threads.

Another useful tip

Don't put about 50 youtube videos in one post that causes most peoples computers to crash as soon as they go to it and then wonder why your journal doesn't get approved by mods. :)

Absolutely, and I have been guilty of that in the past too, so if it's a slight dig at me, UH, it's accepted.

I will of course be covering YouTube in the content side of the journal in future posts, as well as the need to wait for your articles to be approved. Right now, I'm off to the bank (though not laughing all the way there --- who does these days? Other than bank CEOs, of course...)

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/im...tKKNy22y6T0hGA

1a (9): A question of balance

A key question any reviewer, or would-be reviewer has to ask themselves before beginning an article is why are you reviewing this particular album? I don't think any of us just reach out and grab the nearest off the shelf or from the music directory on our Pcs, or indeed shuffle our ipods and take what comes up. I do this in a section called “Spinning the wheel”, yes, but that is a conscious decision made with a very definite aim in mind: to randomise my selection and through that medium hope to come up with something different that I would perhaps not normally review. And anyway, that's only an occasional feature, it's not how I usually decide to review albums.

There are probably four reasons why you might choose an album for review, and they depend also on how you go about reviewing.

1. You might love the album, and want to share it with others, in the hope of making them love it too.
2. You might hate the album, and want to tell others why you hate it.
3. You might not yet have heard the album, but want to or
4. You might have been recommended to listen to it, by a friend, radio station, magazine review, anything.

All of these are good and valid reasons for picking an album for review, and each reason will lead more than likely to your approaching your review differently. If you love the album, you probably know it inside out and can expound for hours about it, filling page after page with gushing praise. A word of warning: don't go overboard. A shamelessly slavish devotion to an album will probably come across as insincere, as in, you probably haven't got a bad word to say about it, and won't hear one from anyone else. This labels you as somewhat close-minded, and discussion of this album with you will be discouraged, unless by other devotees who also want to pray at the same altar.

Try always to be objective. In scenario one, you love the album but that does not mean everyone else does. Many will hate it, or just think it's okay. If you're lucky, you'll have many lively, possibly heated discussions on this topic, and in these discussions, as already mentioned in my previous post, you need to rein in your indignation and disbelief that anyone could seriously think this is not the greatest album in the history of music ever, and listen to opposing views. You may even find that your opinion of the album changes very slightly as a result. No-one's saying you're suddenly going to hate it, but you may manage to see flaws that your devotion previously made you blind to. It's good to have a different set of eyes or ears on the subject.

If you go for option 2, you have to be very careful. You may hate the album, but just as in example one above, your opinion may not be shared by others. If you start slagging off the album and calling it rubbish, you will almost certainly get responses, ranging from the snippy to the outright hostile. Worse, you will begin to alienate people who might previously have considered reading your journal. Annoy them by slagging off what might be their favourite album, and you have created an uphill struggle for yourself. It's hard enough to get readers as it is without you putting unnecessary obstacles in your own path, and that of potential readers.

Always treat every album you review with respect, even if you hate it. Outline why you hate it, how you think it could have been made better, and perhaps compare it to another album, either in the artiste's catalogue, or, if you hate ALL their music, something similar, and show how you believe it fails to measure up, where it goes wrong. Always bear in mind that differing views exist, and respect those views. Comments like “It's not my cup of tea” or “You might like it but I hate it” are very useful, as they show the reader that though you hate this album, you understand there are those out there who may not. This will certainly mollify any miffed readers, and may make them think twice about responding hotly to your criticisms.

But there is nothing at all wrong with reviewing an album you hate. I have done it many times, though usually more with an album I've been disappointed with than one I hate for its own sake. Perhaps something in the catalogue of an artist whose material I generally enjoy that fails to live up to my expectations,(Chris Rea's “The road to Hell part 2” is a good example, as is Gary Moore's “A different beat”) or an album I bought on recommendations but was let down by (Bon Iver's “Bon Iver” and Jeff Buckey's “Grace” spring to mind). I end up being so disappointed with these albums that I need to tell my readers about them, and so I do. But I'm always careful to point out that though I didn't like these albums, others may. It's not that the recommendations were wrong, just that, as an old Irish radio DJ used to say, “they didn't suit me”.

The third method then is perhaps the most interesting. A large percentage of the albums I review get listened to for the first time when I write the review. This way I get an honest first impression, without the time to reflect and wonder whether or not I really like/hate the album. Now of course that can work in reverse: listening to an album only once often does not give you all the experience you may need with that album, and your opinion may change over time (hence my “Last Chance Saloon” feature), but usually I can make up my mind whether or not I like the album on the first listen.

If this is the way you're doing a review, do remember to listen to it all. There's a temptation to skip through, but when you do that you can often miss different, unexpected turns in songs that could very well change your opinion of them, and possibly the album too. Of course, many reviewers will frown on this method, espousing the belief that you need more than one listen in order to be able to make a thorough, honest and informed review of an album. And that can indeed be the case. It really depends on you. When you listen to an album, do you automatically like/hate it on first listen, or do you usually need to hear it a few more times before you make up your mind? If the latter, I wouldn't recommend reviewing on first listen, as you may end up having to eat your words and look rather silly if your opinion changes after you've posted a vitriolic lambastation or indeed praiseworthy adoration of a particular album.

Finally, there's the recommendation. That's pretty similar to the above, but in some ways the choice has been partially taken out of your hands, as someone else has said this album is good and you now want to know if they know what they're talking about. Don't make the mistake of, if you have a totally opposite reaction to the album than they had, writing in your review that “reviewer X must be mad” or “reviewer Y doesn't know about music if he likes this!” No-one's forcing you to review an album you haven't heard, so it's a calculated risk, and if it doesn't come off it's not the fault of whoever recommended it to you. It just may be that they have different musical tastes to you (this should be obvious: if you hate, for instance, hip hop or dubstep or opera, and someone recommends an album in those genres, you're probably going to be wasting your time, as your mind has already been made up to hate it. Don't review an album just to prove you don't like it purely on account of its genre or style) or that, whereas you normally like the same sort of music, here you differ. Differences are what make us all so unique as human beings, and everyone can't like the same thing.

You may even find that if you decide to review an album to tell everyone how much you hate it, if you haven't listened to it for some time, that it isn't that bad after all, and your review must then reflect this. Or you may still hate it. But I would never shy from reviewing something because I expected it to be good and it turned out not to be. It's more open and honest when you can tell your readers, “well I expected this to blow my socks off, but hey, it's not so great after all!” No-one likes anyone to set themselves up as perfect (again, except me :)) and to be fallible is human. And welcome.

So, whether you're reviewing an album because it's Band X's latest and you can't wait to tell people about it, or it's one that you've been meaning to get rid of because it's so bad but never got round to it, or indeed it's something you've never heard before and are curious about, try to treat every album with the same amount of respect and dignity that you would if reviewing your favourite. This helps readers to see you have a balanced approach in your writing and your reviews, and they can begin to believe that you're a source to be relied upon.

Respect, at all times, in all things. It's not a bad creed to live by, you know.

When is this going to be released on Paperback?

1a (10): You-ing the Tube...

A great way to get an idea of the album you're reviewing across to your prospective readers is via YouTube clips. You can select a number of tracks that you want to represent, aurally, the album, and add them to your review. There's no actual limit on how many clips you can include in your review, but consider two things: one, if you put in too many clips it will not only break up the narrative flow badly, making your review look shorter than it actually is, but it will also take longer to process and upload, as the mods have to check each YouTube clip to ensure it works ok and is allowed. The more clips you use, the longer the time to check it, with a knock-on effect of delaying the time between your submitting the article for approval and its being posted.

Two, if you put too many clips in your review the chances are that any reader is just going to run those clips to get a flavour of what the album is about. Why read if you don't have to? Of course, some people will want to read anyway (I seldom click YouTube clips at all, being more interested in what's written than how it sounds: the text usually informs me as to whether or not these might be clips I would be interested in listening to), but not everyone will be that way inclined. So overloading your review with clips may mean that all your hard work in doing the writing may be ignored.

As a general rule, I restrict myself to three clips per album, four or five if it's a double. What those clips are, from where in the album they are taken is up to you. Of course, sometimes the clips you want are not there for the tracks you want to feature; not every clip of every song on every album ever recorded has been uploaded, naturally. There are ways around this, which I'll discuss later. But for now, if you go for a clip that's not there you may end up having to instead use a different one, and then your text becomes all the more important, as you now can't let people hear what, say, Track 4 is like, and they must rely on what you've written.

But how do you get those clips into your review? How do they work? You've seen them embedded in other people's work, but how did they get there? Well it's actually quite simple. When writing your review, or after it, pick either one spot for all your YouTubes or, like me, spread them through the review. Whichever way you do it, choose a separate line or lines, type in the tags youtube and /youtube (you need square brackets around each, but if I try to type them in here for the purposes of demonstration only, the system gets confused) and then find the video you want to use. Check its URL as below.
http://www.trollheart.com/youtube1.jpg
Highlight ONLY the text after “V=”, again as shown. Copy this and paste it into the space between the two youtube tags, and preview it.
http://www.trollheart.com/youtube2.jpg
It should work. If not, then you need to begin checking your work for errors. Did you place a [youtube[ tag wrongly, like that one just now (closing bracket is the wrong way round)? Did you make both tags (i have to misspell here, as otherwise the system thinks I'm trying to add a video and does not display the tag)[outube] instead of [outube][/outube]? That backslash is critical, as it tells the program to look for data before it and then display it. More likely though, have you misspelled, incorrectly copied or pasted the YouTube URL? It's easily done: a hyphen or a comma out of place, a letter or number missed out, the “V” included in your pasted article. So my advice is, until you ensure that your YouTube is working, keep the page you pasted from active, so that you can always go back and if necessary, manually check the letters and numbers to ensure you have it right. Once everything matches up, there's no reason why it shouldn't work.

Whether you direct people's attention to the videos or not is entirely up to you. I usually don't, letting the text speak for itself. Some people do. If the YouTube you select has some obvious defect, like perhaps very low audio, is jumpy or cuts off suddenly, you might want to note that above or below it, possibly in brackets and preferably in italics. In case you don't know, to italicise a word, sentence or paragraph, ie make it look like this, you simply place a tag with an "i" in square brackets in front of it and another with a backslash and then the same "i" in square brackets behind it. Again, that backslash is all-important. If you don't want to do that, then highlight the piece you want to italicise and hit the second icon over, on the left, the one that looks like a falling tower.

1a (11): And in conclusion...

When you've finished your review there are a few ways you can go. You can add in a short piece, what I like to think of as an epilogue or afterthought, maybe explaining again why you like or dislike the album, whether having heard it again that view is still held by you, what you have learned listening to the album or any other information you want. You could talk about where the artiste went from there, if at all --- ”On every street” was the last album by Dire Straits, though Mark Knopfler continues to have a very successful solo career” for instance, or ”This was the last Supertramp album to feature Roger Hodgson. After his departure, their sound went in a pretty different direction” --- whatever you want to write, or not, as the case may be. But I usually find that just ending as the album ends is not enough for me. It may be for you.

I often also include a list of other albums by this artiste people who enjoyed this album may also like to listen to, and like everyone I write a tracklisting, just a simple numbered list. Many people rate their albums --- I don't, at least not at the moment --- and if you want to do that you're free to either show the rating at the beginning or end of the review, as is your choice. You can rate them any way you want: marks out of ten, percentage, little icons to indicate good or bad, smileys, frowneys, whatever you like, though as with everything else, once you choose a system you should really try to stick to it. Not only will it confuse and annoy people if you keep trying out new sytems for rating, but if you stick to the one they will get used to it and know where to look.

One more point: if you're planning on using pictures, other than the album cover, do be aware that there is a maximum restriction of ten per post. There is no way past this, and if you go over the allowed amount your post will not even preview until you fix it. Smilies count as images, by the way, so don't throw in too many emoticons if you want to include pictures.

That's about as much as I can say on album reviews specifically, but as I said at the very start, in the final analysis it's up to you what you do, how you conduct your review, how you approach it, how you write it, and what you choose to write. These are only guidelines, but hopefully will give you a basic grounding on what to expect, and what to avoid. Don't forget to comment if you have questions, suggestions, or anything you need corrected or edited.

Next time we'll be moving into the journal deeper, cutting our way through the underbrush and discovering what else you can do with this versatile tool. In many ways, the possibilities are endless, limited only by your time, your imagination and how dedicated you want to be to your music journal.

Kudos for creating a guide.

This is really really well done Trollheart.

2. Why should I even want to write a music journal?

If you've asked yourself the question, it's quite possible that there is no answer that will properly convince you this is the thing to do. Most people start their journals a) because the facility is there, b) because they've read other people's journals and think they can/want to do better or as good as those they've read and c) they have a genuine desire to discuss their music and bring it to perhaps a new audience. If none of these fits, then you writing a journal may not be for you.

But that of course does not mean you can't start one. As long as your request is approved by the mods, you're good to go. But if you feel you may be making a mistake, you owe it to yourself, and your potential readers, to think it through again before committing.

2a: Gimme one good reason...

There are other reasons why people begin these, and if any of these sound like you, then again, they're probably the wrong reasons.

1. You want to show off your musical knowledge and feel superior to others
2. You want to have a great number of views and/or comments on your journal
3. You want to argue with people
4. You're kind of half-interested, but suspect it may be a passing thing
5. You are not a good writer
6. You are not a good listener.

The last two are very important. Of course, no-one is saying you have to be Shakespeare or Tennyson, but as outlined in the intro to this thread earlier, you need to at least have a basic grasp of written English. Like many forums, using “txt spk” is frowned upon here. A sentence that goes ”U hav 2 listen 2 this album it's gr8!” will not attract readers. People here want to, generally, read properly written sentences and pieces, and while we'll all throw in the odd smiley or lol or whatever, it doesn't characterise our writing. You need to be able to spell, use punctuation and grammar and have a reasonable idea of how sentences and paragraphs are constructed. One paragraph, for instance, that runs on for forty lines is hard reading, and needs to be broken into two or more in order for people to be able to easily digest its content. If you can't understand and legislate for that, you need to work on your writing a bit more.

But none of the above matters if you're not a good listener. A lot of the time, people will comment on what you have written; in fact, this is one of the main aims of a journal, to get people talking and discussing what you've created. But if you refuse to take their points on board you're missing the point yourself. Constructive criticism has always been, and always will be, a great aid to any writer. You may think what you have written is great, but if someone points something out to you in your writing that is taking from the piece, you need to look at that and decide if they're right (they may not be) and if so, adjust your writing accordingly.

The best part of writing a journal is hearing what others think of it --- good or bad --- and engaging in discussion with them on certain subjects you both have an interest in. If people comment, and you ignore or put down their comments, they are unlikely to do so again, except perhaps in retaliation, which is not what this forum is all about. So you need to listen to what people say about your writing, even if you don't agree with it. Analyse their comments and decide if they have merit, and remember to always thank people for leaving a comment, as they are under no obligation whatever to do so.

2b: Gimme one bad reason...

But going back to the other possibilities, the “bad reasons” for starting, or thinking of starting a journal. If you're hoping to feel superior and show off your musical knowledge, think again: there are people here who could run rings around you, and me, in terms of what they know about music. Many are musicians, many have had experience of far more genres than either of us could ever even imagine (Grindcore?), so you're unlikely to be able to trump them. Even if you can, who wants to read the writings of someone who just wants to prove him or herself better than them? So cut that out for a reason to begin a journal.

Comments and views? Well, views will depend obviously on how interesting you make your journal and how often you update it, and without question there's a great feeling as you watch the views increase. It means people are reading, possibly regularly, though of course that can only be proved by comments left. But as a general rule, if you have a few hundred views minimum, you must have a decent amount of people “tuning in” reasonably regularly. As for comments, well this is totally outside your control, and people will comment only as and when they feel they have to, or want to. Despite many invitations over the last year for more people to comment on my journal, I would still say they make up less than one percent of the posts in my journal, and most of them are from the same few people.

Don't be discouraged if you don't get comments on your journal. You may not. It doesn't mean people aren't reading: as I said, the amount of views tell you that. But think about all the times you read posts in threads on various forums: did you always reply? There are traditionally only a small percentage of people who actively post in groups, especially on the threads of others. Watch your view count, that's how you'll know if you're being successful or not.

Now, if you're setting up your journal in order to argue with people and debate their point of view, that's also not a good idea. Discussion is of course the lifeblood of any forum, argument can be its downfall. Of course you can debate and disagree, but only as a part of your journal, not its raison d'etre. No-one likes to be shouted down, and even the most argumentative among us like to just kickback and read journals some times, so make sure that if you do start a journal that it's a place of relative calm and serenity.

The last reason is probably one of the worst. If you start a journal, write for a few days or weeks and then lose interest it will invariably move down the list into the realms of obscurity, as others who update more regularly push your journal down the line. Like a “cob web site”, no-one really wants to read a journal that hasn't been updated in months (unless it's gained a reputation and people are just waiting eagerly for the next posting) and doesn't look likely to be, so before you take on what can be quite a committment, be sure this is what you want to do. No-one is saying you have to update every day, as I'll explain in the next post, but some sort of regularity, at least as you're starting out and “trying to make your mark”, as it were, is essential.

Remember, a music journal is not just for Christmas. Or something.

You can leave the bolded part out, mate :laughing:

Great job on the guide!

3. What shall we use to fill the empty spaces?

Now that we've gone into album reviews in some depth, what's left? What else can you fill your journal up with? Well, the answer is everything. Or nothing. Depends on you. If you want, your journal can consist of nothing more than album review after album review. This might be seen as boring, predictable or unadventurous, but if you choose this path just make certain that you do the best damned album reviews you can, and no-one will mind. You may even become the place to go, the go-to guy or girl for people wanting to read album reviews.

3a: Do it good

But if you want to do more, do more. There's no holding you back. I've got about sixty different sections to my journal, with at least twenty more waiting in the wings. How did I think of them? Well, various ways, but most of the inspirations came from listening to music, how it's played, how it's written, how it's presented. Things will jump out at you from time to time, perhaps things I would never have thought of. Team-ups. Debut albums. Live performances. Songs that are special to you. Music from the TV. There are, quite literally, infinite things you can write about. You can choose a particular artist, and concentrate on writing the best review of their work that you can. You could relate your experience at gigs, or maybe the musical tradition, if one exists, in your family tree. Or your own national music, perhaps.

Like I say, literally anything. Just make sure that whatever you decide to do, you give it your very best shot, and then even if no-one likes it, you can be comfortable that you put in maximum effort. But if you do that, it's likely that someone, possibly lots of people, will like it, and read it. You don't even have to have a set format for your journal. Many people don't; they write as they feel like it, posting what they want to at any given moment. Almost a stream of consciousness, if you will. Do whatever you want, just bear these important points in mind:

1. Do it well, to the very best of your ability
2. Make sure it's well researched, if research is required: check your facts
3. Do it with pride and passion and
4. Make in interesting to read.

Follow those guidelines and you should be well on the way to writing something pretty damn good. And don't worry if you fail in your first attempt, or seem to. If your journal seems about as busy as a lift in a bungalow, don't despair: give it time. Not every journal starts buzzing from the first entry. Give your posts time to be read, and noticed, and maybe commented on. And if this doesn't happen, just plough on with your next posts. Someone, somewhere will eventually comment, and even if they don't, it'll have to be a pretty poor journal if no-one at least looks at it, so keep checking those views.

3b: Picture this

I personally seem to be one of the only ones doing this, but you can make your journal more aesthetically pleasing and eye-catching by using graphics, images and pictures. It's very easy: just find the picture you want, copy its location as we showed you in the album review tutorial, stick it between two image tags (that's one “img” and one “/img” in square brackets, as shown below,
http://www.trollheart.com/postimage2.jpg
http://www.trollheart.com/postimage3.jpg
or if you prefer, select the “insert image” icon from the top right of the “Reply” dialogue as shown (the one that looks like a postcard or letter, six in from the right).
http://www.trollheart.com/postimage1.jpg
Type in manually or, preferably, paste the image URL, but this time without the http:// part, since as you can see that's already been done for you
http://www.trollheart.com/postimage4.jpg
which will then give you the below text.
http://www.trollheart.com/postimage5.jpg

Whichever method you use, hit the “Preview” button and you should see something like this:
http://www.trollheart.com/postimage6.jpg

I tend to make my own images, mostly as headers for the various sections I run, and you can do that too, or you can search for images online that reflect what you want to post: a disc perhaps for album reviews, a silhouette of a man and woman for duets, or whatever. Do however be alive to the ten-image restriction placed on all posts. Also understand that if you make your own images, you will need to upload them either to your own website/FTP server, as I do, or to an image-sharing website. Either way, they have to be online and you have to have the URL to make them work: leaving them on your computer will not allow them to display here.

Of course, you don't have to use pictures at all. You decide yourself whether that suits your style or not. But the above just shows you how to do this, if you decide to go down that route.

3c. Basic structure

For those of you familiar with HTML, be aware that the tags used in this forum are slightly different to those you would normally use to highlight, bolden etc text, or centre images. Well, essentially they're the same, but you'll need to get used to using square brackets around these commands instead of the usual, HTML-standard left and right arrow. Many of the tags used in basic HTML will work here, though not all, like B for bold, I for italic, U for underline, CENTER for, well, centreing, and so on, but if you place them in the HTML arrows they won't be recognised, so if something doesn't work for you, consider checking back that you have used the proper square brackets.

Other than that, structure your writing as you would normally. Have spaces between paragraphs, don't let sentences run on too long, and try to arrange your text around the YouTube videos you use so that you don't end up with, for instance, ten lines of text, one YouTube video and then two words of text after that. A little care and experimentation will show you the best way to go. Oh, and paragraph codes don't work: you have to do it the old-fashioned way, ie hit the return key and leave a line space.

Things can be made stand out by usage of the font, color and size tags, again available from the top menu when you post (see the tutorial on headings for albums in the very first post). You can see this in action here, where each subheading is done in a certain font, colour and size so that it stands out from the rest of the article. The number of fonts on tap is limited, but there are a few decent ones there, and you can use many colours to enhance them. So for headings, important notes, titles, quotes, anything that you want to draw more attention to than the basic text, remember the font tags.

Gender identification bot engaged .... report received ... gender confirmed.
Sorry about that; can never be too sure though! Some people think I'm a girl! ;)

4. Beyond the basics

4a: YouTube: sometimes, if you want something done properly...

There will of course be those occasions when you spit and snarl and rage that the particular video you want is not available on YouTube. This will happen, it's inevitable, unless you tend to go for very generic albums where all the tracks are easily locatable. So what happens when you really want to post that hard-to-find video but YouTube returns no results? Well, I normally make my own.
It's not as hard as it sounds.

Of course, if you want an arty, bells-and-whistles video with zooming effects, transitions and floating text, using several different images or even video clips stitched together, I can't help you. That sort of thing is creative expression, and down to the artistic talent and indeed available time of the person involved. I once tried to create one of those sort of videos: took me over three hours and I was only two or three minutes into the song! Not as easy as it looks, let me tell you!

But if you want something more basic, step this way. Remember, people here are not looking for award-winning, cutting-edge video. In fact, most of us could care less about the video itself: it's the music we're interested in. So when I need to upload a video to accompany a track I want to feature, I use the simplest, most basic format I can. The idea is to get the video up, not to create a masterpiece. So a simple graphic of the album cover over which the music plays is usually enough for me. Yes, it's boring and ordinary, and shows little or no creative thought, but as I just said, no-one's looking for the next genius in video composition. They just want to click the video so they can hear the track.

To be honest, if YouTube allowed you just to post music I would, but they're a video site and so you have to upload some sort of video to get your music online. The good news is that it's not hard, and you can use free software to create them. And once you've created your first video, it's the same process every time. So how do we do it? Well, we need two pieces of software (This assumes that you're using a Windows PC, sorry. If you're using Linux, a Mac or some other system, you'll need to look elsewhere for a tutorial) and a very basic understanding of graphics.

WINDOWS LIVE MOVIE MAKER

There are of course other programs you can use, some probably much better, but I've found this one to be both easy and free, and it integrates perfectly into Windows 7. If you're using a version prior to Windows 7, this software should, I think, already be built-in to the operating system. For a Windows 7 version, go here Windows Live Essentials - Download Windows Live Essentials and click the “Download” button. Once the program is installed on your system, rack it up and you'll see this screen
http://www.trollheart.com/YT1.jpg
Click where it's ringed in red and you'll be taken to a browse feature, where you can select a picture --- any picture, but I usually use the album cover --- that will be displayed when your video runs. If you don't have the picture you want, you can just download it, either from Google or Wiki (see previous tutorials 1a(2) and 3b) and then navigate to it. Either way, you should end up with something like this
http://www.trollheart.com/yt2.jpg
You'll notice that the picture is shown in a large version on the left, and a smaller on the right, both ringed in red. Under the larger picture are buttons like play and stop, but there's nothing to play at the moment: this is only a picture. So we need to add our music.

This we do by going to the “add music” tab, as shown: the one that looks like a musical note.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt3.jpg
On clicking this, we then get a further menu. Click on the one marked, where it says “add music”. You can click the other one, “add music at this point”, but I normally use the first one.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt4.jpg
Now browse your music collection to the album you want to use the track from. In this case, I'm using Journey's “Eclipse”. Highlight the album directory and either double-click or hit the “open” key, as shown.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt5.jpg
Navigate to the track you want. Here I'm choosing “Resonate”. Click “open” or double-click.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt6.jpg
Now look at your screen. You'll see that on the right, the smaller image now has a musical note above it, and the name of the track you just selected (or as much of it as will fit, anyway). But note, also in red, the length of the project. It's still seven seconds, which will be totally useless for your video. Try it. Hit the “play” button. You'll get seven seconds of your track, then the video will stop. What a bummer!
http://www.trollheart.com/yt7.jpg
Of course, that can and must easily be fixed. What you need to do now is go to the “Project” tab, as shown
http://www.trollheart.com/yt8.jpg
and click on the icon marked “fit to music”, again as shown
http://www.trollheart.com/yt9.jpg
NOW look at your screen to the right! See the difference? Instead of just the one picture, you now have dozens, so that there is now a vertical scroll bar to show you that they continue on past your immediate field of vision. Also, the FULL title of the track can now fit, as well as the artiste and album, and displays across the screen. In addition, looking to the left, you'll note that our video length is now correct, in this case 5:10, and you can test that by hitting the “play” key again. You'll see the black bar to the extreme left of the first icon move slowly across it, and then over the rest, over and down, while the music plays. Your video is now ready to be saved.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt10.jpg

Click the small arrow in the blue square at the top left corner, as shown
http://www.trollheart.com/yt11.jpg
From the drop-down menu that comes up, select “Save Movie” and then “For computer”, as shown
http://www.trollheart.com/yt12.jpg
Type in your filename. Doesn't have to be the track name, but I usually use it. Take note of where the file is being saved (you can see that from the left column or from the title bar, and change it if you want) and hit OK.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt13.jpg
Your movie will begin saving to your hard drive
http://www.trollheart.com/yt14.jpg
and when it's finished will alert you.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt15.jpg
At this point, you have a choice, though it's really no choice. Your video is now saved but in a large WMV format. You can upload this directly to YouTube, if you like, as long as you're prepared for a long wait. The larger the file, obviously, the longer it will take to upload to YouTube. If you have a fast, powerful computer, or lots of time to spare, or you're going to leave it running while you go off and do something, then there's no problem in your uploading the video as it stands. YouTube will certainly recognise and convert it for you.

ANY VIDEO CONVERTER

But if you don't have a supercomputer, lots of time, or you have a few videos to upload, then you should definitely consider converting the WMV to a much smaller, more manageable format, like FLV or SWF. You can use a free program called “Any Video Converter” to do this for you. It's simplicity itself. You download from here Free Video Converter-Any Video Converter Freeware, freely convert video to iPhone, Android, Html5 formats --- just click the download button. Once you have the software installed, run it up and you will see this screen:
http://www.trollheart.com/yt16a.jpg
Just click where it says “Add video” (ringed in red) on the left. This will bring up a browser. If your video is not in the directory it brings up, navigate to the one where it is and select. Now your video will be shown in the middle, as ringed. Go across to the top right corner and click the small downward arrow, as shown. This will open another menu, showing the various formats you can convert your video to. Select the one with the red banner marked “Flash” as shown, and then either SWF (Shockwave File) or FLV (Flash Video); I always use FLV.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt17a.jpg
Hit the convert button and you're on your way! The program will show the conversion progress
http://www.trollheart.com/yt18.jpg
and when it's finished, just click on the “No thanks” button (unless you want to buy the Pro version of the software)
http://www.trollheart.com/yt19.jpg
and the directory wherein your now-converted file is held will be displayed. Note that AVC uses the (documents) directory and then makes a subdir for the type of files it converts to, so look for the “Any Video Converter” subdirectory in your documents folder, then look for the “FLV” or “SWF” subdirectory, and you'll find your file there.
http://www.trollheart.com/yt20.jpg

From there it's just a case of uploading your file to YouTube. It's a simple process, so simple I won't be covering it here, but if anyone is stuck post a comment, PM or email me and I'll walk you through it.

I actually really appreciate a guide for journals. Awesome Trollheart.

I've been thinking about starting a journal ever since getting here but have been ambivalent, for the same reasons about structure. Unfortunately my learning difficulties proves hard to write essays or reports in a standard format. Practicing English writing for 10 years has only built it to just decent, and whenever presenting competently it's at a quick loss thereafter. Losing train of thought constantly ends up stating things really awkward. I'm pretty insecure about writing so it almost results into OCD.

All leads up to this question. Can I suggest after writing an entry, to seek feedback of how you wrote it? I'm not sure if I feel comfortable planning an entry and getting somebody else to correct later to finalise it. I prefer doing the work myself.

Okay, first of all, you're welcome, but second I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for feedback on your entries? That would come via people making comments. Unfortunately that is not mandatory or even that likely: my own journal has been going for almost three years now and the amount of comments I get even now is quite small, and not at all on a regular basis.

If you're asking about the "submit to a mod before your entry is posted", that's the system and just how it works. I don't think they necessarily spellcheck or anything --- mostly, I do this myself before submitting the entry --- they just want to know that there's nothing in it that shouldn't be there, I guess.

If you want to clarify your question I'll do my best to answer it. At the moment I'm sorry but I really can't figure out what you're asking...

I'm not really talking about comments on the subject, or the content. But more or less advice about how I wrote it. If it's been written properly or not. How to better the writing, structure, explanation, sense of what is being conveyed.

Say that I wrote a piece and posted it. Then PM'd you for example Trollheart for feedback about some sort of analysis like "well the way you wrote blah blah doesn't really make much sense or, your entry is hard to follow (as you just said :laughing: ). Instead of you editing the post yourself.

I don't know, do mods look at that before submitting your post?

The approval system in Member's Journal and Editor's Pick is basically so we can control what kind of stuff gets posted in there, i.e. posts of a higher quality/calibre, like journal articles. It's a real good way to keep the spammy stuff and trolls from clogging up those sections as well.

On the approve posts page we get a little preview of the post and who wrote it. I'm not sure about other mods, but I generally just briefly skim over that snippet before approving it (or deleting it in the case of spam, etc). We don't spell check (I already reluctantly do this when marking essays for a professor at school, lol), that's left up to you :)

Yeah, I think I understand now.
Like BD says, it's not like receiving a rejection letter on a story or anything. The mods don't tell you why your material has not been approved --- mine always have been and I'd say 99.9% of genuine articles are --- they just don't approve it. I've had occasions where they've been under pressure and it's taken a few days to approve material, and then I've looked to see did I say something I shouldn't have, was a graphic too suggestive (when I used the girls in my journal for instance) or whatever. But nothing has ever been rejected.

So nobody will critique your work and say "this isn't good enough". No-one's going to second-guess you or give you an "F": as long as it's acceptable they'll approve it.

I'll be happy, if you want, to offer my advice (in PM if you prefer) when/if you start, but generally speaking as a champion of the journals section (and I don't mean by that I'm the best, just that I encourage people to start journals) I visit most/all new ones and do offer my comments, congratulations that they took the step and any proper advice I can, though usually I will stay away from form, structure, spelling (unless it's VERY bad) and grammar, even if I itch to tell the member what I feel.

So I'd say go for it: look at the other journals around and you'll see some people put a huge amount of effort into their work, some less so, but everyone has fun. As an example of pure fun while still making sure his work is not mere drivel, read the Batlord's journal. For a look at something that's really well written and well put together and thought out, look at anything by Janszoon, and for total research Nirvana and knowing a subject inside out, check Unknown Soldier's journal.

Hope to see you out there! :thumb:

Thanks for the clarification guys and your help Trollheart.

Yeah, sometimes we just get a huge influx of posts in the moderation panel (avatar requests - we spend a little more time with those of course, journals, spill your guts, etc... they all get submitted at the same time it seems!), so the queue just gets backed up. I can approve everything in one click but sometimes there is spam and other crap that has to be weeded out first. We don't get a notification saying that there are new things in the queue, we have to manually check that and sometimes I am just lazy, haha!

If you've submitted a post for approval, you don't need to send it again - it will be in the queue and someone will approve it within a couple of days at the most. :)

Yes indeed. I learned this lesson when I complained that one of my journal posts had not been approved in two days. Jansz responded with something along the lines of (though friendlier and more diplomatic of course) "FFS TH it's the weekend and people are out enjoying the sun. People don't sit here waiting for approved posts to be sent in and have nothing else to do..."

This of course was news to me, as sun is virtually unknown here in rainy Ireland. I had to look it up on Wiki! :laughing:

Now no matter how long it takes I just sit back and wait. I also don't post as many entries at once as I used to; gotta cut people some slack y'know. Took me a while to realise that... :banghead:

THERE! Been looking for this thread for ages, decades, milleniums! Not really. Obviously. But I wish I'd found this before I started writing my journal. I'll see if I can get some good tips here to make it better. There will be some, there must, Trollheart's writing.

Thank man, you're welcome. Nice to see someone is reading it.

Mind you, it's mostly just a framework showing you how you CAN start off and laying out the basics such as how to insert images, use YouTubes and a few ideas for things you can use to get going. It never was, it never will be, it never could be a blueprint for how to write your journal, because of course everyone has their own ideas on what they want to write, and there's no set format nor any magic formula to make your journal popular. For me, it has always been about writing what I like, how I like, and hoping people also like it. Some have alluded to my album reviews being too long-winded, and yes they are, but that's how I write, and I'm not about to change it to be more popular or to appeal to a greater readership.

You write in your own style, how you like, as different or similar to mine as you want (as long as you don't copy me POWERSTARS!) and you make your own little corner of the journal world here. A great new example is butthead's journal; it's a little unfocussed but great fun, and his ideas while maybe not to everyone's taste are entertaining and worth reading. Of course the Batlord is always good for a read even if I hate the current music he's talking about (okay not hate: I don't even know it. But it's the type I feel I would have zero interest in), and to be fair there are few journals I don't read, as I feel if someone is going to put in the time and effort then the least I can do is read it.

But as ever, any help I can give in whatever capacity I will. Just remember --- and this goes for everyone --- it's YOUR journal, so never mind how others write or how often they update or what graphics they use or don't use, the formats they employ, the approaches they take. You write how you want to write, the way you feel best helps you communicate to your audience, and don't let anyone, including me, tell you how you should write.

Who is "man" and why should I think him? Or are you just talking about the human race in general?


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tzTN00-Ywr...ammar-nazi.jpg

Man is Briks. And please refrain from posting pseudo-Nazi symbols in my thread, Your Batness... :nono:

Batty, since you obviously know a lot about grammar and such, how does one think me?

Would you rather I post actual Nazi symbols in your thread? Would you prefer an actual swastika or should I show some restraint and just go with a sunwheel?

I try to do so as little as possible, you turd.

Hey now, I have proof of permission for the borrowing of your ideas!

Spamming, you say? Thanks for the heads up. I'll show you the door.

:laughing:

nice your froum site post.

Nice your spam attempt made you. Off fuck.

Are sure you? I thought abysmal a spam attempt it was very.

Spam or do not spam: there is no try. ;)
http://www.empireonline.com/images/f.../photos/25.jpg