|_|_|_|_|_|_|

Hello,

I joined the forum to try to understand music better. I enjoy listening to music but don't understand what would make it good. I can understand the lyrics and that different genres will have different types of lyrics, but I don't understand the other parts. So how would a music reviewer go about judging a record/album.

Thanks for any and all help.

Trollheart

Everyone has their own way of judging, relating to and if they want to, reviewing music. I can only tell you how I do it. First and foremost, it's about how the music makes me feel. Then I try to put that into words, not always easy:sometimes you just want to say "this song rocks!" when what you might end up saying, after thinking about it, might be "this song makes me feel like I'm walking on a sunny country lane in summer", or " this song brings back memories of childhood" or even "I just wanted to play this so loud!" It's about an emotional connection with the music, which is why most pop music does nothing for me.

You ask questions like what images does this music evoke for me? What do I think the artiste was trying to say? How does it make me feel? How do I communicate that feeling to another person? Does the music stick in your head long after you've switched it off? Did it surprise or disappoint you? Would you listen to it again, or go looking for more from that artiste?

And so on.
Well, that's me, anyway.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

|_|_|_|_|_|_|

So, it is totally subjective. I guess I rate music in the same way without knowing it; I listen to the mood of it and the general sound and if I like it, I will listen to it again.

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

Dylstew

You can also judge on more individual things like lyrics, originality, songwriting/execution, vocals, production, riffs/melodies, etc.

Kinda like what you can do with a film. (Plot execution, pacing, characters, sound, visuals, acting, wether a comedy is funny or a horror movie is scary and such, originality, dialogue, etc)

Oriphiel

Welcome to Music Banter! Just out of curiosity, what kind of music do you like?

|_|_|_|_|_|_|

Thanks for the ideas!

|_|_|_|_|_|_|

I like a lot of different types of music. Some albums I have enjoyed include but are in no way limited to the following: Halcyon - Ellie Goulding | Pure Heroine - Lorde | Songs For Swingin' Lovers - Frank Sinatra | Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin | Alright, Still - Lily Allen.

I also listen to a lot of random songs by various artist, and a lot more by bands such as Spoon, Areosmith, The Strokes, The Smiths, The Clash, The Cure, Tears For Fears, No Doubt, etc.

CoNtrivedNiHilism

That's not a half bad list there, big points for the Sinatra.

When I get some sleep and can properly express my thoughts on your question, or purpose of this thread, I will do just that, express them.

Zack

In my experience, there are three basic subsets of music reviewers:

1. The trained musician who knows some basic theory, and some impressive terminology, and likes to discuss music as though the end result should be appreciated the same way a municipal building is. Structural integrity, adherence to theoretical norms while simultaneously being innovative- these are analyzed and dissected and snobbed about. Minimal consideration to the beauty, interesting or any meaningful result of music is given. Don't be this guy. He's a jerk. Nobody likes him.

2. The guy with little-to-no musical experience, who just talks about "connection," "symbolism," "speaking to me," "transcending norms," and the rest, but really tells you absolutely nothing about the music aside from whether or not he enjoyed it. Also, the music he reviews is almost certainly relatively bland, just out of the mainstream pop that disguises itself as high art through excessive use of reverb, or through out-of-fashion clothing. You can be this guy, but most people won't take you seriously.

3. The working musician who has played a variety of genres, knows at least basic music theory and so can really talk about what's going on in the music, gets around the music scene, isn't bored by Beethoven and yet also isn't affronted by Lady Gaga, and has a touch of knowledge about most genres. Most importantly, he or she remembers that the theory and form and structure and symbolism and compositional techniques used are extremely important, but that what listeners care about is the effect. His or her reviews tackle music with the language of someone who CAN dissect music, and who DOES know the theoretical and formal terminology, and who WILL use it when appropriate and necessary for descriptive purposes, but the main focus of each review will be detailed description of the aural effect and evaluation of the overall musicality, musicianship, innovation, and accessibility of the music. Be this guy.

So, my personal requirements for a good review:

a. A good music reviewer should be a musician. It's just hard to say much that's very meaningful of you have to say "sounds sad," when what you mean is, "extended minor harmony." Or worse, to say "in minor" when the song or piece actually is just a subdued sounding kind of major. And yes, I have seen that. If you can't identify the most basic of musical elements, and don't even realize that you can't, I have limited faith in the rest of your review.

b. Just because you KNOW the theoretical concepts in the music, doesn't mean you need to prove it to us. Remember that your audience is (hopefully) less musically versed than you. Anyone that will understand what you mean when you say "understood best as a neo-classical, modal interpretation of Schoenberg's concept of roving harmony, mixed with multi-timbral drones in just intonation," will appreciate the info (and if someone told me that, I'd be one that track in a second!) but if most of your readers have to wikipedia five terms and a name to understand your sentence, you'll lose their attention reaaaal fast. Use terminology that explains what's going on in the music, but keep it reader-base appropriate.

c. Draw comparisons to familiar musics by way of explanation, but don't name-drop. The best way to convince someone they'll like some piece of music, is to compare it favorably to something they know and like. The inverse is also true. However, going on and on about niche artists and niche recordings that most people haven't heard, but which make you sound intellectual and well-versed is not going to get you anywhere with readers who have no idea what you're referencing.

d. Remember that the most important components of a review are these:

d1. While remaining accessible, describe the music so that readers get a clear sense of what it might sound like.

d2. Evaluate who well the music achieves whatever it's meant to achieve. If that goal is complex conceptual innovation, fine, talk about that. If it's a dance album, talk about that.

Don't forget these two goals. If you know what you're talking about, and you keep in mind that your readership do not, then in my book, you're on your way to writing good reviews.

Just don't get too caught up in your personal, spiritual connection to the music. That can be part of it, but it tells us zip, aside from whether or not you liked it.

Also, don't use reviews as an excuse to demonstrate your immense technical knowledge. While your vocabulary may be enormous, to use all of it is an enormity.

__________________
The Passage of... ------- (Classical Synth)
Danceables ------- (Dance Synth with a Latin Flair)
Meanderings ------- (Classical Synth)
Raven ------- (Rock Opera)

|_|_|_|_|_|_|

That was a great post! Thank you so much for writing it!