Elements > Album Review

Why does everyone do the track-by-track review?

<< < (2/3) > >>

Eihtball:

--- Quote from: Machiavelli on April 20, 2006, 05:54:34 PM ---[the best reviews are when they have a overall summary and track-by-track review

--- End quote ---

Nah, because reviewing every track is boring.  I don't mind if the reviewer picks out a few tracks that they think are especially dope and explain why (or a few wack songs and explain why those suck), but looking at every track is boring.

Teddy Roosevelt:
They both have their advantages and disadvantages. A track by track review is more detailed. You can get an understanding for each song. An overall review is a little vage, but it will tell you the tone of the album. It gives you an overall scope and atitude which probably is more usful. The problem is you can finish those types of reviews having no good idea how the songs are themselves. Like Machiavelli said the best reviews have both.

Eihtball:

--- Quote from: Dat Nigga Ted aka The 10th Nazgūl on April 21, 2006, 10:36:47 AM ---They both have their advantages and disadvantages. A track by track review is more detailed. You can get an understanding for each song. An overall review is a little vage, but it will tell you the tone of the album. It gives you an overall scope and atitude which probably is more usful. The problem is you can finish those types of reviews having no good idea how the songs are themselves. Like Machiavelli said the best reviews have both.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, track-by-track reviews only work if the reviewer is competent and knows how to come up with an accurate, detailed description.  Unfortunately, most of DubCC isn't like that - they say the same unintelligent shit over and over.

I still don't think the best review needs a description of EVERY track...just tracks of importance that really stand out for whatever reason.  Like, if I were reviewing "The Infamous" by Mobb Deep, there's no way I could write the review without mentioning "Shook Ones, Part II" and "Survival of the Fittest", because those are classics that most def warrant a little more depth.

On The Edge of Insanity:
While I do agree with you to a point, in that it can be difficult to describe each track on the album without re-using the same vocab, that was the format that was agreed some time ago as the best way to review albums.

I think its helpful for someone who is thinking of purchasing the album, because they can get an idea of how each track sounds, so can maybe then download the best track from the review and the worst one, allowing them to see both ends of the scale when it comes to the quality of tracks on the album. Also, this method means that every track gets a mention, so someone who has heard the album can come in and see if the reviewer agrees with their opinion on a certain track.

Having said that, I do agree that whenever someone is doing a track by track review I would expect them to write an introduction and a summary of the album as part of the review, so that it is easier for someone to come in and get a good overall picture of the quality of the album without having to read the whole track by track review.

I'm open to suggestions if people think there is a better way the reviews could be structured, maybe having an overall review, and then just listing scores for each of tracks could be a possibility, or any other ideas anyone has?

Meho:

--- Quote from: Spicemuthafuckin1 on April 20, 2006, 04:27:03 PM ---I see what your saying and you got a good point, however for some reason I prefer the track by track reviews

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page