I ran a search for this topic but nothing came up. What is the thinking on reviewing an album that you personally performed on or recorded? Is this OK or is it not generally encouraged? The thing I want to start reviewing (but haven't had the time yet) and I know that when I do, I will inevitably want to review albums which I have personally performed on, but again I just want to know whether this is encouraged or allowed (I didn't see anything in the rules about it, which is why I'm asking).

Thanks

This is seen as being in exceptionally poor taste.

Except when you're in Cirith Ungol

It's as big a conflict of interest as one can imagine, especially if you do it right when the album comes out. There are a few reviews on this site I've seen of guys who used to be in a band reviewing an album they played on from years ago, and that's a little better I guess, but it's still a bit hard to take it seriously.

In the interest of full disclosure here, I have reviewed an album of one of my bands (the first Sorrowseed album to be exact), but I make it very clear in the opening disclaimer that I did not play on the album, nor was I familiar with the band or knew anybody in it when the album was being created and when it was released. I'm open about elements of the album I'm not a fan of, as any impartial reviewer should be.

Yeah it's not outright forbidden but it's considered a classless thing to do. It can be done well and fairly, and that's why we don't have a hard rule against them, but 99% of the time they'll likely just be roundabout self promotion that won't make the cut.

who was the guy who played in a band and used his reviews as like history about the band? that was kinda cool.

As was mentioned above,

wow I'm a dumbass.

OK I'm bringing this back up because I wanted to know what you guys think about reviewing an album from a band that you either currently play with or have played with in the past, but you review an album which you did NOT personally record, participate in, or have anything to do with, say, and album that was already made BEFORE you joined the band rather than after. Thoughts?

Subrick did it with Sorrowseed, it's ok but not the most ethical thing you can do.

I don't see it as being bad. Who knows your band better than you? And your opinion of the works is no different than someones who has no vested interest in your works, just a bunch of words forming an opinion. Right, wrong or indifferent. I have read reviews by guys who hate everything no matter how good it is and I have seen reviewers that find good in all the releases, again just one yahoos opinion.

Well I guess if I mention that I'm in the band now but did not record the album the worst thing that can happen is that it gets rejected. I'm gonna try and see, , thanks everyone.

Well I did it because that album was before I joined the band. If I had played on it, I would've stayed away from it.

I don't think it's inherently wrong or bad either, but I'd say it's pretty obvious that there's something fundamentally different about an individual who partook in the musical creation process to try to assess it on a consumer level. "knowing the band best", whatever that ends up meaning, is not the point here. It's just not the perspective people expect from this type of text, nor should they. Even if the "review" isn't some thinly veiled promo text or some other interest-conflicted vehicle and in fact an authentic, self-aware description of the author's thoughts on the music, the writing process, etc., what you get is more along the lines of a DVD commentary than what I'd call a musical criticism. By no means automatically worthless or invalid, but, well, just not the same thing.

I agree with Azmodes that knowing the band better having played on the album probably isn't really valid given all the additional biases that would also accumulate. If I do review the album, it will be in the same capacity as Subrick, since I did not play on the album I will review, but have joined the band after the release of the album.

^^^

The knowing the band statement was meant to be as if being introduced to an unknown or new band. If that is the case I like a little band bio with my album review and who better to craft a short band introduction than a member. And also the mates are far more familiar with the intricacies of the release. Where it was recorded, by whom, et al...

The review is as biased or unbiased as any other persons, you just get a bit more factual intimacy in a member intro/review.

Carry on.

I wouldn't. If it's a band you're currently in, it still reeks too much of self-promotion. If a review you write gives your band positive attention, you're there to reap the fruit, no matter how small.

It seems really weird to do it in the first place. "Who knows it better!?" reads as a rationalization for a weak loop hole. A self-reviewing author can either write realistically in the first person, or semi-disingenuously in the third person. Personally, I just wouldn't feel comfortable with it. I'd rather use the Request A Review thread and hope for the best.

I do not think you properly understand my problem. You are assuming that this is a "self-review", and you then reach your conclusion based on that assumption (namely: no, it's a bad idea because it's a self-review). However, my whole question is regarding WHETHER reviewing an album which you did not yourself perform on (which I did not), yet later joined the band that did release that album (which I did), is in itself truly a "self-review". I am now relatively undecided on whether to attempt the review, since about half the people say "yes it's ok since you did not play on that album" or "no it is not ok because it's self reviewing", yet I still strongly yearn to write the review because I think it's a solid 85% -90%, any album that I personally value so highly is worth a review on metal-archives IMO (there are MANY albums I would like to review following this same premise).

To be clear, I do not consider an album that I did not perform on to be in any way "self-reviewing", even if I do benefit from a positive review. This is why reject the conclusions of those of Grave_Wyrm, who argue that I should not review due to it being a "self-review". If anything, I should refrain from this review because it is a CLEAR conflict of interest, which might bias my review, but not because this is any way a "self-review". To clarify again, I DID NOT PERFORM ON THIS ALBUM. What I did later in my personal life is not related to this album, since it existed first, and is the object of my review. I thing this is a very good album (again, I would probably give it between 85% and 90%,), but I would still want to review it if I thought this album was shit. I just happen to think that a predominately female and Quebecois/francophone melodic black metal band is a unique entity and such an album deserves a decent review (not that there isn't one already, slayrrr666 provided us an excellent review!) I would like to minimize bias and try a review, and I was just wondering what the M-A community thought about it. Given that the opinion is about 50/50 right now, I urge all further commenters to provide VALID AND GOOD REASONS as to why I should or should not attempt this. Reviews take a lot of time, and if I want to spend my time to attempt one for Vehemal, I would like my attempt to at least be worthwhile, since I will give it a shot, even if it may be rejected, but I do not want to waste my time if you guys think that my attempt is dead in the water... I would rather give up now and save my time... there are many other things I could put it towards, hehehe. Also, if you are a reviewer and wish to review the Vehemal album, I urge you to do so, even if you want to give it a 0%! (I would rather the overall score of the album to equal 45% with two reviews of 0% and 90% review than just one at 90%, since laws of stats state that the higher the sample size, the greater the trend is to the real theoretical value, despite outliers!)

Anyway, I am still deliberating on this, and as such ALL intelligent answers will be considered (just to be honest I already took ALL of your comments into consideration, thank all of you who answered already, and don't mean to be imply that any of your responses were unintelligent: I truly appreciate the responses, even if divided in opinion!

\\M//

I wouldn't do it. Too much risk of actually giving Vehemal bad press in the process - you don't want to be "the guy from Vehemal that kept going on about reviewing their stuff". My advice would be to try and land interviews with some neat online publications and blogspots and what have you, that way you get the chance to talk about the music as much as you want. I think I remember getting a digital promo from you guys via an agency (correct me if I'm wrong); a better approach is to write an email direct to publications that seem like they're interested in interviews, you'll stand a better chance of at least getting a response than one of those Haulix notifications would.

Just be aware that if you do attempt to review your own band you should be prepared for the consequences (i.e. people thinking you are abusing the review system and thinking less highly of the band as a result of your actions). Do you really think people are going to be cool with the fact that literally your only review will be for your own band?

Also be aware that it would be extremely difficult for you to write a review for your own band (even for an album you did not play on) and have it get accepted in the first place.

To make it as clear as I possibly can: this is a very bad idea and I strongly discourage you from doing it.

The problem with that thought is that the artist will see merit in details that no one else does, thus it'll lead to overblown appreciation for the logical emotional tie to the material.

I wouldn't review a band where I play or I used to play, not even if I wasn't on the album reviewed. It's not like I couldn't judge the work by its own merits, but it looks awful and it's a sort of shameless promotion in disguise.

why not just post some links in the "review my stuff pls" thread? you'll get a review or two out of it, the added exposure, and there's no question they'll be unbiased reviews. just thinking about it, i have no idea how i could possibly rate my own music. i have stuff recorded on my computer here that i think is completely game-changing, but deep down i know it's amateur shit. hahah.

*throws up hands, appeals to ref to no avail*

Fair point. Ok, well let's walk this through. In your review are you thinking of making the point that you did not play on the album, but are in the band? That's going to read pretty oddly. Or are you going to avoid the point entirely (or worse, write in the third person) and hope that the anonymity of your screen name gets you off the "whoah wait, this guy's in the band!?" hook? Either tactic is going to be odd and potentially discredit you some because most people who read the reivew are probably going to think it's weird despite this technicality. You're probably going to write it anyhow because "potential bad press" and "Subrick did this and it's not the best integrity" and "don't do it" aren't seeming to have much effect.

Besides which, you basically answered your own question in the last sentence of that quote.

Of course this could be the most indirect attention-grab in recent memory and this thread is all an ad for your band, which would be even weirder.