Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives https://forum.metal-archives.com/ |
|
The Review Feedback Workshop https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16487 |
Page 96 of 108 |
Author: | Eruntalon [ Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hails to everyone! After thinking much about it I tried my hand and wrote my first review last saturday. As I really want to write substancial reviews to other people I think you guys could help me. The review is still pending at the moment I write this but I think I can already have some analysis on it and gather proper opinioin from you. I don't know if it's necessary to omit some information before the approval/rejection, so I'll put everything in spoiler.
Spoiler:
show
Well you can see I'm a noob here, but I have been reading the forum to get myself mingled as well as the reviews in order to learn more about this art of writing reviews - I just wish I had more time. My main objective is to develop my writing skills, so any honest critique is welcome. Also, I've been visiting MA for a long time but never thought about getting involved. Maybe it's not too late. |
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Sun Jul 15, 2018 11:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Not a bad first stab. Musical description needs more fleshing out. There's an over-emphasis on context and history, so that I know more about where the album stands in the chronology than what it actually sounds like. You give us glimpses of the content, but not enough. What description is there relies too heavily on a reader being familiar with Immortal. "Straightness" is an odd adjective. There are some redundant phrasings, some formatting issues (italicize album names), and some language errors, but overall I think it's a good first draft and you should keep working on it. I'm not quite sure how you felt about the album. Clarify your opinions and use your descriptions to support them. |
Author: | Eruntalon [ Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Really grateful for you appreciation Grave_Wyrm. I do think there was some redundancy and I didn't know the details about formating. It was nice to know that the review was approved the way I wrote it. I made some modifications to the text following your suggestions. I'm posting it in a spoiler window but since the original review is already approved I don't know it is worth editing it- I think if it will return to the queue, right? In any case the point was taken, and I will watch these details for the next reviews.
Spoiler:
show
I am also glad that my second review for the site has also been accepted. It is about Left Hand Pass from Cannabis Corpse. It's here, if any of you want to check out: https://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/ ... lon/365732 |
Author: | Iron Wizard [ Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Heres my draft for Cannibal Corpse's Vile:
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:24 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Iron Wizard wrote: Hi, Iron Wizard, I've read several of your reviews in the past and this seems like a fairly typical example of your style. I think you generally manage to say what you think about the album in a succinct manner, though you don't always explain all of your points thoroughly. For example, when talking about Corpsegrinder's impact on the album, you say that he "definitely brings something new to the music", but also that "his style isn't far from Barnes's". Firstly, you obviously haven't checked your draft very carefully because those statements don't match up, while you need to explain what new aspect Corpsegrinder's vocals bring. Ditto with the "plodding riffs": I don't really understand how they are different from the "headbang-able groove riffs" you prefer, nor do you really explain why they can be at once unenjoyable and atmospheric. Consider adding one or two sentences to fully explain these points and make the review more useful for a general listener. Two more things: format your album titles (I like mine to be in italics, such as Vile) and check your spelling; there are four spelling mistakes in here, all of which will show up on MS Word spellchecker. They are 'predecessor', 'doesn't', 'accessible', and 'of'. Time to review c/s letter combinations perhaps. I hope the comments are helpful. I think with a bit more concentration and explanative writing, your reviews could be very good. And definitely make a habit of editing your work before you submit it. |
Author: | Swansonandrew3 [ Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Prequelle review help |
I could use some help on my album review of Prequelle, that got rejected. Any suggestions that could help me with resubmitting it would be appreciated. I liked the Album, but it's not the ghost I love The reason I started to listen to Ghost was because of the bands dark, satanic, and cultist messaging that made the band what it was. In some form or fashion, the bands creator Tobias Forge has always maintained this messaging wither if it was from the LP releases to the EP covers the band does. The difference in this album cycle that sets the others apart is how the band is starting to put their traditional metal sound on the back peddle for more of a pop sound. Don't get me wrong, metal still has a presence on this album, but not in the way it did in their previous releases. When metal is brought into the fold on songs like rats, and faith it gives a reminder of the ghost I was attracted to in the first place. They both have head bopping (Songs not good enough for headbanging in my opinion), and toe taping rifts that accomplish the goal of a dark atmosphere the album set out to make in the first place. Hell rats is the first metal song that makes me want to get up and dance, which was a total shock for me when I first listened to it. The lyrical messaging also works together in a great way with rats covers the inability to escape the plague, and how faith talks about only finding salvation into one group/individual. The instrumentals on this album were also satisfying to listen to, which comes as no surprise to me since the band has a good track record of instrumentals. The only real disappointing thing with them was miasma wasn't too unique from the instrumental devil church off Meliora. Otherwise, the band does a good job at making the instrumentals off this album powerful. Now with the actual pop section of this album, I gotta say it wasn't too bad. I say this because I knew at around the time Popstar came out, the next album was going to follow be similar to Popestar. The issue with the pop section is songs that I have some problems with, I realize could be replaced or just not necessary. While we're on this topic lets get pro meliora out of the way. It was not a good song, and the reason why is because of the lyrics. "Don't you forget about dying, don't you forget about your friend death, don't you forget that you will die." When I heard this, I wonder what Tobias Forge was on when he wrote this song. I know well enough what to expect with this lyrical creativity, and besides this line, it was just lazy all the way through. Now the other issue in this section that comes to mind is life eternal. I actually like this song a lot, but it shouldn't have been the end of the album. That should have been left for Helvetesfonster to do. Life eternal was just one of those songs that we could have lived without the 3 extra minutes that the song added. I liked the album, but it's not the ghost I fell in love with (Hence the title). The band continued to keep its identity in this album that it had before, but it wasn't rich in sound like its predictors were. When I think of this album, I can't help but think of Metallica's black album. Metallica continued to keep some of what made them who they were, but they traded in a lot when they wanted to go commercial. Its the same story for Ghost and I think this album is just the beginning. |
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Prequelle review help |
Swansonandrew3 wrote: I could use some help on my album review of Prequelle, that got rejected. Any suggestions that could help me with resubmitting it would be appreciated.
Spoiler:
show
To be honest, I would say the main reason it got rejected was because your writing isn't up to standard for being published on this website. There are numerous spelling errors and instances of lazy word use. For instance, you've spelt "riffs" wrong, which is entry-level criteria for a site on metal. The review also shows incorrect use of the following words/expressions: cultist messaging (cult image) back peddle (pedal; but actually you mean "on the back burner") toe taping rifts (toe-tapping riffs) messaging (message) finding salvation into (finding salvation in) wasn't too unique (wasn't too different from) off this album/in this album (on this album). Other than these, you haven't capitalized song and album titles consistently, nor have you even capitalized Ghost consistently, while you've spelt Popestar in two different ways as well. It's better to make a system for naming album titles and song titles, like Prequelle for an album and 'Rats' or 'Pro Meliora' for a song. Lots of the sentences don't flow very smoothly and use awkward grammar, which makes understanding the points a little difficult. I think you should review the draft after you've finished it and you could spot a lot of these problems yourself. The content of the review is not so bad, so don't feel like the site administrators have rejected it because your view on the album is being censored. In fact, a lot of people feel like Ghost sounds more pop than they did before and have written negative reviews. Because of that, it would be a good idea to read some of the other reviews for Prequelle before submitting your own, since you might just be saying the same thing as others. Remember that this website is all about providing useful resources for other users. I hope these comments will be helpful to you. |
Author: | Sweetie [ Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
You also said "Pro Meliora" when you meant "Pro Memoria". |
Author: | DividerOfShadows [ Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hi, guys. My review has recently been rejected and I would like some tips you can spare on making it good enough for the site. I reckon I may have complimented the band too much or haven't given enough substance to such remarks, but what do you think? What should I work on more? I'd really like to become more proficient at this. Thanks in advance and sorry for poor writing.
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
DividerOfShadows wrote: Eld It will come as no surprise that language comprehension is the main hurdle. Because fixing those errors would amount to rewriting the review for you, my feedback ignores the comprehension and focuses on composition. To quote Lars Ulrich, "It sounds stock. It sounds stock to my ears." Your subject is more interesting than your presentation, and it should really always be the other way around. You obviously like this album a lot. Develop your central theme (the shame of its neglect) with a proper outline and a supported position on what makes it so great and the musical description will be inherent, the flow of ideas will automatically be more organized, and this really excellent band will have another articulate fan giving them the praise they deserve. Don't be miserly with your love. |
Author: | DividerOfShadows [ Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Grave_Wyrm wrote: DividerOfShadows wrote: Eld It will come as no surprise that language comprehension is the main hurdle. Because fixing those errors would amount to rewriting the review for you, my feedback ignores the comprehension and focuses on composition. To quote Lars Ulrich, "It sounds stock. It sounds stock to my ears." Your subject is more interesting than your presentation, and it should really always be the other way around. You obviously like this album a lot. Develop your central theme (the shame of its neglect) with a proper outline and a supported position on what makes it so great and the musical description will be inherent, the flow of ideas will automatically be more organized, and this really excellent band will have another articulate fan giving them the praise they deserve. Don't be miserly with your love. Thank you for your feedback, mate. I'll keep your advice in mind. By the way, you needn't rewrite my review, but I'm curious to know - what kind of errors did you have in mind when talking about comprehension? Just to get an idea of what else I should work on. Thanks! |
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Well, I take that back. There are a couple awkward sentences (Drumming is strong and relentless), some grammatical stuff ("many paramount", a couple of rambling, clunky sentence), but yeah .. not sure where I was coming from, so strike that comment. Composition needs work, though. The tick-box approach to the band's members is akin to a track-by-track. It lacks a flow of ideas; it's more of a collection of statements that changes topic quickly. Explain the work in a way that supports your opinions. |
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
DividerOfShadows wrote: Eld DividerOfShadows wrote: Thank you for your feedback, mate. I'll keep your advice in mind. By the way, you needn't rewrite my review, but I'm curious to know - what kind of errors did you have in mind when talking about comprehension? Just to get an idea of what else I should work on. Thanks! It seems that what Grave_Wyrm is picking up on is that the review is just about the minimum for being accepted (some mods would deem it fine), but there isn't much life in the writing, the structure is very limiting, and the musical description mostly sticks to surface details. I don't think it's too bad and there are many worse reviews published on this site, but I guess that the mod who rejected it felt like it didn't really say enough about the music of the album, just glossing over general points that have been written about before. You have the general ideas for a review of Eld, but there's no specific examples or useful critique for the reader to learn from. I've never listened to Eld and I'm left with more questions than answers from that review. Answer the questions and it becomes a better review. Remove the "musician-by-musician" formula from the fourth paragraph and scatter those comments where they are really necessary; then maybe it will become a good review. It's a pretty good draft, just needs honing some more. |
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
You're right, Mr. G. It seems pretty close to the current minimum standard, and with some minor tweaks it would in all likelihood be acceptable. On a general note, it's not at all hard to make a rejected review passable, which leaves two options: 1) a technical excercise of abiding by site rules and shooting for the minimum standard (in the case of someone with a hell of a lot of enthusiasm, but low English comprehension this is perhaps the best they can accomplish, and that's fine), or 2) a more difficult, but productive exercise of focusing on improvements of craft that will not only carry the piece right past the site minimums, but provide more learning for the writer. My chosen approach is to focus on helping writers make their reviews more insightful, more personally reflective, more worth the reader's time. Maybe that asks too much of some writers, but I'm comfortable with that. I'd much rather be without those handful of reviews that were written by people who only aspire to a minimum. Edit- The current parameters of that threshold can be found here: https://www.metal-archives.com/board/vi ... =4&t=44482 |
Author: | Guitarist3000 [ Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:53 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hey everyone, I was curious if I could get some feedback on how I can improve this review so that it doesn't get rejected? It was stated that there wasn't enough information within my review & that I need to add more. I could detail it song by song as it is only a 3 track album, however it stated on the rules & guidlines that this isn't something I should do, so I'm looking for some pointers & it would be very appreciated. Here's the review: "When I first grabbed this cassette I was pretty interested from the start, it's not very often that you see a cover art that is only a single image with no band logo or writing of any kind. When I got the chance to listen to it I was floored! The sounds that these three people produce is quite this, murky and has a ton of atmosphere to it! As others have mentioned it would seem that the atmosphere these Quebec natives of the cascadian variety have a unique type of feeling. There isn't quite as "open" of a sound, it feels more as if your underneath the earth in a huge warehouse style chasm that has walls which have seen tons of erosion from decades of ground water seeping over them. I know this is all descriptive, however they just nail this form of atmosphere so well and it really floored me! Despite the lack of a bassist at this time the two guitars and drums on this release are very thick and come across quite well on the tape. There are moments where the atmosphere is so thick you could have it spilling over you, then there are times where they open up a bit and really let the riff / lyrics pull you in. This album is three long tracks which seamlessly flow through one another, I feel like this was done on purpose and it really works wonders! Each time I put this on I end up listening to the whole thing which is a great feeling. I totally recommend this if you are into black metal and especially if you're into atmospheric black metal. I could even see this help get more people interested in the genre, and am honestly surprised you don't hear more about these dudes or this band." |
Author: | Sweetie [ Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Well, two things. 1. The description of the atmosphere is pretty solid, but what it lacks is description of the music itself. Talk about the riff styles, song subjects, vocal style, types of rhythm and how the melodies sound. Or, if it's void of melody. Things that make it stand out to you, or things you dislike. What you have on the atmosphere is good, now add to it with musical description. 2. As for the track by track thing, typically if it's a release of only a few songs, then a track by track is fine. Especially if you're still able to connect all of the songs into the overall point. |
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:05 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hello all, I'm in a bit of a reviewing rut because I really don't have much time or energy to put into my writing at the moment. I hope that someone could give me a few suggestions about where a review like the one below could be improved. To me, it just feels so lifeless and like hard work to write something like this right now. I gave Infrared's Saviours 71% and called the review 'Steel-Toecapped Resurrection' if that helps. Content in spoiler.
Spoiler:
show
Thanks for any suggestions or criticism. |
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
gasmask_colostomy wrote: 'Steel-Toecapped Resurrection' Notes in spoiler.
Spoiler:
show
Guitarist3000 wrote: unnamed album Notes in spoiler.
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Grave_Wyrm wrote: Really, thanks for the feedback, I know that took some time for you to do. I do have a problem with rambling at times and I definitely qualify the heck out of some of my points, but it's also interesting to see which parts you were following closely and where the writing started to lose you. I'm not sure that I'll rewrite the same review, seeing as it's already been published on another website, but it might be good practice anyway. I'll certainly keep track on those issues when I'm writing in the near future. The points on commas are also useful and I'm aware that I tend to err on the side of too many. I was wondering if you could point me out a sentence where I've had a particular problem with them? Also, I'd be really interested to hear what your job is. You seem to have lots of experience with grammar and editing. |
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
gasmask_colostomy wrote: ...commas On a second read, nothing's standing out to me as bad. There are a couple out of place, but nothing a peek at the OWL won't fix. I think I was getting overwhelmed by the number of them, considering how many hinges they provided to the interjections. |
Author: | Aydross [ Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:03 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hi, I would like some feedback on my review. I'm usually more of a numbers guy, so just recently started writing some reviews every once in a while just for the sake of it. Negative criticism encouraged, I really want to improve and I know I am lacking if certain areas (I have trouble writing entertaining stuff).
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
The review meanders. Tighten it up by making your points without the padded, floury presentation. Third and fourth paragraphs are ok, but the review over all sounds too stream of consciousness and lacks organization. I can tell you're trying to pass the musical description hurdle, but you can do that without listing off the different tracks. If the fat was trimmed, it would end up being too much of a track-by-track. Feel free to generalize more, referring to songs without listing them. The opening paragraph makes it sound like this review will compare the current work to the past, but it doesn't. I think the review needs a direction. Currently it's pretty blurby with vague language. |
Author: | Aydross [ Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:32 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Thank you, those are some good points and will take those in mind next time. |
Author: | Vadara [ Tue Oct 16, 2018 12:47 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hi guys. I decided to try actually writing a review for the first time--this is honestly the first time I ever wrote a review of any album ever, honestly--and chose to review a Metalcore album that had no reviews at all. I'm aiming to be positive without just mindlessly slobbering over it and acknowledging the flaws of the genre. The problem is I'm not used to this so what I wrote ended up being a very long mess. I just don't know how I can express these thoughts more succinctly and have interesting prose at the same time. The end is also pretty weak and light on content.
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:32 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I don't have much to add to your own analysis. It meanders, it's over-talk-y, it needs organization. That said, it gets right to the point, which is nice -- abruptly, that is, it actually starts a little too fast. But I appreciate the effort. As far as getting it more succinct, start by reading it out loud to yourself. You'll fix a lot of that right away doing that. Get it pared down and organized, and then we'll talk about how to make the prose more interesting. |
Author: | Mean_Machine [ Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:11 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hello everyone. This is my first attempt to write a review and it is honestly way more difficult than I thought it was. I would love to read your suggestions and remarks. Honestly, when you are in your thirties, you would expect most of your favorite bands to water down their new releases and even disappoint you with their recent material. Deicide was always one of my favorite bands who never disappoint, yet I was unenthusiastic about a new album considering the departure of Jack Owen. I expected them to want to "try new things" or "let loose their creativity" and some other nonsense you hear quite a lot nowadays. However, and after almost 30 years, Deicide’s sound is still as brutal and original as the day they started. It does not look like that is going to change. This brings me joy. "Overtures of Blasphemy" is a solid follow-up to their previous album ‘’In the Minds of Evil’’, both albums were produced by the same producer. You can easily find the similarities in both productions, but it is still noticeable the production in Overtures of Blasphemy is better than its predecessor is. Steve's drumming sounds more old school with lively drum blasts, and the somewhat modernized production has given a rougher edge to their guitars and drums’ sound. The band delivered a variety of tracks, some of which are groovy and catchy like Seal the Tomb Below and Defying the Sacred. Both sound a bit melodic with their technical and harmonic themes. Still, they are far from being mellow or less fierce than others are. The rest of the tracks are a modernized version of their earlier works with the original line-up; from Steve’s good old drum blasts with more incredible double bass to old-school riffs and tremolo picking, and Glen’s psychotic blasphemous rant. Excommunicated is a perfect example of that. You can also definitely sense Mark English's influence on the album, and we have to give it to the man being involved in two of the best albums released in 2018 in my opinion. Glen's brutal vocals are raging more than ever. This man's growls just keep on getting deeper, fiercer and more fulfilling over the years, despite the fact that he is a middle-aged man now. I am glad he decided to drop the screeching and stick to growling. Of course, the lyrics are as blasphemous as you would expect from Deicide. I used to find their lyrics amusing to some extent and sometimes funny. I still do: "Birth from the virgin mother, spread your holy legs", but I do appreciate them more nowadays given the fact that Glen kept at it as if it is day one. Overall, the delivery from the band is outstanding and full of energy, heavy elements and dark passion with old-school vibes. It does not look like it is going to change especially with this lineup. It is safe to say that Deicide is finally doing well without the Hoffmans. |
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Sure. It's ... fine. It's written from an insider's point of view, though, meaning that if I didn't know Deicide already, I wouldn't know what kind of music they play. Not being much of Deicide fan, I don't really know what their body of work is like, so referencing it without describing it that much leaves me at a loss. You do describe the music, but even so, I don't know ... what it's going to sound like. I guess Deicide fans are who this is written for? |
Author: | meshigene [ Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:11 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
This review for Peste Noire's 2018 album got rejected due to spelling and grammar mistakes that make it hard to read. I'm obviously not a native English speaker, but I'm willing to learn, so I'd really like some help here.
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:54 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
meshigene wrote: Peste Noire Notes in spoiler.
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | meshigene [ Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Thanks! I did have a feeling that the problem is in the overlong rambling style and all I've got to do is make the review a little more technical. But what's wrong with the penultimate paragraph? |
Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:26 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
meshigene wrote: what's wrong with the penultimate paragraph? Mainly grammar, but it also meanders. The points are fine, they just need to be made clearly. Run-on sentences and a general "stream of consciousness" flood with no breaks is both stylistically and grammatically troubled. Just use periods and make distinct sentences. Commas are valuable, but they aren't periods. |
Author: | Demon Fang [ Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hi. Just wondering if I'm on the right track with this one. It's for Nightrage's Descent into Chaos.
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:15 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Raw Ride wrote: Hi. Just wondering if I'm on the right track with this one. It's for Nightrage's Descent into Chaos.
Spoiler:
show
I'd say you're on the right track, but it will take a little more work to get this accepted. You have focused on this album very consistently and provided a useful comparison, while there are no problems with spelling or grammar, even if it feels a bit informal in places. What I suggest you think about next is how to put some flesh on these bones. I know that the music is melodeath, sounds like early In Flames, and has nice solos, but beyond that I don't have much information. As for your opinion, I understand the album starts out poorly. However, your reasons for the opening songs being poor seem to be the same reason you said people would love it (if they are In Flames fans), so you need to focus your criticism and praise. Also, do all the songs sound the same? Did anything particularly stick out for you? This is a generally good start and a template for a thorough review, but it needs a bit more specificity to really be worth reading. |
Author: | Demon Fang [ Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:10 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Thanks man! Interestingly enough, when I gave it another listen and expanded on it, I found myself realizing some things about it that might've lead me to that initial opinion. Here's what I managed to work it more into:
Spoiler:
show
|
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Raw Ride wrote: Thanks man! Interestingly enough, when I gave it another listen and expanded on it, I found myself realizing some things about it that might've lead me to that initial opinion. Here's what I managed to work it more into:
Spoiler:
show
I think you've produced more this time from a critical point of view and have described the music better. Mentioning the general song structure, as well as the tracks that break the mold, will really give your readers a feel for the album. Some points are still a little confused, such as what kind of "ferocious riffs" Gus G is playing. From your writing, the idea that I take away is that the riffs are heavier than Firewind, but as a reader it doesn't tell me much about what Descent into Chaos sounds like. Maybe mentioning wider influences than the two very obvious melodeath bands would help. Your description of Tomas Lindberg's "melodeathy growls" is also unhelpful, because you've already said the genre is melodeath. Do you mean his vocals are generic and boring? It sounds like you think they're pretty good. On the other hand, phrases like "bubblegum tar" tell me a lot about how catchy this is, without losing the aggression. Since you've fleshed this out, it's become more obvious that your writing style is very informal. This is a music review, not you talking to your friend about the album. Try to change those oral phrases ("rips ass", "sound really fucking sick", "has some oomph", etc) to a written style. If "has some oomph" means "sounds like Cannibal Corpse" or "is played at a thrashy pace", I'd like to know. That last point is probably what will currently hold the review back from being published on the site. If you can make your enthusiasm more focused on why it's good, this review will improve vastly. You're already doing fairly well at describing the negative issues. Keep it up! |
Author: | Sweetie [ Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:35 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Ya know, aren't reviews just another word for feedback on an album? So couldn't we also call this the feedback feedback workshop? Is giving feedback on a review just basically reviewing a review? Yikes Nick, get a hobby! |
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
SweetLeaf95 wrote: Ya know, aren't reviews just another word for feedback on an album? So couldn't we also call this the feedback feedback workshop? Is giving feedback on a review just basically reviewing a review? Yikes Nick, get a hobby! We could also make a thread for giving feedback on our help here... What would that one be called? |
Author: | Sweetie [ Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
gasmask_colostomy wrote: We could also make a thread for giving feedback on our help here... What would that one be called? The feedback feedback feedback thread. My God! |
Author: | ᴎostalgiʞK [ Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Hi there people, how are you? I need to improve my review 'cause it sucks... I'm wondering if I may have a hand here? Thanks! https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/H ... iento/6895 This album is the essence of the Argentinian Thrash Metal, it contains old school Heavy Metal/Speed tints and also breakdowns moments. Víctimas del Vaciamiento has a unique and refreshing sound with really indescribable compositions in terms of its recording; this release has frenetic, powerful riffs, and solos that I have never heard being composed before. The drums alternate much more the tempo and the compositions are really varied. The particular thing about this album is the amount of diversity that each song has and how the melodies change suddenly, but at the same time they never stop recreating a heavy environment that really stands out (even if the song starts calmly, like track 2, 4, 7 and 9) In the album O’Connor is not the only singer, Iorio is also and this is where we have the great contrast of voices that in Hermética has always remained masterful; Claudio has a high-pitched voice more in the vibe of classic Heavy Metal style, on the other hand, Iorio’s voice is more in the Hard Rock/Blues (I dare to say); the beauty of this release is that not only we have Thrash Metal, we got also a folklore song (Moraleja) that has only guitars making folk chords being accompanied of O’Connor and Iorio’s clean vocals Basically is my first review, the other one is even worse, I eliminated all the track-by-track thing and more.. Cheers people! |
Author: | gasmask_colostomy [ Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:37 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
ᴎostalgiʞK wrote: Hi there people, how are you? I need to improve my review 'cause it sucks... I'm wondering if I may have a hand here? Thanks!
Spoiler:
show
Hi there, I'd like to offer some comments on the review. In the other thread, you mentioned you are worried about using English to write reviews, but your use of language is not a problem here. It is mostly the lack of exact description and detail in your review that is causing the problem. For example, you mention the riffs and solos. I know that they are thrash metal with some speed/heavy influence, but that is a very broad area. Are they mostly fast? Do they chug a lot? Are they technical? Can you name any songs with special riffs? Also, which other bands would you compare them to? Is it Megadeth speed thrash or Razor? Mentioning any or all of these things about the riffs, solos, drumming, or vocals would be helpful to your reader. When you talk about diversity, the same problem occurs. You need to mention some examples, or at least two or three of the styles used. You also say the melodies are very important, but your reader won't know much about how they sound. Don't be afraid to say how these things make you feel or which songs you think the band play best. Finally, on a style point, you shouldn't use capital letters for genre names (thrash metal, speed metal). That's a rule for all the reviews on this website. I hope you can make some improvements to the review and have it published after some more work. Feel free to post it again here if you need more comments! |
Page 96 of 108 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |