#21

I still use review websites to find new stuff to listen to, same as i always have
tend to just skim through them, check out their recommendations if they sound like something I would like and if I do really like a record then will return to its review and read it properly, & ones on other sites

So yeah for me it still serves the function of both persuading me to listen to stuff and of providing further context to stuff I like

#22

Full disclosure I am an occasional music reviewer on here (one of Sean’s 30 or so) so I’m rather biased in favour of music reviews still being a thing.

I think my opinion might be different if I had the time in the week to properly listen to each potentially interesting release several times but I just don’t. I don’t have a job where I can be listening to music all the time (I’m a teacher) and at home I have to be mindful of the tastes of my wife and daughter: I normally only have my commute as private ‘really absorb music time’.

In any one week there might be 30 or so releases that COULD be interesting to me but, by reading reviews and the relevant threads on here, I can narrow that down to 4 or 5 that become my commuting music. I don’t always agree with the original reviews, but they are very useful in showing me what might be worth my time investigating.

4 Likes
#23

I think it has the same place it always did… The reason I dont keep up aa much is just I rarely find stuff I click with nowadaya. Really need to try and get more involved in new stuff

#24

The problem is that people are still demanding to know the use of music reviews, as if it was a utilitarian product akin to a Which? user guide. If it ever held that role, it certainly doesn’t in the streaming age.

For me, strongly written criticism or prose provides a wider cultural understanding of the album, and superbly written criticism or prose is art in its own right. There’s no point in bad album reviews (track four opens with buzzsaw guitar, track eight sounds like Kerry Katona setting fire to Bloc Party, etc.) but then there’s no point in creating bad anything.

What’s the point of Dirty Computer? What’s the point of Meet Me in the Bathroom? What’s the point of BoJack Horseman? Where is their value? They tell us more about the world we’re interested in, and they do it in a way that’s fun and fresh and enjoyable. Really good music reviews can do that too.

2 Likes
#25

i don’t often read them as a means of discovering something, but i greatly enjoy reading reviews of an album i’ve already been listening to and seeing what this person’s opinion on it is.

3 Likes
#26

This^

I think increasingly pre-release reviews are becoming a) harder to do due label lockdowns of notable releases b) rushed without the full ability to appreciate the record c) increasingly frustrating to read then not be able to investigate the record d) after you’ve read one or two from major publications are you/fans interested in the 26th review that day/week?

I had an idea that DiS would review things 3 months after they’re out. Time shift from everyone else. Have the ability to really live with records and the hubbub around their release. I realise slow journalism isn’t the same as the slow food movement but maybe it could be. Maybe we wait a whole year. If a record isn’t relevant a year on, why bother covering it? It’d be one hell of a filter for what’s worth covering and therefore reading. Does anyone really need an appraisal of a record someone has spent a week or two with?

The way in which new releases have been the focus rather than the best (or most significant) releases is what’s bugged me for a while.

4 Likes
#27

Yeah, this. Pitchfork gets a lot of stick here, but i’ll still look at the 8+ Reviews page from time to time and just stick a few on Spotify from artists that I’m unfamiliar with, although I’ll rarely read the actual review.

I have also found that I’m being drawn back to radio shows and podcasts as I think they offer the same sort of curation but with actual music. Especially now streaming/downloading makes them so portable and easy to consume.

1 Like
#29

does anyone follow any individual music writers?

I read the quietus or whatever and I quite like some writers there but I don’t think I’d actively search out for their writings on other sites or what have you

#30

I write record reviews here and there but I’m struggling to find the energy these days. I realised I was writing more reviews than I was reading. If I can’t be bothered to read reviews why should I expect anyone to want to read mine?

Instead I find myself drawn more to release round ups to find stuff to bung on spotify and see what sticks. The weekly New Releases thread here is probably more responsible for me checking out new stuff than the opinions of critics now. I think the problem is the old way of reviewing stuff was geared towards telling people how to best spend their money, whereas what we want now is just some pointers on how to best spend our time. I like the idea of delayed reviews though, a less time pressured reaction to something that’s stuck with a writer would carry more weight than a box ticking review.

The best format I can think of is something like Invisible Oranges’ weekly release roundups, maybe a few separated by genre. A list of albums with a short paragraph describing them is much easier to digest and provides people with pointers to stuff they might like rather than forcing an opinion on them. Then a few months down the line, once some kind of consensus has formed about the best albums in any particular genre, you could publish a selection of pieces arguing for or against them, along with a few championing overlooked gems. I dunno if that would work but it’s the best way I can think of striking the balance between providing gentle guidance toward stuff people might like and publishing pieces on things they’ve had time to form an opinion on, making it more like a discourse than The Truth being handed down from on high.

1 Like
#31

Unlike this idea

#32

For me it’s also because I’m very bad at meeting deadlines

2 Likes
#33

I love this idea. I read Pitchfork, and use that to get an idea of what’s coming out and what’s meant to be good, but don’t read any reviews anywhere else. (I occasionally read DiS reviews, but my default is to go to the forums, and for some reason there don’t seem to be any promotion of content or links back to the main page).

Anyway, I don’t keep up with what’s new very well, but regardless of that I want to know what’s good. I don’t really care much if that good thing was released 1 day ago, or 3 months, or even 5 years. So I’d be highly in favour of a shift in focus to records that have been out a while. You don’t even have to fully commit to that, just do a few reviews with a 3 month delay, give that series a catchy name and a link to read them all, and see how they get on.

My other suggestion is to have an easy way to search reviews on the site, or at least the equivalent of a Pitchfork ‘best new music’ tag.

#34

Really? I’m not so sure. Film reviews are almost always published (a few days) before the film is on general release, ditto TV series. I’d also wager that reviews of plays/musicals/operas etc are read by people thinking about going, as opposed to having already seen it.

#35

But then you’re back trying to make a decision on what constitutes “the best” - in who’s opinion? And that can be very hard to predict in advance.

#36

I’m not sure. Of course there is always the market for consumer driven reviews on release of a film or whatever but I think the increasing trend (particularly with new media criticism - podcasts, blogs etc) is to discuss it for an audience who has seen the film with a spoiler warning incase anyone who hasn’t seen it is listening/reading.

#37

Obviously, as someone who’s been writing about music for years and has tried to make it my career, I’m somewhat biased. But I do believe reviews still serve a function, albeit not the one that they perhaps used to. The trick, I think, is to give people a deeper understanding of the work and explore sides of it that might not be apparent to fans. For example, unless you got the press release, or read the reviews, you might not know that Beach House’s ‘Depression Cherry’ was partly inspired by a Banana Yoshimoto novel (which is a brilliant read) - reading that made me listen to the album in a different way. For me, this is what reviewers should be doing - expanding horizons, delving into the record in a way even fans can’t (or won’t).

And with regards timing, the only thing about publishing reviews after they’ve been released is you are opening yourself up to influence from the hive mind. If EVERYONE is loving (or hating) something, it’s a brave writer who has the courage of their convictions to still argue the opposite. Whereas if you review before it’s even out, you insulate yourself somewhat - you can’t rely on other people’s opinions (or reviews) to help you out (lots of lazy writers obviously do this).

3 Likes
#38

But that’s because there’s lots of “can we talk about X?” style articles now, which are specifically aimed at people who’ve seen/heard it, and are completely different to reviews (in style and substance). Nothing wrong with that, of course, but they are two very different things IMHO.

#39

Yeah, that’s fair but I think there is a degree of crossover and conflation with those things. The “can we talk about” type of deals still constitute criticism to an extent and in a more “deep-dive” way than a traditional review would typically allow for.

The point I’m making is that music criticism lacks an equivalent of that (beyond ten year retrospective pieces etc which I get a lot more enjoyment from than an of the moment review). It would be a bold move but a willingness to sit with an album and really get to know it’s nuances and to be able to place it within its context before writing about it would set DiS apart imo.

1 Like
#40

I certainly agree that it’s better to have an extended period of time with an album before writing about it, and I’ve often fought hard for people to get an album long before it’s out. There’s a certain irony that print publications - who typically have reviews in the 250-400 word range - are at the head of the queue in getting albums and online publications are at the back. One of the reason’s that Pitchfork’s reviews have (usually) been so good is they’ve managed to subvert that due to their influence, so their reviewers have a good few weeks (or months) to properly get to know an album.

3 Likes
#41

While this seems like an obvious statement, what constitutes a good or bad review is subject to interpretation.

Can you link to two recent album reviews on drownedinsound.com (say published in the last 12 months and still available to read for all): one that you feel is either boring, predictable, formulaic, arrogant or a combination of these criteria, and one that doesn’t meet any of that at all?

1 Like