Do you find that most music reviews are too long?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I know that I usually find myself skimming over most reviews on websites. Try www.musicemissions.com - it's not even my site, i just find it easy to read and use.

― Bobby Jones, Wednesday, 20 October 2004 12:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Sounds like you are lazy!

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 12:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Take me to your advertisers!

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 12:32 (twenty-one years ago)

No, actually I miss the (way) old days when some new releases were considered important enough to warrant in-depth, thoughtful reviews. Or when magazines like Rolling Stone or Creem (or Down Beat, for that matter) would publish dual reviews simultaneously for a kinda thumbs up/thumbs down approach.

Of course, a badly written review is ALWAYS too long, even if it's short.

― Myonga Von Bontee (Myonga Von Bontee), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 13:04 (twenty-one years ago)

right there with ya Bobby. When reading about music takes longer than listening to it, I skip it. I've got a short attention span. Also, I can't stand reading reviews with arcane references and show-off vocabulary. A review such as that indicates self-indulgence on someone's part, whether it be the reviewer, the artist, or the reader.

Long reviews are the role-playing-game of music journalism.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

reviews in print magazines are getting shorter and shorter, and on reviews on the internet are getting longer and longer.

― Al (sitcom), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know if a short attention span is something to be proud of.

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm proud of... brb

― Gudrun Gut Run Over by a Reindeer (Andy K), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

pitchfork review tend to be too long. ilm posts are too short. but so sweet.

― The TAO that can be Posted is not the TAO! (The Tao that can be Posted is), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

BISY BACKSON

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

i dont really mind getting a full explanation of an album from start to finish, i just hate when they dont show a rating. and it would be nice to see a few similar artists as well.

― patrick swayze (patrick_swayze), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Who's proud of a short attention span? Just statin' the facts - i.e. the *reason* that I can't read long reviews. I get bored reading endless bullshit. I need some action to go with it.

(Dancing about architecture cliche invoked here.)

A listening guide to read while hearing each song might be good for a guy like me. That is, if I cared enough to get all academic about rock music.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

They're usually too short.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

The whole dancing about architechure clique is stupid because, historically, most civilizations have had dancing about architechure.

― The TAO that can be Posted is not the TAO! (The Tao that can be Posted is), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 18:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I find myself getting impatient with writing long reviews in that it seems I am wasting words. This doubtless has something to do with the fact that I've gotten so used to an AMG-style approach over the years.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)

I usually find print reviews too short, especially The Voice.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 22:15 (twenty-one years ago)

considering most print reviews have a 200-300 word limit, i would say they're far to short. i HATE being bound by a tiny limit, doesn't really give you a chance to recount on the historic perspective of an album, or any internal issues surrounding the release, makes most print reviews into pointless adjective hunts..
i prefer the abstract, the expansive explorative reviews.. though tedium is still tedium, and whatever length.

― chris andrews (fraew), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

err 'at whatever length'

― chris andrews (fraew), Wednesday, 20 October 2004 22:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Sometimes I like to write 400 words. Sometimes I like to write 1500. Sometimes I struggle to write 200. I never read anything that I haven't written myself (NB. this may be a lie) so how long they are doesn't really matter. Variety is the spice of life. Surely in print media longer reviews = more pages = more advertising? Or is the cost of more pages more than the increased revenue?

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 21 October 2004 06:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't think of a single music review i've read that takes more time to read than it would take to listen to the piece of music it reviews.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 21 October 2004 07:10 (twenty-one years ago)

then again considering how fucking stupid this argument is maybe yall just read REALLY SLOW

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 21 October 2004 07:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes.

You must be reading Pitchfork.com.

― weenis, Thursday, 21 October 2004 21:41 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.