Metal Reviews

There's enough of us here to start our own topic! General help, tips, etc.

For example: I'm stuck on a Carcass review at the moment (Heartwork). It just isn't coming, and anything I write turns out awfully. Any ideas?

Read other reviews of that album.

All artists borrow, great artists steal!

I don't want to just copy someone else's!

It's not stealing. I do it when I'm stuck sometimes. It gives you a different perspective, makes you see things from a different angle and sometimes that opens the gates. You don't have to steal anything.

The best piece of advice I can give is to review as varied as possible. If you write 3 BM reviews straight you'll last review will probably en up like:

"Yeah well... they play BM... and they growl... and tremolo pick"

So try going for a lot of variety. One week you can review BM, next Power Metal, next Death, next Rock, next Avant Garde and so forth...

It's even better if you write non-Metal reviews as well.

Excellent Advise.

I agree, but you'll find the same problem if you try and write three reviews for the same week, even if they're different genres. That's when you start being vague and less creative. I try to do no more than two reviews a week now.

just dont write meticulous descriptions of each individual song, reviewers who do that make me want to break their hands so they'll never write again.

That's extremely hard. I like to make the review person, tie myself into the review to give the words a little credibility. I also like to give a bit of a nod to the band's other work, maybe a little history lesson or whatever.

Some people dislike that style, but I can't help it. I like to talk music.

i like history lessons and quotes from the band about the album and stuff (that's mostly what I read reviews of albums I've already heard before for)... hell, if their writing is good enough i'll read a totally pointless story that has little if anything to do with the album

butttttt when the reviewer says something like "The Pot opens with an odd a capella intro, which is then joined by an adept bass line and some tribal drumming before breaking out into what is easily the rockin'-est song Tool have given us in 10 years. Maynard's vocal performance on this song is worth noting too as it is nothing like he has done before with Tool or A Perfect Circle" it makes me skip the next paragraph or two. If the person reading it hasn't heard them album it doesn't really tell them anything, and if they have then I'm sure they can hear stuff like that on their own.

If you don't want the description of an album, then why the hell do you read a review for? What should he write on the review, his blog or something?

i want a description of the album, i dont want a (lengthy) description of each individual song.

I find it useful to write a broader description of the album, then zero in on a couple songs that stand out in some way, either by being good or by sucking. That way the reader has a better idea of what they're in for.

Also, the key to writing reviews: a clever introduction. If you've got that, everything else flows like wine.

(If that simile made no sense, blame the fact it's nearly 3 a.m. and I am very tired.)

I'm the same, although I've only written 3 reviews so far. I never agreed with the rule I was always taught at school- that you should never use the first person in formal writing. I think people will enjoy reading your work more if you put your own personality into it.

It just gives the review a personal touch. Do you know how many bands have sent me e-mails thanking me, telling me they appreciate getting a review from someone who actually took the time to listen? No? Neither do I, but there's been a lot! Elisa C. Martin sent me a killer e-mail when I reviewed the last Dreamaker album, the guy (I forget which one now, Jari, I think) from Slumber sent me an e-mail after I'd reviewed Rapture telling me that my reviewed helped him overcome his writer's block for the new album. That was damn cool. Of course that was like 2 years ago so I think he relapsed.

Everyone has their own style and I don't really care for one more than another when I'm reading the review. I just want to feel like the reviewer knows what they're talking about, especially if it's an album by a band you know. How many time have you read a review for a clear-cut thrash metal band and the reviewer calls them prog-metal or something? I mean, didn't I post a Helloween review back a while ago that said they invented prog-metal? Hahaha.

I think a good review gives you an idea of what the album sounds like, while describing it in a way that is nice to read. I think writing the review from a personal look is ok, but using the word I a lot seems opinionating to me. I agree with Kayla that a good introduction is half the work, both reading and writing it.

I try and avoid 'I'. You can usually say the same thing in a better way without using it anyway.

Now Reviewing: Ministry - Rio Grand Blood

I find using "I" in reviews to be similar to using swear words in fiction writing; it can be appropriate, but only in small doses. If there's something you really want to emphasize, using "I" can add that emphasis (for example, something like "I've only heard this technique used effectively twice before..."). This only works if you don't use it very much, of course.

I know what you mean. Too much can make it look amateur, as you said.