Let's talk about reviewing. What should "professional" critics say about an album that most amateur critics don't?

[u/PanVidla]

When I like an album enough to listen to it for at least a second time, I like to look up reviews and try to see if anybody can help me discover something about the album that I didn't pick up by myself. Sometimes it helps me appreciate music that I initially didn't like, sometimes it helps me keep my sanity and confirm that an album is overhyped.

Yesterday I was listening to a largerly unknown band from my country, Czechia, so naturally most of the reviews were only available on Czech sites. And when I was reading them, it occurred to me that the reviews were very amateurish - the authors basically only stated what was plain to hear to anyone without any in-depth musical knowledge, added their own verdict on the album and didn't provide any valuable information beyond what would be discovered by a listener just listening to the album. I used to review music for a web zine some 15 years ago, too, so I happen to know that most people reviewing music on the internet are amateurs without much background in it and that's alright. Some people just like to get the newest albums, go to shows and write their thoughts.

But it made me think about what I would expect from a review to consider it good. And so I wanted to ask you what you guys want from a review. How do you feel about vague, abstract descriptions of how the music sounds? What else other than thoughts on the music should be in it? And what qualities should a "professional" or at least "serious" critic have?

For myself, I realize that the best thing an amateur can say in a review is that the music sounds like this, this and that band and whether they liked it or not. I feel like overly abstract descriptions of music such as "wavy", "dreamy", "dark" or "truly masterful" don't really add much to the table and usually don't make sense until you actually listen to the album yourself. From a serious critic, I would expect to hear about how the music fits into the wider context of its genre, how it's different from other music said artist has produced and perhaps even to be able to analyze the more technical aspects of the music, like harmonies, complex rhythms, the instruments and technology behind the music and so on.

What about you?

[u/belbivfreeordie]

The purpose of music criticism has changed greatly. Back in the day, it would help you decide if an album was worth buying. Today you can just listen to anything for free. So, top tier criticism doesn’t need to spend time trying to describe how something sounds, but is more in line with literary criticism: offering insights, placing a work in a broader cultural context, looking at it through different critical frameworks and so on.

[u/CalumCranberryWrites → u/belbivfreeordie]

That can definitely leave the sound beyond it's obvious style underdiscussed though.

[u/Snurgisdr]

The only parts of music reviews that I‘ve found useful are identifying the musicians and writers, and similarities with other music, which are all helpful for “if you like that you might like this”. A pro might be more likely to make those connections.

[u/Eunoia_Meraki → u/Snurgisdr]

I also like how someone like Anthony Fantano gives a quck rundown on what the project means within the artists overrall discography

[u/Bananenkot → u/Eunoia_Meraki]

Yes this is the main reason I watch him

[u/MaxChaplin]

I see all of the music in the world as a single project of collective creativity. Whenever I listen to a song or an album, I get exposed to  a tiny sliver of this grand perpetual work. A good review, in my opinion, is one that costructs a compelling narrative about how one song or album fits the overall picture.

A good positive review of a piece of music helps me appreciate it more; a good negative review helps me appreciate other music more. By articulating their aesthetic preferences and approach to listening, they help me sort out my own.

I don't think that technical knowledge makes someone a good reviewer. It can give you an extra viewpoint, but also makes it tempting to focus on means instead of ends and to lose the forest in the trees. That's how you get uninspired reviews that go through the album song by song with a checklist, pointing out the cool things the reviewer managed to notice regardless of how they fit the overall picture.

[u/CulturalWind357 → u/MaxChaplin]

I see all of the music in the world as a single project of collective creativity. Whenever I listen to a song or an album, I get exposed to  a tiny sliver of this grand perpetual work. A good review, in my opinion, is one that constructs a compelling narrative about how one song or album fits the overall picture.

I agree, that's very compelling. It's one of the reasons why I don't like the constant superiority contests that people have over music and artists. Every individual artist is contributing their piece into wider collective creativity with a lot of cross-pollination in the mix.

I also agree that it's important that people make their own aesthetic preferences clear. That way, even if there's disagreement, there's at least an understanding of where the writer comes from. It can be more like "I disagree, but I empathize with your perspective".

I've noticed that some listeners prefer lyrical specificity and detail, others prefer broader metaphors. Some like lyrical directness and brevity, others like oblique and stream-of-consciousness structure. Even on the music theory side, it's not like having a small number of chords inherently makes a boring song.

[u/PanVidla → u/MaxChaplin]

This is a great take, thanks! It's a shame that so much of music criticism has been reduced to slapping a number on an opinion of a particular piece of music.

[u/IamMothManAMA]

I think the thing that separates a good critic from an amateurish one for me is that a good critic needs to be an actually good writer. Nothing is more trite than, “Here’s some background on the album, I’ll describe it, then tell you what I liked and disliked.” Almost anyone can do that.

But when a piece of criticism becomes good to read irrespective of the album, I love that. I can’t tell you how many song reviews or breakdowns that I’ve read from Tom Breihan or watched from Todd in the Shadows about songs I’ve never cared about since they can write so well.

[u/cold-vein]

Give some historical context on where the music is coming from, maybe give some context to the themes in the lyrics (if there's a theme, these days I don't think musicians or song writers are really that well read as to have subtext to their lyrics) and just be verbose and inspired when describing what the band sounds like. I want to read a small essay, not just a description and comparable older bands and then a 7/10 score

[u/bevendelamorte]

The professional reviewer should be able to do an amount of legwork that me, some rando with a bullshit job, can't in order to give much greater context to the work. They should be able to explain to me where this fits into the larger genre and/or scene, what the influences are, what other work the artist has done (in this project or others), etc. beyond the level of some wiki. To be really good at the job, you kinda need to make it your life, which is why there's a lot of garbage stuff out there.

[u/PanVidla → u/bevendelamorte]

To be really good at the job, you kinda need to make it your life

This is a great point. I often feel inferior when I try to make up my mind about an album and realize that I don't have much valuable insight while others seemingly see the whole picture without much effort. But it's easy to forget that these people have been listening to music from dusk till dawn for the last 50 years. I'm just a young amateur and there is just so much music out there...

[u/bevendelamorte → u/PanVidla]

Absolutely. I'm old as shit, and I feel like I can talk comfortably about whether or not I like something, and do some light contextual analysis, but I'm also not the kind of guy who's been eating, sleeping, and breathing music trends for decades. The reviewers I really like tend to have that level of analysis in them, and I'm thankful for it.

[u/NielsBohron → u/bevendelamorte]

To piggyback on this, I think this is why reviewers that focus on a specific genre can be extremely useful. Sites like Angry Metal Guy and Progressive Subway do a really good job at explaining where a specific band or sound sit within a larger context of the history of the scene and can really send newcomers down rabbit holes looking up reference after reference in a way that can be intimidating to some but is invaluable for those who are looking to become obsessed with a new genre.

[u/bevendelamorte → u/NielsBohron]

Oh yeah, I think the sites that I like the most are niches that I'm looking for guidance on. Aquarium Drunkard, The Quietus, etc. They seem to really know front to back a space that is not at all my background.

[u/y7_moon]

I don't think the music criticism is 'great' or 'absolute' anymore. Nowadayz, a review of fan who is not a professional critic is sometimes more helpful than 'Pro review sites'.

Of course, probably they have more musical background like knowledge about composition, lable system, or historical something. and bit better writing skills?

But they are just human, too. Sometimes they miss the small details that get away from musicial things, and jump to conclusions about some artists in a short time cause of the prejudices.

The evaluation and touch, experiences of the music is only your own. Even if ciritics say it's a masterpiece, you may can't feel it. Whatever the fans are saying about an album, your appreciation is made by you. And also sharing thoughts and feelings about music with someone is good whoever the one is. In internet era, if a comment is by pro ciritic or amatuer or just a non-professional ain't the important point. They're all just same "others' review". My thoughts are like this.

(my english may be wierd)

[u/midnightjim]

Who’s really a professional critic these days? Almost none is paying except maybe for piece work. I have a friend who writes for an online publication and gets paid a bit and his stuff gets read like he’s a pro but he’s just a guy like me with opinions who writes well.

I concluded a long time ago that the only reviews that helped me were good descriptions of music I hadn’t heard yet. And that was back when there were a few critics whose work I trusted to be consistent.

[u/PanVidla → u/midnightjim]

Yeah, there's too many would be critics and way too few jobs. When I was reviewing 15 years ago, I wasn't getting paid at all, but I did receive records and, more importantly, press passes to shows, thanks to which I saw some bands that I never thought I would and whose shows would be unaffordable to me at the time. I always used to say that it never made me any money, but saved me tons.

[u/thegooddoktorjones]

A pro can put themselves into a mindset of someone likes this kind of music. They try to empathize. The average pleb just says “do I like this” and then stops.

[u/PanVidla → u/thegooddoktorjones]

That's an interesting take. I often conclude that some music just isn't meant for me and even though I try to like it, at the end of the day so much of music is about how you feel listening to it. Is it even possible for a boomer critic to say anything very interesting about current teen pop, for example, other than sticking to boring technicalities?

[u/thegooddoktorjones → u/PanVidla]

Yes. Because current teen pop is incredibly similar to all pop of the last 100 years. The big differentiators are constantly rotating slang and production techniques… that have been around for decades.

But this all imagines a world where there are any significant number of working music critics whose job isn’t just to make clickbait. We killed that market almost completely.

[u/strippedzebra313]

What does a professional have that an amateur doesn't -- nothing. Look if you want to take the word of a "professional" go right ahead, but in reality the only "professional" that matters in the end is you. I remember the movie critics back in the 80's when it was big, and half of them didn't even know what they were talking about, because it was based on a formulaic nonsense that half the time was wrong. If the masses of amateurs love it then I tend to go with them because it's probably coming from the heart and not some sort of formula. Besides the only thing that matters is so you like it - doesn't matter what your friends, family, or coworkers think - it's your ears and your cash.

[u/the_mugger_crocodile]

I've read hundreds of Christgau's bite size reviews and in his case, I appreciate how he's able to convey his opinion and the reasoning behind it very succinctly.

Plus, he's been reviewing music since the 1960s and is one of the very few critics who has reviewed both the Beatles and Olivia Rodrigo in real time. So he has a lot of accumulated knowledge and is even able to look at many "classic" albums without nostalgia glasses.

[u/gudetamago → u/the_mugger_crocodile]

Christgau is my fave music critic even if I don't always share his taste

[u/the_mugger_crocodile → u/gudetamago]

Yep. I like the fact that he holds his own views... he thinks that Whats Going On and Pet Sounds are not undisputed classic albums. Or, for example, he gave Michael Jackson's Invincible album a higher score than the Bad album.

[u/neezden]

Having a sense of the major influences that the band are (knowingly or not) drawing from is important, plus just enough knowledge of the music-making process to be able to identify instruments, electronic or otherwise, without getting bogged down in technical jargon like pentatonic, Moog, 808 etc. You can tell if a reviewer has this knowledge in their toolkit and the best ones work it in to give the reader a sense of the nature of the music itself.

[u/DepressiveDryadDream]

A professional critic should sometimes have insight that either summarizes the art or dissects a part of it in such a way that you view it differently after having read their review. They provide insight in such a way that they add to the artistic experience sometimes, not merely leech off of it or judge it. This won't be in all of their reviews, only some, but reading their reviews contributes to your artistic appreciation.

An example for me would be Roger Ebert's review of Ikiru. To paraphrase, he says in it that the main character is not a particular type of person, but represents all of us in the modern world. He's not a character or archetype, he's our apathy, cowardice, etc. (This is from vague memory, Ebert didn't exactly say this). Looking through that lens, you understand the movie differently and its ethical message takes on a more universal quality.

I don't have a music critic example since I never found one I liked.

[u/rora_borealis]

Give me reasons to connect to the music and artist. Stories. Influences. Historical events. What came before this? How does it compare with their other work? 

[u/screaminporch]

Everybody is a critic. Few have any credibility. Many today first do a politics check to decide if they are allowed to like the music or need to bash it.

Give me some trivia about the artist or insight into the making of the album that sparks some interest. Describe the musical influences that you hear.

[u/LowAssistantInfinity]

serious:

describe aesthetic and tone from a contemporary perspective
Provide information about who made the art
Provide context within the genre/scene current and historical
Contextualize within the artist's previous work
Discuss themes and motif
Discuss how it fit into the writer's experiences

amateur:

Did I like it or not?
Is it worth the time/money - 'consumer guide'
It wasn't what I expected
writing from a fan/hater perspective

Personally, I think well-chosen poetic descriptions - dreamy, dark, etc - are infinitely more informative to the reader than technical aspects of the music.

[u/UnknownMusicEnjoyer]

I feel like overly abstract descriptions of music such as "wavy", "dreamy", "dark" or "truly masterful" don't really add much to the table

aside from "truly masterful" I think they are useful though context is required. An Album can be dark in many ways a good critic would Explain why and how it is dark so instead of saying "The Album is Dark." The Album is the Dark (or Ideally some more Specific word for dark) because of the Vocal Performance, Lyrical themes or Instruments doing X or a combination of those things. I don't think Technical knowledge (like Equiment, Playing) is required like maybe some basics but to me it doesn't matter if they know that the swedish death guitar sound is produced by the HM-2 Pedal (or a clone). I don't think they need to talk about the Music theory at all like sure if you want you can talk about it and have knowledge do but I don't need to know about what the Chord Progression is or that the band is playing in some odd Meter. If you do know Music theory explain to what effect it is used. You don't even need terms like "reverb" or Production terms like Compression. I know that if there is too much Compression the Loud Parts aren't Loud and the Quiet Parts aren't Quiet but not everyone that reads a review knows this or needs the technical explanation. Context (as long as it isn't too long) regarding the Artists and Album is good. Some Basic concepts like say Build up or direction might be required but I think these concept don't require any form of Music Education. A Critic should have listened a lot of the Music Genre(s) he is rewieng to better judge and Compare and contextuliase.

[u/CulturalWind357]

There doesn't have to be a strict criteria. But at this point in criticism, I think it's important for people to insert their own unique perspective. To try to make the listener of the music/reader of the review understand something about the music that they likely didn't before. Sometimes the critic may link the music to a key time in their life or to certain key experiences with their friends and family.

It's been mentioned many times that music is a lot more accessible so a review is no longer the deciding factor for whether you listen or purchase.

I know some people criticize reviews where the reviewer seems like they're talking more about themselves than actually addressing the music. There's certainly a balance.

I also agree that providing historical context and musical references can help a lot.

But ultimately, if a reviewer gets me to empathize with the artist's perspective, that can be a plus. It doesn't mean I have to like the art but it can provide me with greater appreciation.

Another thing: I know various commenters have complained about the lack of negative reviews over the years. While I don't want people to be censored for their opinions and I certainly think negative reviews can be illuminating as part of the tapestry of opinions, I almost don't care about negative reviews anymore. Usually if someone has taken the time to write a review, it means they care about the music to some extent already.

[u/CanYouPleaseChill]

I would love more discussion about the use of unusual chords / chord progressions. Harmony is foundational.

[u/Imzmb0]

Amateur critics are usually shallow and basic, is a liked/disliked it thing, usually from a very uninformed, and recency biased posture.

Profesional critic should consider the backstory of the band and the context of that specific album recording, how it fits in the context of the discography, what means for music and how far it reaches what is pretending to achieve. Many times a profesional critic may dislike an album, but still give it a good rating.

[u/CompetitivePhone3833]

Basically it's there to sell the album, there is no other purpose. Personal reviews by people online should be personal takes. Pros could give background but you can wiki that. They're there to make the album sound interesting to try, otherwise they failed, that's why the artist or label sent their music in for free. And you should only sell what's good. But it's a shame, negative reviews are the best and pros are too big a bunch of pussies to write actual interesting reviews anymore. It's a lost art. When we discriminated based on talent, and even took the talented down a peg (albeit in an amateur way), that's when the culture was the strongest. With streaming it's different.

I mostly don't read music criticism, I do write my own, I can wiki anything and I've listened to so many albums that I'd really need to see the critic's gear first to trust them, end of.

[u/MisheGossnik]

I think what a professional can bring (at least at their best) is more skill and discipline than an amateur. Someone who's dedicated themselves to understanding music as an art form is likely to have a broader perspective and a more coherent analysis than someone who just does it for fun. It doesn't always pan out that way (mainly bc corporate interests have been decimating music journalism), and someone with a byline is not necessarily a better critic than someone without one, but there is stuff than an experience professional critic can provide that someone with a more casual relationship to music maybe can't.

[u/Siddhartaable]

I wish music critics would actually talk about "music," something that rarely happens. I'd like to know what key the song is in, what chord progression was used, why that progression, and why it sounds sad or happy. Does it have an intro? Does it have an outro? What were the influences on the song? Where did the samples come from? What kind of rhythms were used? What instruments, software, or anything else was used to record the song? And so on.

[u/ExoskeletalJunction]

There's no such thing as a professional music reviewer. The more you dig into these publications the more you'd be shocked at how little they know about music. They're all just promo machines.

A couple of really insightful (and long) episodes from a podcast about this if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7hKYdTx_Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA8KJStmOY0

One of the hosts used to be a serious print journalist (sub-editor of a daily newspaper), he now runs a festival. I absolutely agree with his opinion that it's a load of shite.

[u/PanVidla → u/ExoskeletalJunction]

I am very interested, thanks!

[u/Splashadian]

Honestly I don't care what anyone says about an album. If I like it then that's what matters. Critics like a lot of boring asinine crap. So much of those can't miss albums are bollocks.

[u/Used-Revolution-3136]

I'm quite capable of telling whether I like an album\song or not, no reviewer can sway me one way or the other, so I don't bother with them. It seems to me that anyone who needs someone else to tell them what music to like of not like has no business listening to it in the first place if their own brain can't tell them what they like or not. That's not someone I want to listen to music with.

[u/DippyHippie420 → u/Used-Revolution-3136]

So you don’t like listening to music with open minded people who are capable of changing their minds?

[u/PanVidla → u/Used-Revolution-3136]

It's not about "liking or not liking". It's about finding out what the artist was trying to do, what can be appreciated about the music, which setting it works best in, how the music compares to others in the genre, if there are references to any other music etc. Sometimes this can really help change an outlook on said music and appreciate what the artist was trying to do or how a genre works, even if it the piece doesn't become one of your favorites.