purpose of reviews

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I think nobody these days lives in shortage of releases to listen (& review). I'd rather believe they even have to prioritize whether review some of their favorites or "obligatory stuff" = stuff someone sent in.
Big part of promos in music are nowadays distributed digitally. Reviewer no longer gets even actual album, but perhaps mp3 and folder of jpegs. I'm 100% sure most of reviewers don't consider it some sort of huge favor towards them that you send them something to review and in worst case be bitchy that it wasn't reviewed in couple of days and bitchy that reviewer didn't find it all that good.
Therefore I ask none and I send very very few.

Even if I'm quite clear in policy that IF someone insists on sending, it should be release as it is. I'm ok if someone wants to send cd with minor scratches he didn't want to sell or LP with corner of cover bended or such "minor damage" why he didn't want to sell it to customer. BUT I don't want intentionally damaged (cut-out, hole drilled, whatever), no CDR copy, no mp3 link, whatever. Not something that I simply couldn't experience in exactly same way as customer who buys it. Still, after all clear information, I have gotten things like links to "digital promo material" or copy of CDR. I mean, releases that exists as published CDR, but someone sends crappier xeroxes of cover and some TDK disc with the music and thrown that in envelope. As if giving actual release would have been such financial drain? I realize that being on the side of label/artists who submits the review copies and remains largely ignored or mistreated, is probably pissed off. But I could urge to try being reviewer for longer period of time. Now its easy. Everybody wants you to hear their stuff, and everybody has outlet to publish writing free of charge (forum, blog,..).

[Matthias]

Things has changed a lot for why reviews could be relevant and what for they are.
I don't think reviews nowadays function for "boosting sales". While in old days, the means you had was to play shows, get press attentions... and... ? Well, now you simply don't. You can post link to mp3 sample directly to customers.

What review now is worth, especially in format of magazine, could be written statement what remains as document of passing time.

Agreed, and I think it's been like this for a while now. Favorable reviews certainly dosen't boost sales, even in the big press it's more a matter of a few more plays on Spotify or whatever these days. If you're lucky. To me, reviews has always been important for other reasons. It's one of the few channels where you actually get some kind of response on your work besides the random "Good release!" from friends or various internet getaways. So many releases just disappears today without notice. The great releases dosen't get the attention they deserve and the very bad releases dosen't get called out for the horsehit they are either. Many times it kind of feels that you are releasing stuff in a big vacuum today. Lots of time and effort and some hard earned cash in the mix, then just silence. To me it's about taking stuff seriously. Even a limited to 30 copies cassette deserves some kind of feedback in the end. I think the documentation aspect is important here also, as releases tend to come and go quickly and be easily forgotten. It's nice to be able to flip through magazines from just a few years back to be reminded of various good stuff hidden in the collection, or to discover stuff you didn't check out back then and so on. While blogs etc certainly has a valid function today, does anyone really return to old blog posts the same way?

Haven't sent anything to Vital Weekly in many, many years now, but while those Jliat texts are absurd and all, I kind of like that he exists, heh.. If anything, the reactions on his scribblings (so what is it, a long running weekly mailing list publication basically?) proves that there is an obvious demand of more well-written noise critique out there.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Documenting isn't necessarily 100% accurate word I'm looking for, as it doesn't cover all aspects.

One being that many people who I have talked to, have said they first read reviews of bands they know & like and even releases they already have.
Purposes can be many.
One would be way to make clear if your and reviewers tastes meet and also what kind of terminology he used for certain things and what kind of things he will appreciate.

But perhaps most of all, it gives a sign, that reviews are NOT only promo texts to sell stuff. They are not only non-paid advertisement in favor or band or label. Reader might already have the album, but he still is as curious about the second opinion, just like literature buff is interested in review of book he just read himself or analysis of author he knows very well, but simply wants more. That's why some people simply skip reviews they know nothing about, but they will be interested to read yet again analysis of Alice In Wonderland, thus spoke zarathustra.... or "Color Of A Mans skin" or "Senzuri Power up" !

Why would live shows be reviewed - in case when happening is already history? It's purpose isn't to lure more visitors, but most likely something else. Moving product doesn't have to be absolute top interest of label and therefore one should try to get rid of entire thought pattern of music consumerism.  I believe review in itself, is already stand against such thing. It wasn't all about putting out item, selling it, moving to next item, selling it, sending pre-taste samples of next and selling it.. but that for couple of minutes actually stopping for evaluating what exactly do we have here, and getting 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion of angle on material.

Like Matthias says, we have nowadays situation where perhaps few hundred noise releases annually are poured to endless hole. You don't know did anyone listen to them, did anyone react, did anyone think its good enough to listen twice - not to mention dozen times. But instead of looking what we have here, just pour another couple hundred releases on top of that. And repeat the cycle over and over.

Every field of culture is evaluated. Smallest and dullest exhibition with 50 visitors is covered in some newspaper and yet another orchestral performance of Sibelius of micro level theatre production gets coverage. I find sometimes amazing that some people are almost hostile against reviews with their "who's he to criticize this, why don't you let people to experience stuff by themselves"....  As if ones critical evaluation of release would somehow make it less worthy to be heard and less possibilities to make up your own mind.

[Ernpe]

But perhaps most of all, it gives a sign, that reviews are NOT only promo texts to sell stuff. They are not only non-paid advertisement in favor or band or label. Reader might already have the album, but he still is as curious about the second opinion, just like literature buff is interested in review of book he just read himself or analysis of author he knows very well, but simply wants more.

This is exactly what I'm looking from reviews, a second opinion of a record or an artist I'm already familiar with. Other than that, I hardly ever read every review from any zine or website, as it hardly gives me much reading from completely unknown bands/labels. I just wish more zines would review less - review just what they think they really have something of importance to say, of records that have at least some importance.

I do write some reviews myself for records I've bought myself out of my own interest. As much as I love well written analys of certain release, I tend to believe that often it is not necessary to completely dissect the release but rather write out some thoughts about the record.

[Andrew McIntosh]

Doing reviews, for me, was always just a matter of pure, personal enthusiasm. I had a purpose, once, when doing The Taped Crusaders, but I dropped it when I saw that it was no longer necessary. What I prefer now is to simply put up a few words when the spirit moves me, one way or the other. Lately I've been having thoughts about how superfluous words can be when describing things - for example, the recent K2 album from Cipher. It has fucking blown me away but is it worth actually reviewing? It's K2, there's a track which is a live collaboration with The Incapacitants, and all there is to write about that is "it is as good as you think it is". Mere adjectives are useless compared to something like that. The same for the recent Hijokaidan albums on the Doubt Music label.
  Which leads to a conundrum - if I'm enthused by these albums, I want to gush on about them, but gushing on about them is pretty pointless and could end up reading more than a little wanky. So why bother? Perhaps for the moment reviews are better for lesser known names, to be introduced as properly as possible.

I was getting a bit tenacious about getting free review items in the last few months and decided I didn't want them any more. I was offered review copies from one of our mutual comrades a couple of months ago but decided to buy the items instead. Glad I did, they where well worth the money. But the few times I've been offered review items there has been no pressure from those offering - "review them or not as you will". These days, it feels strange to me to get things for free simply to put together a few words about them, but if it means something to those producing the albums that's understandable, even if it's just ego gratification, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But personally I'd rather pay the often measly few bucks necessary for whatever it is, or just simply not bother as the case may be. Better to be a fan than an "expert".

[Zeno Marx]

For the most part, I stopped reading reviews; not because I think they're bullshit or have no place, but I personally don't find much value in them anymore.  It doesn't help that few people are helpful and actually descriptive in their review process, but even if they were, I now take listening notes and jot down outlines of would-be reviews as part of my own listening process.  I try to write a little something about everything I play.  It doesn't matter if I've heard it twice or two hundred times.  They're reference notes, but they're also a snippet of my listening history.  I find it all very helpful and rewarding.

When I do seek out reviews, I'm looking for other people who involve a similar listening process.  I'm not seeking affirmation, but possible leads into new artists and other musics.  It's that pining for similar to the "thank you" lists of the 80s that were so helpful in finding new music.  It's been a while since I could find kinship and trust in a review, and that is why they no longer hold much value for me.

Free review copies are hard on the soul.  Unless you run a blog, zine, or some other more formal venture, there's a bit of stress, and thus anxiety, to get to the listen and then convolute an expression of that listen.  I don't like it.  When I buy something, I can fart around for two years until I find the right mood and time, but when it is free or a gift, obligation, even if self-imposed, is part of the mix.  ugh.

[RyanWreck]

I have actually seen a slight decline in people reading my reviews (meaning, people who are actually clicking the review link specifically as opposed to just looking over the entire site). If I look at my older reviews, such as Civilian for example, I see 312 views to that specific link in the first week it was up, now looking at my latest reviews like Sexfactor I see 207 in the first week. Not a huge difference but an obvious shift.

On a similar note but a bit off topic, I am surprised at how many views for the Pogrom interview I get in any given month. It is always in the top 5 for the month and it has been extremely popular since it was posted way back in April of 2011. I think people may be looking up the word "Pogrom" in Google images or something and see the dirty cover art I posted and want to see more of it, but who knows. Total views of all time for it point to 15,009, coming up in second place is the Posh Isolation interview with 9,434 which was actually posted in December of 2010 far earlier than Pogrom, and then the Mikko/Pasi/Jukka interview in 3rd with 9,120. That's a staggering difference from 1st to 2nd that I still can't quite understand.

[xdementia]

A few facts about the reviews on EE:

I don't review digital releases (I have stacks of hard copies in the review queue - way more than I can actually review).

A lot of people read the reviews (site gets roughly average hits of 100 people a day with plenty clicking on individual reviews, even older reviews)

I don't review everything I receive, sometimes I feel like it's better to not review it rather than write an uninspired negative review.

[vargrwulf]

I think reviews are good because it offers a single person's perspective on sounds that are at times intangible. A lot of experiences of pleasurable listening are unique, and to share the positive experience that someone had with a noise release can only help others to "get into it". Also, a lot of people use reviews as an opportunity to complain about things that they do not like, which is valid as well but ultimately could be considered a waste of everyone's time if not done in a constructive or entertaining manner. No matter what, it's just one persons opinion and should not really matter much to anyone really except as a vague point of reference.
I think most people who write reviews do so because they are enthusiastic about noise, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Whether or not someone's opinion is valid is simply in the eye of the beholder. Hopefully more people will continue to write about noise releases in whatever way they see fit, not less. Meaning will form from chaos, and noise lives on.
That said, Jliat's attitude and writing style is very off-putting, and often provides no information whatsoever regarding whatever it is that he is actually reviewing (other than some vague notion that he is somehow greater than it).

[Moran]

With reviews concerning how a release sounds, and the reviewer's impressions, I like a few short sentences describing the sounds and their arrangement, and whether the reviewer liked the release. If I have an adequate idea of the reviewer's tastes, then such a review is enough to give me a rough idea on whether I'd like the release. This satisfies the main function of reviews for me, which is to help me decide what to listen to later. I'm usually not interested in descriptions of personal associations and feelings; words rarely describe those feelings adequately, and they often result in clichés.

It's interesting when the reviewer knows about the creative process of the release, development of sounds, themes, motivations, etc., and explains them in relation to the sound and presentation of the release. The noise podcasts sometimes do this well. The most memorable such episode was from the Special Interests Podcast. It would be nice to see more of this in written reviews.

I suspect part of the reason why music reviews are decreasing in quantity and demand is that the normal function of music today is something one plays in the background whlie engaging in other activities. Seeing people listen to music without doing other things is uncommon nowadays, in my experience. Why spend possibly more time and energy writing about music than listening to it (often in the background)? If one's attitude toward music is like this, leaving heart/skull emojis on social media to represent one's impressions seems more proportional in effort.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Curious topic from the past! It is kind of funny to read own decade old messages and see how this discussion has reached most levels of culture by now. At least in Finland. After recent years changes, most newspapers cut their staff, so pages dedicated to culture were probably suffering first. Financial aid for marginal magazines been cut down, plus their only means of distribution being mailorder for subscribers as physical places selling magazines pretty much disappeared. There was numerous alarmed and heated high profile discussions about what is the state of culture if critics voice and passionate writing about culture is no longer to be seen, and all we see is companies throwing sale pitches from every direction and consumers wading through bunch of stuff randomly.



If I should list the most common topic coming up in discussions of artists or labels, it is the absolute silence that follows the publishing a release.

Sometimes it is curious element, that people who will yell the loudest that they do not need, want or read reviews, are sort of defining that they are not necessary. It's like me ranting that I won't need any reggae records. It may be curious thing to consider what if something is not made for you in particular? It is for crowd who likes and wants it. They want to read a bit critical evaluation of a release, from someone they have learned a bit. Critics' taste, views, possibly honesty and such. 

Especially if you happen to be like working man, with like 10 hours a week spare time at max, and you'd be expected to spend that going through ridiculous label sale pitches who try to convince 15 bucks for this c-20 is game changer in your life. Or randomly clicking through links. I have my doubts. You may look into information that would lead you towards something that lives up to expectations. It is the experienced, but not jaded, listeners who might give their honest feedback and be able to discuss a bit what is going on with particular release. It may be review on magazine, but also forum, playlist or whatever.

On SI forum, statistics are quite hard to evaluate. Reviews/playlist appear on one topic, so you can't really see how many people check out a review. A lot I assume. On S&W forum, you can check pretty vividly how much demand there is: https://www.screamandwrithe.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=7
You got pretty much any noise review, and you got 300-1500 views for it. Some time goes on and number just keeps growing. It is curious example that you would have a release of 50-200 copies and there is at least ten times more people on ONE forum, who are wanting to read someone elses impression of a release.

In Treriksröset afterblast episode of WCN, they talk about reviews and The Wire is being mentioned. Context is that someone who had their stuff reviewed in The Wire and nobody really ordered it based on review and conclusion was that reviews are obsolete, unnecessary. Unless it is the sort of "noise influencer" saying it, who people follow. I wouldn't make such conclusion. It is odd idea that review would function like "buy it now" button. That's what sale pitch and webstore is for.

Reviews, interviews and such may have audience who is not the "buy it now" audience, but they are the ones who operate slower. Next time when band is playing live, they are there. Next time they see album at the record store or mailorder, they know what it is and grab it. When you are throwing things at the basket of webstore and you wonder should you take "Remblandt Assemblage" or "Noisembryo", you could make pretty well informed decision - either way - depending of knowing what release is. If Remblandt Assemblage sale pitch says another classic from noise master, you know that...  haha.. It is historical document of lowest arts. Total trash, not a noise masterpiece. Some like it for exactly that quality, but if you want strong noise, don't buy that album.

Labels or artists could easily start to consider, do they think reviews as method of instant sales (which won't usually work) or for long term way of awareness and establishing your name. It may become thing that people eventually remember when they are making conscious decisions what to listen or buy (online or from albums).

[Cranial Blast]

I feel like often times reviews can be misleading or giving the wrong impression on something that I might like or dislike otherwise. I think it's best for the listener to just randomly dive in and just get their own personal experience from whatever they are listening to and formulate their own opinion. I might be more prone to that way of thinking, because often times "reviews" are big label, big zine sticker hype quotes on big name plastic wrapped releases, which are tacky selling points, often nothing like the kind of reviews done on this forum by genuine people. It seems very often and especially these days "reviews" seems to be synonymous with lame ass internet video reviews like that bullshit Canadian video reviews channel BangerTV. Any true metal folk out there can see right through that click click bait bullshit and also what kind of review show puts up the most cliched bands imaginable in the background like it's some ESPN sports category tournament thing in the first place? Putting bands in a genre pyramid like some mainstream sports bullshit, those actions defy every aspect of "underground essence" and it's those very institutions that give the word"review" a word that is worth rejecting at all costs, simply because they have damaged that concept entirely. In my own distro I'll give a quick, highly recommended to various items within my distro and not to sound like a cocky pretentious prick, but I think those two words are enough to make my own customers understand where I stand as an a listener with what I choose to carry on hand and certain items of interest and if they can relate in taste than great and if they want to have their own opinions, wonderful! I think anymore than that is almost unnecessary when it comes to marginal underground music, unless it's a more explained process and thoroughly examined in a non corporate type of zine with a leave no stone approach to it, examining every facet of it, but in general reviews are almost pointless in my opinion these days as often times the word "review" in terms of media is synonymous with mainstream bullshit or something disingenuous.

[Bloated Slutbag]

I've said this before on this forum, prolly on one of the (several?) related topics, but I will most typically read reviews (which I do not distinguish from even the briefest of comments, down to and including those of single emoji-length, dropped in playlists and all other nooks and crannies of the interwebs; eg the Taint/Mania/Brewer thread thread currently sitting near the top of this particular forum) ...uh, I will most typically read reviews &c when I'm actually listening to the shit, mostly as a gauge of my own impressions vis a vis those of others. A sort of Night Science, to borrow a phrase.

So it's particularly gratifying to me when an artist has taken the time to compile and publish as many of the reviews of their own work that could be found. Ahlzagailzehguh did that for a lot of his earlier work; wanted to link the website, couldn't find it; was it on geocities?

[Moran]

Reviews and recommendations from people who one knows to have discerning tastes can be useful for finding new music beside that of artists and labels one is used to. I have only so much time and patience for listening to random releases chosen from Discogs and other databases to find new good music from unknown artists and labels.

I agree with Bloated Slutbag; reading reviews of releases that I already like can expand my understanding of those releases.

For establishing long-term awareness, I think digital-only reviews are not sufficient. Websites can disappear suddenly, and often it turns out that no one saved articles and reviews of the websites. If there are multiple physical copies of reviews, in magazines, liner notes, etc., they can be scanned and shared again if digital copies are deleted. Digital reviews and articles usually don't have much of a presence in my mind once I close the window; paper magazines with good writings (and sometimes interesting presentation that digital writings rarely have) can become desired objects, occasionally discussed, years after they are last published.

[Zeno Marx]

I didn't put my finger on this for a very long time (I thought I needed...dare say...wanted more), but I only need a sentence or two, mostly dedicated to the vibe of the release and where it might fall in quality compared to the rest of the artist's catalogue.  But mostly, if the reviewer has proved to be a good and trustworthy listener, they can just give me a short list of related artists, or specific albums, they associated with it while listening.  When it gets right down to it, that's what is most helpful, and I mostly read reviews as a tool to buy or check out.  Confirmation bias is nice and all, but I can find plenty of other ways to stroke my ego. Reviews that are actually useful are where it is at for me. Maybe it is nice to get some additional information or insight into the artist if there is a personal connexion with the reviewer, offering some inside scoop on the influences or inspiration, but how often is that the case?  Playlists, with a short phrase and a couple artists they associated while listening, is my review section now.  It's now how I tailor my listening notes and posted playlists too.  I know this rubs artists, and some label people, the wrong way.  They don't want to be associated or have their work shoved in someone else's box, but I don't see it that way.  If Nebris is making me think of Ferial Confine, or Brume is playing in Bayle's sandbox, that's a hell of a lot more useful to someone else than a novella about listening to Nebris.