What do you want out of a review?

[BlackpoolLights]

I'm extremely curious as to people's opinions on this.

First, do you read reviews? When you read them, do you skim the beginning and the end or read the whole thing? Or do you just look at the rating?

If you read them, what is your ideal length? A few sentences? One or two paragraphs? Three or four paragraphs? A detailed track-by-track?

Do you want the reviews to be funny? Serious? Discuss mostly the tracks or spend more time on the album's general feel?

Do you want comparisons to other bands, or comparisons to the band's other albums (if there are any)? Or would you rather the writer completely stick to the album in question.

Do you want a tracklist? A RIYL section? Links to MySpace? Links to iTunes? Anything random?

And lastly, please link to any reviews that completely turned you on (or off) to a certain album by themselves. And mention anything I forgot.

Thanks!

[IWasaCamera]

I want Todd Kearns to have written it.

[zonto]

I want honesty in a review, and I want to know WHY someone is rating an album that way. So you say you don't like album or a certain song? please objectify it intelligently! You can be funny if you're a funny person. Be serious if you're serious. Some will find that in itself funny. But don't force the review and try to write like or be someone you're not. Integrity is key when you're trying to share your viewpoints and influence the way other people may feel.

I actually like to have a few paragraphs to read myself. Honestly though, I feel that reviewers oftentimes just use the first paragraph or two as filler to try and think of a witty intro and background information on the band and whatnot. Do a few sentences like that and get on with it if it's not relevant.

I think that it's important to do BOTH a track-based analysis and a general feel analysis. Some tracks can just suck at first listen, but maybe they contribute to an album's overall theme and you miss that the first time. Or maybe the tracks suck AND the album sucks too!

I feel that comparing it to the band's other releases is beneficial to us as readers because it helps us to make connections in our mind. If we didn't like the sound of a band because of a prior album, we may assume that the album being reviewed is just the same. Or we might be able to compare it to the music of other bands that we listen to and are therefore capable of making a positive association in our mind. The opposite of this is also true and helps us to weed out new music that we probably wouldn't like in the same fashion.

Tracklist? Sure, why not?
RIYL? I laugh sometimes at the humorous stuff people put here so I say two lines max! :-)
MySpace or the band's website? Yes.
iTunes? People should buy CDs and not compressed music, so no. UNLESS, it's ONLY being released in a digital format (which is rare but still happens...)

An example of how a review helped me buy an album recently can be found here. (http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1015542) I own the band's first release and enjoy it thoroughly, but hadn't heard any news at all of a full length being recorded or released. So to see that review come up with their name obviously piqued my interest, but the review sealed the deal and I purchased it at full price the week it came out. I rarely do that for new CDs.

[IWasaCamera]

First, do you read reviews? When you read them, do you skim the beginning and the end or read the whole thing? Or do you just look at the rating?
There's no sense in merely glancing at the score or beginning/end unless it's to justify your opinion of a publication. Well written reviews are more conducive to my exploration of the music involved than abysmal ones. Therefore, I read them in their entirety.
If you read them, what is your ideal length? A few sentences? One or two paragraphs? Three or four paragraphs? A detailed track-by-track? Lengthy ones (700-1500 words) are more appealing to me if the additional words serve a purpose, typically because I'm fonder of detailed examinations than I am of cursory descriptions that tell me next to nothing. Christgau's blurbs while entertaining, are hardly insightful. As for track-by-track, other than rare exceptions where the track titles are used to bolster the review's prevailing themes, avoid at all costs.
Do you want the reviews to be funny? Serious? If a writer is adept at infusing humor into his writing, then by all means. If he isn't, then eschew that approach in favor of a more conventional analysis. This is a long-winded way of saying I have no distinct preference.
Discuss mostly the tracks or spend more time on the album's general feel? General feel over single tracks every time. Sure, include a few sentences regarding the standouts but focus on the work as a whole since readers are seeking information on the album, not your personal highlights. As a result, you should place a fair deal of emphasis on what the record conveys.
Do you want comparisons to other bands, or comparisons to the band's other albums (if there are any)? Or would you rather the writer completely stick to the album in question. Parallels to other artists/albums are only welcome if they're accurate (and justified if seemingly absurd). Otherwise, don't bother. Reading a review in which the author is entirely immersed in the single album experience is usually enjoyable. No need for tangents or external elements.
Do you want a tracklist? A RIYL section? No to both.
Links to MySpace? Links to iTunes? Anything random? Official Site or Myspace for quick access to tunes.
And lastly, please link to any reviews that completely turned you on (or off) to a certain album by themselves. And mention anything I forgot. This (http://web.archive.org/web/20000823072307/pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/billy_bonnieprince/i-see-a-darkness.shtml) is among my favorites.

[BlackpoolLights]

This (http://web.archive.org/web/20000823072307/pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/b/billy_bonnieprince/i-see-a-darkness.shtml) is among my favorites.

That's quite an odd yet entertaining read. Which I suppose is why you like it.

[IWasaCamera]

That's quite an odd yet entertaining read. Which I suppose is why you like it.
The reviewer barely touched on the album's sonic content and from his words alone, I knew exactly what it sounded like regardless.