bugrimmar said:
Metallox said:
I was reading a rewiew of one of XXXTentation's albums and I wondered the same thing. Beyond the quality of the critiques, there are these phrases thrown around that I don't think even people literate in music could tell what they're supossed to mean.
What kind of stuff make the reviews of other media to work (sort of), however? Well, people tend to analyze structures and debate whether or not each individual component works and communicates what the creator originally intended. Critiquing the quality of these components in music must be really hard as all of them, with the exception of vocals, are purely sonorous. And it's not surprising, I think. When people are put to describe things with their senses, a lot really struggle when they're put to come up with adjectives that describe the sonorous and olfactory qualities of an object. |
There's a big difference with movie and game reviews. With those, there are actual parts that can be critiqued individually. For example, with a game, you can pinpoint low res textures, silly AI behavior, sloppy controls, etc. There are actual things to critique that people can experience.
But with music, there's nothing to really fixate on. There's just how you feel about the sound. That's all there is.
|
I disagree. There's plenty to focus on eg:
- quality of production/mix
- song structures, tempos and dynamics (in relation to individual songs and the album as a whole)
- how well an album flows, if it's too short/long, are there any lulls
- lyrical themes
- quality of individual performances
- how the music relates to an artist's catalogue and the current scene, if there's any growth or evolution in their sound
