Boards

then the score.

I enjoy a well written (even if it runs a bit long) review. If you want a tweet for a review may I suggest Spin? I can't stand their reviews.

Personally, I think it's as long as the writer can keep things interesting, without overstating or repeating for the sake of some perceived word count. Some people come here to read things a little longer than the 50 word reviews so print publications continue to run.

I do think web design (DiS' current one included) don't encourage deep-reading and concentration. Try installing this http://www.readability.com/ or save it to http://www.instapaper.com to read later on your phone. Makes a huge difference, as the brain short circuits every time it sees a hyperlink to consider clicking on.

but the biggest problem is that far too many reviewers indulge their unfulfilled creative writing dreams, layering so many overwrought metaphors on top of each other, such that the whole thing is devoid of any real meaning whatsoever.

Personally I find at least 50% of Pitchfork reviews dull and prosaic, when I really want writing that entertains as much as the record itself - or at least, writing to glorify a record’s eccentricities and lampoon its shortcomings with humour and vigour. If all you want is recommendations, then yeah, one sentence and a mark, sure. But at a time when bands would be outnumbered by critics if they didn’t each have a safety net of aliases and side projects I find that one great balls out neck on the line record review is far more valuable than 1000 half-arsed, empty recommendations.

I try to keep mine as close to 350-500 words as possible, and just talk about the music rather than embark on some Pitchfork-esque autobiography for the opening seven paragraphs, but sometimes it's hard to resist going full-out essay.

I just reviewed Madonna's latest album - http://jonnyabrams.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/review-madonna-mdna.html - and while I could have just written one sentence saying "this is wretched", that wouldn't have been anywhere near as much fun!

It really depends who your publication/audience is.

I reckon people go to PF, DiS, Quietus for more in depth coverage.

If I'm writing for the paper I work for or some of the general arts/what's on type rags I normally go with Rocksucker - 350 to 500.

I think a lot of writers get it wrong because their writing style is all over the place. A plethora of cliched metaphors will not make you look clever, intellectual, witty or informed - they will make you look amateurish.

There's also no need to go through each track on record or played live in detail. Tease us with a flavour.

Most importantly, be succinct and deliberate. Do not waffle on or ramble with little idea of what you're doing. Again, when a lot of writers try to show off the fall flat on their faces.

I want all film, TV shows, albums and moments of cultural importance arranged into a list like a Channel 4 TV show. It could be updated daily with an opinion just fed to us. Today:

1) The Adele album
2) Delboy falling through the bar
3) Blur vs Oasis
4) Blood Red Shoes album
5) The moving finale of Blackadder goes Forth
6) Avengers Assemble
7) Is filesharing killing music
8) The re-emergence of 90s dance music
9) Scandinavian crime dramas
10) The new Santigold album

That way he would only have to buy albums that we can enjoy collective nostalgia about.

In fact I want all newspapers, websites and magazines to summarise everything in the world into a single soundbite of less than 160 characters.

I usually just skip to the last couple of sentences to find out if it`s any good or not. Allmusic get it right, accurate and fair ratings and they don`t waffle on.

speaking as someone who is aware (and has been made more aware these last couple weeks) that he waffles. But waffling adds a personal, conversational tone and is funny. And descriptive in a way that writing isn't naturally.

i should also say that i actually speak like i write.

Having said all that the 2 word review for Spinal Tap's "Shark Sandwich" still makes me laugh.

and i had a conversation with Sean recently about doing a review in the style of an instructional pamphlet with diagrams. If the right record comes along then this may happen

D

keeping the biography and general-knowledge, background content to a minimum and focussing on tight, specific analysis of the music

but generally I try and keep it between 400-600 words. If it's a bigger release I might go for closer to 1,000 (though that's hard to pull off unless you really have lots to say). If it's a debut from a fairly obscure band I don't often need to go over 500, I find. Sometimes I find I haven't written as much as I expected, but if the review is concise and covers everything I intended to, I'd rather just have it be a little bit shorter than average than pad it out to reach a word count.
When I'm reading, I don't often have the patience for 1,000 word plus pieces unless it's an album I'm really hyped for. Also, dunno if this is just me, but when I really love a record, I enjoy looking on DiS, P4K, RA etc. for the old reviews. In cases like that, I'll happily read a massive piece.
Sorry, that turned into a bit of a waffle!

Much more skill involved in being succinct, which is often a good thing as it prevents babbling and use of too many pointless adjectives that derail reviews and stop them flowing. It's the same with any writing really - writing to a word count is much harder and often better as it improves self-editing skills and makes you realise what is the real point you're making.

That's why so many reviews on internet-only sites are quite shit - they're invariably better in print. Unless they're only 70 words or something ridiculous, then they're just pointless.