| Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives https://forum.metal-archives.com/ |
|
| The Review Feedback Workshop https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=16487 |
Page 55 of 108 |
| Author: | sushiman [ Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I could have sworn I had a review for Oshiego's 2012 EP on this site that I wrote in early 2013, but it isn't there any more. I'm not sure if it was binned for some reason or what happened, but rather than stick it back on and just have it disappear again without knowing why I thought I'd submit it here. If anyone cares to give some comments on the review I'd be obliged. It's a pretty short one but hopefully it imprints a message of "go and spend three dollars on CDBaby" on the reader. The band themselves seemed to like it at least, but if there's something about it that makes it incompatible with MA's needs that's understandably a different issue.
Spoiler:
show
|
|
| Author: | theunrelentingattack [ Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
sushiman wrote: I could have sworn I had a review for Oshiego's 2012 EP on this site that I wrote in early 2013, but it isn't there any more. I'm not sure if it was binned for some reason or what happened, but rather than stick it back on and just have it disappear again without knowing why I thought I'd submit it here. If anyone cares to give some comments on the review I'd be obliged. It's a pretty short one but hopefully it imprints a message of "go and spend three dollars on CDBaby" on the reader. The band themselves seemed to like it at least, but if there's something about it that makes it incompatible with MA's needs that's understandably a different issue.
Spoiler:
show
If it was deleted it wasn't me as i've never seen this one. I'll leave the feedback for the users but in terms of site standards, I see no reason why this would have deleted after it was already up. |
|
| Author: | sushiman [ Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
theunrelentingattack wrote: sushiman wrote: I could have sworn I had a review for Oshiego's 2012 EP on this site that I wrote in early 2013, but it isn't there any more. I'm not sure if it was binned for some reason or what happened, but rather than stick it back on and just have it disappear again without knowing why I thought I'd submit it here. If anyone cares to give some comments on the review I'd be obliged. It's a pretty short one but hopefully it imprints a message of "go and spend three dollars on CDBaby" on the reader. The band themselves seemed to like it at least, but if there's something about it that makes it incompatible with MA's needs that's understandably a different issue.
Spoiler:
show
If it was deleted it wasn't me as i've never seen this one. I'll leave the feedback for the users but in terms of site standards, I see no reason why this would have deleted after it was already up. Thanks for the feedback man. I'll leave it a couple of days and then stick it back up. Just thought it's better to be on the safe side and put it out there first, as I don't know what happened to it either! |
|
| Author: | Azmodes [ Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
iamntbatman wrote: I definitely support the concept of GNBM and various conflicting regional scenes. I imagine the American GNBM scene would be viewed worldwide in the same ironic light of comedy as the Slavic NS bands are currently.
|
|
| Author: | Sick6Six [ Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I deleted all my reviews recently cause I didn't like some of them, but wanted to just edit and start over on a lot of the others... Suppose I should have just edited them and resubmitted to make it less annoying, but I wanted to change up my scoring methods and let my drafts sit for awhile before deciding which ones to keep and which to delete. Seemed easier to me to sort of start with a clean slate. I'm really not the best writer or reviewer but I listen to so much metal that I should be able to form some decent reviews. Would like some feedback from anyone, like the mods who have to approve/reject them or just whoever. |
|
| Author: | theunrelentingattack [ Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Sick6Six wrote: I deleted all my reviews recently cause I didn't like some of them, but wanted to just edit and start over on a lot of the others... Suppose I should have just edited them and resubmitted to make it less annoying, but I wanted to change up my scoring methods and let my drafts sit for awhile before deciding which ones to keep and which to delete. Seemed easier to me to sort of start with a clean slate. I'm really not the best writer or reviewer but I listen to so much metal that I should be able to form some decent reviews. Would like some feedback from anyone, like the mods who have to approve/reject them or just whoever. Personally, I have no problem with anything in there. The only feedback I would give is that just like we don't want track-by-track reviews we are gradually trying to get away from instrument-by-instrument ones as well, of which some of them are close to that. Even so, solid enough to accept. |
|
| Author: | Sick6Six [ Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Thanks, getting away from instrument by instrument would actually probably make it easier and stop me from writing the same thing on multiple reviews. I hate trying to explain drums, vocals and bass in a different way on every review when half the time they are more or less the same in the style of music I listen to most. Will keep that in mind for sure. |
|
| Author: | BastardHead [ Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
When he says "we're gradually moving away from instrument-by-instrument reviews", he means "for fuck's sake don't do instrument-by-instrument reviews because they're a poor crutch equatable to track-by-track in terms of consistently low quality; checklist reviews are terrible and they make BH and Zodi homicidal". Really, there's a reason my rejection message says "checklist style" instead of "track-by-track" |
|
| Author: | Panflute [ Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Sick6Six wrote: Thanks, getting away from instrument by instrument would actually probably make it easier and stop me from writing the same thing on multiple reviews. I hate trying to explain drums, vocals and bass in a different way on every review when half the time they are more or less the same in the style of music I listen to most. Will keep that in mind for sure. Yeah, the problem with those reviews is exactly that they generate way too much filler material that nobody really cares about. If you hate writing about something, that's a good indication that people will also hate reading it. Particularly when reviewers attach individual ratings to each song, reading the review is about as entertaining as reading someone's high school report card. |
|
| Author: | zstrrr [ Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
hello everyone, I tried to post my first review, but it was rejected, because the english would be so bad "...to the point in which the review makes almost no sense". I´m no native speaker and i admit my english is not the best, but i thought it would be ok. anyway, i can´t recognize the errors - could anybody take a look and tell me whats wrong? "...and justice for Lulu I´m in the rare position to be a fan - to some extend - of both Lou Reed and Metallica. So it´s no wonder i´d supposed to like it. well, to some extend, i do. I don´t want to moan here much about how Metallica aren´t a great band anymore, because they are lost to me since they got a coach instead of calling it quits after the mediocre "Load" of whatshouldwedoaboutwhouyeahyeah, or better before. I liked them partly because I respect when someone leans a little out of the conventional by-the-rule-playing and goes out and finds something new. Wich Lou Reed didn´t do either since "Metal Machine Music". So this album starts not surprisingly and not very interesting for me with songs that are exactly like you would expect a crossing between Reed and nowadays-Metallica. Conventional tame rock-songs like "Brandenburg Gate", where Reed by the way shows how much better he is than Hetfield, even if he´s mostly speaking (if Hetfield would evolve his singing he would do his band the biggest favor...) But then they loosen up the form and tighten up the tension at the same time - with pieces like "Mistress Dread" and "Pumping Blood", wich are for me some of the most exciting music in the last years. That´s where the contrast of Reed´s voice and Metallicas´ playing is the perfect match. No wonder that it is not liked here very much because it´s shurely not a proper Metal-Album. That does not bother me - what bothers me, a little, is it´s lenght - it´s a long time runner, but that´s all a little too long. But since "Load" them `tally-guys lost any sense of measure anyway..." |
|
| Author: | MutantClannfear [ Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I'm just going to go through and correct each individual error. If you have a question about why a certain thing is incorrect, ask and I'll explain it. ![]() zstrrr wrote: "...and justice for Lulu I´m in the rare position to be of being a fan - to some extend extent ("extend" is a verb) - of both Lou Reed and Metallica. So it´s no wonder i´d I was supposed to like it. well, to some extend extent, i do. I don´t want to moan here much complain (your construction here is correct but rather strange) about how Metallica aren´t a great band anymore, because they are lost dead to me since they got now that they have a coach (strange word choice) instead of calling it quits after the mediocre "Load" of whatshouldwedoaboutwhouyeahyeah, or better before (this construction isn't very clear - are you referring to the albums before Load? If so, it needs to be written as "or even better, before"). I liked them partly because I respect when someone leans a little out of the conventional by-the-rule-playing and goes out and finds something new. Wich Which Lou Reed didn´t do hasn't done either since "Metal Machine Music" (This is an incomplete sentence - "which" always has to modify another word in the sentence unless you're phrasing it as a question.) So this album starts starts out sounding [in this case] not surprisingly predictable and not very interesting boring for me, with songs that are exactly like you would expect a crossing crossover - alternatively, "mix" between Reed and nowadays-Metallica ("modern Metallica" might sound more natural). Conventional tame rock-songs ("rock songs", with no hyphen, would look more natural) like "Brandenburg Gate", where Reed, by the way, shows how much better he is than Hetfield, even if he´s mostly speaking (if Hetfield would evolve his singing, he would do his band the biggest favor...) But then they loosen up the form and tighten up the tension at the same time - with pieces like "Mistress Dread" and "Pumping Blood", wich which are for me in my opinion (this isn't incorrect by itself, but you should almost always use "in my opinion" to state preferences in English) some of the most exciting music in the last past few years. That´s where the contrast of Reed´s voice and Metallicas´ Metallica's (note apostrophe placement) playing is the perfect match. It's no wonder that it is not liked here very much it's disliked so much here (this isn't incorrect but it's very long-winded) because it´s shurely surely not a proper Metal-Album metal album. That does not (doesn't) bother me - what bothers me, a little, is it´s its ("its" is not a possessive of "it", even though it looks like it should be; confusing rule) length - it´s a long time runner, but that´s all a little too long (I'd say rewrite this, there are better ways to phrase the idea of the album being long).. But since "Load", them `tally-guys (I'm presuming this is jokingly incorrect, which is fine ) lost any sense of measure anyway..."One tip I can give you right off the bat is to remember when you can use contractions! They'll go a really long way towards making you sound like a native speaker. Wherever English uses a contraction, you would normally only "decompose" it if you were asking a question or using it for emphasis. So remember, for negative contractions (ones involving the word "not"): is not - isn't are not - aren't can not - can't could not - couldn't do not - don't does not - doesn't has not - hasn't (this one can only be used where "hasn't" is an auxiliary verb. "He has not eaten → he hasn't eaten" is correct, but if you mean "have" as in "to possess" then you can't contract that) should not - shouldn't will not - won't would not - wouldn't Note that "am not", "might not", "must not" and "shall not" cannot be contracted, as the word for it is either incorrect ("ain't", for the case of "am not"; only some English dialects use it, and it's not correct in Standard English) or it's so obscure that you'll look very old-fashioned while trying to use it ("mightn't", "mustn't", and "shan't", if you're curious). Cheers!
|
|
| Author: | iamntbatman [ Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Psh, "amn't" is totally legit. |
|
| Author: | Panflute [ Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
zstrrr wrote: hello everyone, I tried to post my first review, but it was rejected, because the english would be so bad "...to the point in which the review makes almost no sense". I´m no native speaker and i admit my english is not the best, but i thought it would be ok. anyway, i can´t recognize the errors - could anybody take a look and tell me whats wrong? "...and justice for Lulu I´m in the rare position to be a fan - to some extend - of both Lou Reed and Metallica. So it´s no wonder i´d supposed to like it. well, to some extend, i do. I don´t want to moan here much about how Metallica aren´t a great band anymore, because they are lost to me since they got a coach instead of calling it quits after the mediocre "Load" of whatshouldwedoaboutwhouyeahyeah, or better before. I liked them partly because I respect when someone leans a little out of the conventional by-the-rule-playing and goes out and finds something new. Wich Lou Reed didn´t do either since "Metal Machine Music". So this album starts not surprisingly and not very interesting for me with songs that are exactly like you would expect a crossing between Reed and nowadays-Metallica. Conventional tame rock-songs like "Brandenburg Gate", where Reed by the way shows how much better he is than Hetfield, even if he´s mostly speaking (if Hetfield would evolve his singing he would do his band the biggest favor...) But then they loosen up the form and tighten up the tension at the same time - with pieces like "Mistress Dread" and "Pumping Blood", wich are for me some of the most exciting music in the last years. That´s where the contrast of Reed´s voice and Metallicas´ playing is the perfect match. No wonder that it is not liked here very much because it´s shurely not a proper Metal-Album. That does not bother me - what bothers me, a little, is it´s length - it´s a long time runner, but that´s all a little too long. But since "Load" them `tally-guys lost any sense of measure anyway..." Seeing as someone already weeded out the mistakes, I'll give you a more general tip. Use a spell-checker. That alone should weed big errors such as "wich" and "shurely" out. Also try to avoid longer sentences as this point. The reader's comprehension of your text will suffer dramatically under long sentences that contain errors. |
|
| Author: | LeMiserable [ Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I'm having some troubles with reviewing albums. If you'd go on the chat right now and mention my name with the word 'reviews' behind it, most would die of laughter... All this because I can't get my mind right, I often find myself reviewing something, only to discover something in the album itself after writing it that I absolutely love (or hate), almost forcing me to totally change the review or just deleting it. This has now happened countless times over, and at the moment i'm kinda ashamed of it. I really love to write reviews, but I constantly get the feeling I don't agree with my own reviews... Any tips? |
|
| Author: | Panflute [ Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
LeMiserable wrote: I'm having some troubles with reviewing albums. If you'd go on the chat right now and mention my name with the word 'reviews' behind it, most would die of laughter... All this because I can't get my mind right, I often find myself reviewing something, only to discover something in the album itself after writing it that I absolutely love (or hate), almost forcing me to totally change the review or just deleting it. This has now happened countless times over, and at the moment i'm kinda ashamed of it. I really love to write reviews, but I constantly get the feeling I don't agree with my own reviews... Any tips? How many times do you listen to a record before reviewing it? Because it's easy to be blown away by a record until you have had a week or two to ponder over it, and discover it might not be as great as you thought it was. I personally prefer to review albums I have been familiar with some time, exactly to prevent myself from writing a review that I might not agree with later. |
|
| Author: | LeMiserable [ Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Panflute wrote: How many times do you listen to a record before reviewing it? Because it's easy to be blown away by a record until you have had a week or two to ponder over it, and discover it might not be as great as you thought it was. I personally prefer to review albums I have been familiar with some time, exactly to prevent myself from writing a review that I might not agree with later. In general atleast 5-10 times... if the album is absolutely terrible I'd say 1-3 times... |
|
| Author: | zstrrr [ Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
@ MutantClannfear + Panflute: oh...yes, that are a lot of errors...and i really thought i wouldn´t need some spell-checker... thanks alot for helping! |
|
| Author: | SveaUltima [ Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Yeah I know its horrible but I'm really bad at English :/ Would appreciate some help and feedback...
Spoiler:
show
|
|
| Author: | SveaUltima [ Thu May 01, 2014 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I got two of my reviews rejected. Probably because of my terrible English. However, I actually think it might be good that I got my reviews rejected since now I know what the problem is and now I can fix it (eventually)
|
|
| Author: | Diamhea [ Thu May 01, 2014 1:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
The English isn't that bad, it is probably because of how short they are. You should get a reason for the rejection in the email notification. |
|
| Author: | SveaUltima [ Thu May 01, 2014 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Diamhea wrote: The English isn't that bad, it is probably because of how short they are. You should get a reason for the rejection in the email notification. I did. It was mostly because of the grammar. It sucks but you can't get better unless you practice
|
|
| Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Thu May 01, 2014 3:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
SveaUltima: Did you try writing it in your native language first? |
|
| Author: | severzhavnost [ Thu May 01, 2014 3:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
LeMiserable wrote: Panflute wrote: How many times do you listen to a record before reviewing it? Because it's easy to be blown away by a record until you have had a week or two to ponder over it, and discover it might not be as great as you thought it was. I personally prefer to review albums I have been familiar with some time, exactly to prevent myself from writing a review that I might not agree with later. In general atleast 5-10 times... if the album is absolutely terrible I'd say 1-3 times... I agree about good albums. Of course a band will make music such that the listener will want to keep listening. But a positive first impression can fade from "this is fantastic!" to "this is good but probably won't make it on my replayed favourites rotation." On the other hand, bullshit doesn't become less bullshitty after 5-10 plays. Years later your overall tastes might change, but in that case someone's original 0% review for Reek of Putrefaction because grindcore, was pointless to begin with. If you're reviewing an album of a genre you're familiar with, and the album's shitty, you don't need to irritate yourself by giving it multiple listens. |
|
| Author: | SveaUltima [ Thu May 01, 2014 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Grave_Wyrm wrote: SveaUltima: Did you try writing it in your native language first? Nope. Should I have done that? |
|
| Author: | kybernetic [ Sat May 17, 2014 2:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I was wondering what reviewers thought would be the best way to incorporate lyrics into a review formatting wise? I'd try to find a review that has lyrics quoted already, but it's not common, so I thought it might be faster to ask here. I had the idea of just separating them into their own small paragraph and have them in quotes and italicized. Does this seem right? If anyone has a good example of lyrics in a review, I'd love to see it. Thank you for any responses. |
|
| Author: | Empyreal [ Sat May 17, 2014 7:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Yeah, that's one way to do it. See here. |
|
| Author: | kybernetic [ Sat May 17, 2014 1:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Empyreal wrote: Yeah, that's one way to do it. See here. That looks just right. Thanks dude.
|
|
| Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Thu May 29, 2014 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
SveaUltima wrote: Grave_Wyrm wrote: SveaUltima: Did you try writing it in your native language first? Nope. Should I have done that? Sorry for the delay. I think you should, yes, and then get help translating it into English. It will make a world of difference. It might take a while to get it translated properly, but if the review is good, it's worth it. Good luck! |
|
| Author: | DivineSpirit33 [ Sat May 31, 2014 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I wrote a review of Mozaiq by Blood Stain Child. If any of you would criticize this, that would be awesome.
Spoiler:
show
|
|
| Author: | BastardHead [ Sat May 31, 2014 10:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Free tip for new reviewers: this isn't for you specifically (or it might be, I dunno, I haven't read your review), but just a general thing that's been driving me nuts over the two years I've been fucking with the review queue, but for the love of christ if I see one more goddamn noob say either "The bass is actually audible!" or "You can't hear the bass at all, but that's to be expected", I am going to personally hunt you down and wallop you in the belly with a sledgehammer made of fire and bees. There is no more of a dead giveaway that you're in over your head and floundering for description than either of those sentences. I mean, everybody improves if they keep practicing and honing their skill, but keep in mind that if you find yourself using either of those sentences, then it's probably not even worth mentioning in the first place. I believe Napero once said something along the lines of "Bass in black metal is kind of like Nightgaunt's sense of humor. Most newbies are convinced it doesn't exist, but once you know what to look for, it's the most obvious thing in the world". It's the truest thing ever said on these forums. |
|
| Author: | tomcat_ha [ Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
to be honest its not that easy to hear bass guitar directly with shitty speakers or headphones. |
|
| Author: | ~Guest 82538 [ Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
And why is that a problem of the album being reviewed then? If the sound is in the recording and you can't hear it due to a crappy sound setup, why is the album to blame then?! ![]() The Napero quote that BH mentions was used when that review for The Satanist popped up (IIRC), the one where the guy says he has a $1000 setup and can't hear the bass. On an album where the bass is mixed upfront! I can only imagine how it must be to work the review queue and deal with that kind of statements ad nauseam. |
|
| Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
DivineSpirit33: Given my limited experience, I would be surprised if this review would get rejected, but it can definitely use improvement. It is, in a word, spergy. Also, somewhat redundant. The reasons for this, however, are unmistakably clear: YOU FUCKING LOVE THIS ALBUM. All well and good. Still, given how much substance there is already, I'm basically sure you can do better. It's very difficult to write well with cum on your hands! I'd say put the review away for a week or two, and then go back over it to clean it up. Keeping arguments for and against both logical and clear is very important. Sperg off a bit here and there (it's not a bad thing, but too much slows down the reader, and if the opinion isn't shared can make one impatient), make your case, give the audience enough to chew on (which in the case of a controversial album is a good idea), but then let the album speak for itself. I think you do pretty well in explaining *why* you want to ejaculate all over yourself, which is far preferable to simply publicly doing so, not just saying "It's so good because FUUUUUUK THOSE ELECTRONICS VIBE MY PROSTATE!!" so feel free to embellish on those points. They're what will make the case, since boner-pathos isn't all that convincing on its own. Don't let me love-shame you. By all means, express your enthusiasm for music that turns you on this much and lowers your inhibitions about public exposure. It's difficult to encourage restraint without sounding like I'm endorsing repression. I'm not. The level of sperg (the overswole-tension-of-nads, if you will) can end up hurting an argument on behalf of the album because it can expose a blind spot of social judgement -- a lack of ethos, to get technical. edit: in addition, from the roller-coaster analogy onward, it gets pretty rambling. I can't say the information is weak or anything. It definitely seems like you have a clear idea of what you want to say, just not a clear way of saying it. It's just disorganized and kind of all over the place, hard to follow. Don't let your erection distract you. Your job as the writer is to keep your head in the midst of invinciboner. |
|
| Author: | DivineSpirit33 [ Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
I tried to improve my writing greatly with this review; if anyone would check it out, that would be awesome. |
|
| Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Anyone have any problems with that Eternal Emperor review? cuz I don't. Your opinions come across clearly; it's a decently organized, informed/informative, easy read. It's almost casual, which can sometimes end up meandering, but in this case I think it works well. Maybe it's because you had kind of a bland reaction to the ablum that the writing is more understated, but the good part is that the review itself didn't come across as bland. If you can apply that same kind of straight-forward appraisal which maintains personality to an album you're really into, I'd say you've got a good thing going. Practice helps, obviously, so keep at it. |
|
| Author: | zstrrr [ Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: lulu-review, the second... |
hi, its me again, i reworked my metallica-lulu-review wich i posted here recently, using and regarding thoroughly the very helpful tips and suggestions i got here. i must admit my first try was quite a mess, not only concerning the grammar. so i rewrote al lot, and used a grammar-checker as well and was convinced i has to be o.k. this time. but it was rejected again (by Diamhea): "Needs a ton of work. Grammar is a mess and while you definitely make soe good points, you are getting lost in translation - so to speak. Consult somebody with a better grasp of the English language to proofread it and try again." ad that is the new review: (Metallica - Lulu) "I´m in the rare position of being a fan - or actually have been - of both Lou Reed and Metallica. So it´s no wonder I had high interest in the product of such collaboration, wondering if i may like it (again). well, to some extent, i do. i don´t like very much of what each party of this collaboration did in the last years. So as this album starts out sounding predictable with songs that are exactly like you would expect a crossover between Reed and "modern" Metallica, i´m not very impressed. this applies to the Conventional tame rock songs like "Brandenburg Gate" But when they loosen up the form and tighten up the tension at the same time - with pieces like "Mistress Dread" and "Pumping Blood", that´s in my opinion some of the most exciting music in the past few years. mere tracks than compostions, let alone songs, these pieces are pure energy. and That´s where the contrast of Reed´s voice and Metallica's playing is the perfect match. Reed, by the way, shows a much better performance than Hetfield (who shows clearly he should come up with some new ideas eventually) although, or because, he´s not actually singing. If you are hoping for a proper metal album, you´re wrong here. if you are fond of experimentation inside the genre, it´s a worthwhile listening, despite it´s flaws. speaking of flaws: concerning the length of the tracks - i get the idea of spreading it out and letting it roll, but...some tracks are really overdone...well, since "Load", them `tally-guys lost any sense of measure anyway..." can you help me out again? |
|
| Author: | DivineSpirit33 [ Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
zstrrr: I think part of the problem with the grammar is that you put a space before and after each apostrophe. You don't need this. Look at how I say the word "don't". That's how it's supposed to look, no spaces thrown in there. A few sentences are a struggle to read through and should be rephrased. Also, make sure you always capitalize the first letter of every sentence, and always capitalize I. |
|
| Author: | Grave_Wyrm [ Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
zstrrr, as I recommended to SveaUltima, it might be best to write it in your native language first, and then translate it with help. I think you're off to a good start, so don't lose heart. In addition to DivineSpirit33's advice about your punctuation, that's an accent you're using, not an apostrophe. I don't know what a German keyboard is like, so I can't help you there. Additionally, don't use periods of ellipsis as a pause. Their utility is exclusively to represent omissions. While it's barely acceptable to use them as a pause in casual message board language, it's not a technique to be used in formal writing. Also go through and be sure you're using contractions and possessives appropriately (e.g., it's vs. its). Album titles and song titles should be formatted thus: "Brandenburg Gate" was correct. Song titles between quotation marks every time they appear. Load - album titles in italics every time they appear. "modern" Metallica: because song titles appear in quotation marks, using them this way ends up being confusing. Also, "modern" is a little vague. It's probably best to rephrase it using a range of years. That will be cleaner in both appearance and meaning. Diamhea likes your main points well enough, so get a friend to go over the minor corrections for you (proper use of commas and hyphens, capitalization, rephrasing). While those corrections will probably get the review accepted, it can use improvement in other areas. For example, in clarity: e.g., So as this album starts out sounding predictable with songs that are exactly like you would expect a crossover between Reed and "modern" Metallica, i´m not very impressed. this applies to the Conventional tame rock songs like "Brandenburg Gate" It's a good example of the confusing and incorrect grammar as well as unclear communication. Relative to my experience their collaboration is not predictable because I'm unfamiliar with Lou Reed, despite his fame. Don't assume readers see things the same way as you, or can fill in the gaps for themselves. Reviews are best when they make it easy for anyone at any level to understand the context for the album, to get a sense of the production and gestalt of the album, and to easily access the author's reasoning behind the given opinions. It's not essay writing, of course, but it should follow similar ethics of logical cohesion and clear description. |
|
| Author: | SveaUltima [ Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
Not that I think that anyone cares but I just had two of my reviews approved I guess I have improved my grammar
|
|
| Author: | SveaUltima [ Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: The Review Feedback Workshop |
And Grave_Wyrm, I tried to translate it from Swedish to English and it helped my review quite a bit. Thank you!
|
|
| Page 55 of 108 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|