[?] [X] [Torrents]

Not logged in.


Detailed module view [disabled]
Home

A Good Review

Introduction


A guide to objective reviewing

Objective adj. Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Cold and clinical it may be, but objectivity is really the key to a good review. That means we have to leave our personal issues, tastes, biases in the cloakroom before entering the wonderful world of reviewing.

Before we start


Here are some brief guidelines we need to follow, even before we start to review a mod:
  • Don't review mods that hold a special place in your heart. We all have mods stored on our hard drive that we've had for years; the ones that first got us interesting in tracking. It's very hard to be objective in reviewing such a mod.

  • Don't review your friend's / brother's / girlfriend's / carrot's mod. It's again, hard to be objective when you can put a human face to the person.

  • Try to know something about the genre of the mod. If you don't know anything about industrial techno music, then don't review an industrial techno mod. We have to know about the genre so we can comment on it. That way, we can tell, to a certain degree, what the artist set out to create, and therefore can judge how they achieved that.

  • Also remember that you can't just review songs that you like. Reviewers have to review their fair share of "bad" mods. As long as you can stay objective, and give constructive comments, there's no reason why you can't review good and bad songs.

General song appraisal


Listen to the mod at least twice, preferably more. I'd recommend listening to it first without making any comments on it. Just sit back, relax (it's a nice feeling) and take in the music. Or - if it's that sort of song - dance, headbang, mosh, chill-out, whatever... But try to listen to the music without analysing it overly much.

Try to classify the mod, if possible, into a specific genre. If it doesn't fit entirely into one genre, try and decide what genres it has "borrowed" aspects from. If this is still impossible, either brush up on your music classification or just write "Experimental" into that classification box =).

Writing the review


Write down some comment-worthy passages from the song. These can be particularly good bits, or bits that aren't so great, but either way it's really important to write down why these parts are good / bad.

So, instead of writing, "the lead guitar section sucks",write why the section sucks, or what could be done to improve it. Something like "The lead guitar is rather flat and uninteresting. Some use of pitch slides and vibrato could have added a great deal more interest."

Look at the song as a whole. How do the different sections fit together? Examine the contrast and similarity in the song. A song that is very repetitive can easily lose the listeners' interest. Conversely, a song that jumps from section to section without some kind of common aspect will be very disjointed and difficult to listen to. Write a little on how the song as a whole fits together.

Look at the technical side of the mod. This includes things like the type of effects the artist uses, the quality of the samples, the way the panning is created. It also includes things like how the samples fit together. If one sample is too loud throughout the piece, point it out, and suggest that the global volume of the sample should have been modified.

Also look for clever "tricks" the artist has used. For example, if an artist has used special effects to cut down the number of sample required then this is good tracking. This includes all sorts of techniques; from simply having multiple instruments coming from the same sample, through to using resonance filters to mimic acid sounds instead of having a whole load of slightly "morphed" acid samples.

Looking at this side of things tends to involve actually opening the mod in a tracking program. This can be time-consuming, but even a brief look at how the mod was created can give you a good indication of the skill of the artist. Remember though, for a really thorough review, more than a "brief look" is needed.

NB: Some people disagree here, and say that looking at the technical side of things isn't important - well, as important - as the musical side of things. In a way, this is true. A song that is created on very strong musical foundations and sounds good without being really tricky in the technical side shouldn't necessarily get marked down because of it. However, if there are some really neat things done on the technical side, the artist should get credit for these things; and if the technical side is not looked at, everyone misses out.

Once comments on all the different parts of the song have been written, putting the review together will be much simpler. All that is left to do is link the sections we have already written together.

Assembling the Review


First, write an introduction. A good introduction would set the tone for the rest of the review. It should sum up the overall picture of the review in a concise way. Something like "Here we a have a great piece of ambient music that is let down by poor samples," is a good introduction, as it lets the reader know what will be discussed later in the review. This can lead into comments on the musical side of things and lead into discussion about the sample quality and how better samples could have improved the mod. It is important to have a good introduction, as it allows the review to be read more easily, makes it sound more professional, and therefore makes people take the review more seriously.

Linking the other parts of the review can be done quite simply. Use of phrases such as "However...", "This skill is also used in..." and others are quite useful, but this is not necessarily needed. If you think a section on the quality of the samples is useful in the next part of the review, you can generally just stick it in.

Once all of the sections written before have been incorporated into the review, a conclusion should be written. This is similar to the introduction in that it sums up what has been written about in the body of the review, but also should refer specifically to things discussed there. The conclusion doesn't need to be long; one or two sentences are generally enough. But make sure the conclusion actually does refer to what was discussed in the review. A reader will go "What the %*&?" if a review that concentrates on all the negative aspects of a mod in the main part of the review finishes with "Overall, however, this is a really good mod, with some excellent parts."

The conclusion should really sum up the mod as a whole, but it should also sum up the review as a whole. If you sum up the mod as a whole in the last sentence, and find that it doesn't agree with what you've written about in the main body of the review, then chances are the comments in the main body need to be edited.

Rating


The final review score is determined by the average of all of the scores you apply to each of the 5 sections in the review. The following scoring advice is just a run down of some things which influence score, and may help you determine the appropriate scores to give per section.

This is a really difficult section on which to give guidelines. It really comes down to a kind of "feeling" that you get from a mod after examining the musical and technical side of things. Examples of well-rated songs are given. As a general guide, however:

  • 10
    • An absolutely perfect score. It belongs only to an absolutely perfect mod. There are very, very few mods that are so well created musically and technically, and that are absolutely flawless. Reserve this rating for that once-in-a-lifetime mod that absolutely blows you away with its perfection.
  • 8 - 9
    • Also very high scores and should be reserved for excellent mods. They need not be absolutely flawless, like those deserving a perfect 10, but they should still be highly polished and technically well created.
  • 7
    • Scores for mods well above average. These mods may not be as technically complex as some of the higher scores, or may be a great mod let down by some particular aspect. These are still high scores though, and only well above average mods deserve them.
  • 6
    • These are scores for songs that are slightly better than your average mod. They need not be brilliantly created, or do anything incredible for the style. Mods, for example, that stick to a well-worn format or genre could perhaps get this rating.
  • 5
    • An average mod. It need do nothing spectacular. May be let down by specific aspects, or just may really have nothing much to interest the listener. This is the sort of mod that can be quite forgettable.
  • 3 - 4
    • These ratings are starting to get into the area where it is not enjoyable to listen to this song. With all things taken into account, if the bad aspects of a song tend really to outweigh the positive aspects, a rating in this area could be considered.
  • 2
    • These are ratings for mods that fall well short of what they were trying to achieve, and can be quite painful to listen to. Generally, mods that deserve this kind of rating have very, very little to offer. These are the kind of mods that may be created by a new tracker with little or no musical background. Having said that, there are very few mods that fit into this rating, as there are very few that deserve a very high rating.
  • 1
    • Generally, the artist would have to be aiming for a zero to get one (or as close as we go to it, which is 1). To get a score like this, the mod would have to be intentionally bad. Even first attempts at tracking generally do not deserve this rating. These are the sorts of mods that should not be in the Mod Archive, and were most likely introduced before the screening system was about, or were accidentally added (it happens).

However, these ratings are just a rough guide. The rating of a mod on a scale from one to ten can be the hardest part of a review. And saying that, it's probably the most important part of a review. In any case, it's the part of the review in which the public is going to be most interested. It's simple, concise, and can be shown easily on the main page of the Archive. So take time and care to decide on the rating for a mod. Also, take care that the rating agrees with the comments made in the text of the review, as the conclusion should.

Well, there it is... a brief (?) guide to reviewing. Remember, this is not the only way to review a mod. Some reviewers find it easier to look at different parts of the mod in a different order, or prefer to just write the review out in full after examining the parts, or whatever; the format described in this guide is just an example. This is a guide to how a review might be written, for people who want to know the sort of things that should be expected.

Original Article contributed by Lacquered Mouse, 2002. Updated article contributed by m0d, 2007