Are music reviews by musicians worthless to your average joe listener?

I've had this topic rambling about in the old brain bucket for awhile and was wondering what you fine folks think.

As some of you know, I review music over on my blog. It's a pastime and my reviews are overwhelmingly positive because I only review music that I've bought myself, and I tend to stay away from music I don't like. My general motivation is to get people to go out and buy albums that I enjoy so bands will keep cranking out material that we all love.

I also read a ton of reviews to see what others are saying about albums that I review and it struck me that reviewers roughly break down between non-musicians and musicians. I myself played the piano as a young boy because my Mom made me - she herself is a pianist, but I had no real interest in it and stopped as a teen. I am not a musician and know nothing of the technical aspects of music. My reviews tend to focus on things like the quality of hooks, lyrical content, artwork and sequencing. I will occasionally mention the mix of an album as well if it's noteworthy.

I notice that reviews by musicians will focus on things such as the guitar playing, the quality of the mix (dry, bottom-heavy, etc...), the production, the chorus, the drumming etc... These are all technical aspects of course with nary a mention of the things I deem noteworthy.

I personally find reviews by musicians to be mostly worthless because I don't speak their "language." I don't really know what most of their praise or criticism means as an average, ordinary listener. For instance unless a production job is horrid, I won't notice it or a mix would have to be very oddball for me to pick up on it. I suspect this is also true for the vast majority of the music consuming public.

This post came about because I have a friend that was a touring musician and has a studio in his home. Whenever we talk about music he'll bring up the technical aspects of it. He told me that one bad thing about being a musician is he's "seen behind the curtain" and now he notices all the tiny production glitches, techniques, etc... whenever he listens to music and that's what he focuses on.

So, given your choice, which type of review do you prefer? Do you notice any difference in reviews? Does it matter at all?

As an engineer and musician I tend to gravitate toward reviews that speak to the more technical elements. My rating of albums is usually a deep dive, focusing not just on the songwriting and performance but also the recording, the balance of the instruments in the mix, the individual instruments chosen and how well the tones were captured. I also like to read about the mastering and comparisons of different versions (LP, CD, hi-res, etc). Discussing recording and production quality is something measurable, quantifiable.

Discussing quality of "hooks" or "vibe" is wholly subjective to the person listening to the album, those elements I will decide for myself because reading someone else's subjective opinion really offers nothing to me, unless I know the person writing the review and my tastes happen to line up closely with theirs...which almost never happens.

What bothers me is when it's obvious the reviewer doesn't like/doesn't understand the style of music he's reviewing, I consider that a complete and utter waste of time, because they don't have the general understanding of the genre to make their opinion remotely worthwhile.

S.D. wrote:

As an engineer and musician I tend to gravitate toward reviews that speak to the more technical elements.  My rating of albums is usually a deep dive, focusing not just on the songwriting and performance but also the recording, the balance of the instruments in the mix, the individual instruments chosen and how well the tones were captured.  I also like to read about the mastering and comparisons of different versions (LP, CD, hi-res, etc).  Discussing recording and production quality is something measurable, quantifiable.  

Discussing quality of "hooks" or "vibe" is wholly subjective to the person listening to the album, those elements I will decide for myself because reading someone else's subjective opinion really offers nothing to me, unless I know the person writing the review and my tastes happen to line up closely with theirs...which almost never happens.

What bothers me is when it's obvious the reviewer doesn't like/doesn't understand the style of music he's reviewing, I consider that a complete and utter waste of time, because they don't have the general understanding of the genre to make their opinion remotely worthwhile.

Cool. Thanks for answering.

Of course I realized I never answered the actual question because I'm in that small demographic of people that actually cares about the technical aspects.

I think the answer really depends on the level of knowledge of the person reading the review. If the reviewer starts talking about I-IV-V progressions or harmonic minor scales or mixed-meter then you're going to leave your average reader in the dust. I often think that comparative reviews is the best way to approach the "average joe".

As an "average Joe" listener I find reviews of technical aspects of a release completely useless unless you can tell me that something "sounds like crap". 

And I agree that the best way to review an album is the "comparative" approach.  You know the drill:  "Take Band A, add a dose of Band B and throw in a dash of Band C and you get some idea of what this album sounds like". 

Now if that type of review comes from some "average Joe" I'll probably take it at face value.  If that type of review comes from somebody in a band I'll weigh my opinion of that band into my interpretation of the review.

So I guess my ultimate answer to the original question is it depends A) what aspects of the album are stressed in the review and B) what band is the reviewer in.

if I was a musician I probably wouldnt love music as much as I do. I'd rather read a review by an average Joe than by a technically educated musician or some know-it-all Rolling Stone Magazine doosh.

S.D. wrote:

What bothers me is when it's obvious the reviewer doesn't like/doesn't understand the style of music he's reviewing, I consider that a complete and utter waste of time, because they don't have the general understanding of the genre to make their opinion remotely worthwhile.

I'll second this. I can't tell you the number of times I've checked out AllMusic's archive of reviews for bands I like. Jethro Tull was the worst. Everything post-Aqualung was just about a two line review talking about how much the band sucked that they weren't releasing Aqualung anymore. That was just lazy writing, let along music reviewing.

See also: my utter loathing for music writers who name-drop just to sound like they're "with it." You know the drill: "It's like a post-Sonic Youth no-wave drone album fronted by Strom Thurmond." All that pretentious crap. Aside, but I once had the misfortune of browsing used racks at a record store and had to listen to a conversation by two hipsters that went something like that. I found religion. "Dear lord, Jesus, let me be anything but bless me that I not end up as pretentious as these two asshats!"

To answer the real question, I'm a hobbyist musician with some ambitions, so I'm always curious about and interested in the technical side, but I follow a more "middle-of-the-road" approach to the relationship between technology and music. The best technology and production and the world won't polish a turd. Oh, it'll be a hi-def turd resplendent with all of its peanuts clearly audible to the listener, but it's still a turd. By the same token, if you record something horribly, you're losing arrangement details, performance, etc. So while it may be a great tune with a lot of art and craft behind it, that's all lost in the bed of murk. So, it's more of a symbiosis than an either-or.

So, that being the case, I don't mind some technical talk so long as it doesn't read like stereo instructions and I prefer a bit of depth from writers. Let me know that you're aware of the band's output thus far, but don't come off as a drooling fanboy.

Basically, pretend that I've never heard a damn thing by this or any other band and try to tell me WHY you feel the way you do about the album, both in terms of the music and in terms of how well it was recorded.

That help at all?

A review has to be informative. I have no interest in reviews that have an axe to grind. Those that use the album as their grand stand to make a point. I enjoy technical as well as uninformed views. I would rather read about what someone thinks about the album objectively, and many times that objectivity stems from unfamiliarity. Fans of the band and/or that particular style of music are usually read last. In order for a review to matter, I need to learn something. Reading "It's great!" or "It sucks!' is of no use.

NO, musicians can be negative about studio production or amateur playing, when fans like me don't care about that.
Then again, the worse they make it sound, (eg. how Venom or Hellhammer was described at the start), and discovering how great they were, then I can disregard everything they say is great and look only for what they didn't like.

I found reviews to be the most part interesting if it was well written and by a writer who respects the band, a bit of history of group/artist.

Classic Rock Magazine write great reviews and do not underestimate the reader's intelligence.

The ones that make me laugh are Rolling Stone magazine, especially if they are reviewing the Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan (two artists I love btw), it also starts something like this: This is the best Stones album since 'Some Girls', or 'Their best album in 20 years, which is exactly the same thing they wrote last time they released a new studio album!