I decided to choose two separate reviews of the latest release by The Arcade Fire, "The Suburbs" (Merge, 2010) from two well-known online music publications and try to distinguish what works, and what is lacking for me (I must say I am biased, being a fan of the Canadian Alternative rock band). The two sources are online articles by Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone, and the David Marchese of Spin Magazine (each, by the way, are aptly named the title of the album and artist).
Now I must say, what I'm looking for in terms of "good" and "bad" reviewing skills by each of these writers is not just a juicy, wet-my-lips kind of write-up -- making me want to either go out and download this from iTunes and spend the money (because that's what I do -- in my inkling of support for the bands that I enjoy in this time of deficit with the economy and how the "interweb" has made it SO easy to snagg some tunes with your broadband device of choice in the matter of seconds) -- but I am looking for an article in which the author may add some interest, fun (yes, I said fun -- I do enjoy the rants and like a little piss 'n vinegar to a review), and incite to what they -- as a critic -- are feeling and hearing from the album as a whole.
Most of the time, I can look at an article and read between the lines that this reviewer is the type of guy/gal who only listens to the "hits" on an album and goes on and on about the latest release of "Band X's" newest song that has already over-saturated the "market" by getting played over and over again on the local radio stations. When the reviewer adds special attention to "song X", that instantly puts a bad taste in my mouth. I have found, through the years, that this is the song that one will least like on the album (if said "one" listens to the whole album more than five times), and we can skip that part and let me hear more about the album as a whole -- give me something I can chew on about those "other" songs tucked away past the virtual Side-B midway point of the CD (I think it still rings true that labels kinda "weigh" the songs on albums/records/CD's nowadays -- remember tapes?). I enjoy a review that can relate something that they have found in a particular song on an album (or many songs for that matter) that shows the artist's depth and growth as an artist.
So, getting into these two reviews!
Most reviews these days seem to be too short. While this may be the sign 'o the times or the standard of quick Album/CD reviews, the content of the online, short form review should keep you coming back for more. Otherwise, the reader loses interest, and may not take to the words that have been commissioned by their employer. In the least, a review should attempt to describe what the artist has put together on a latest release. At least devote a little time in describing whether
This is the case of Sheffield's review in the Rolling Stone article. For the first two paragraphs, Sheffield references AF's previous releases -- which is setting the basis for his article, I understand this -- but he only really reviews the latest songs on the latest album in the second to last paragraph and doesn't hint to certain aspects of this album that should be mentioned (e.g. this is a 16 song concept album). One paragraph!? Simply, that is a bad review in my book. It just seems that the author has just gone through the motions and didn't really put much effort into the article. Granted, most Arcade Fire fans understand what to expect from their music - their anti-establishment, religious overtones, and heavy-hearted sob stories, but c'mon!
In the case of the "good" review in this instance, the article by Marchese delves deeper into the review and really gets to the root of the album, describing beautifully in his own words what he is taking from the album. I really get a sense of the theme that AF is trying to portray in their latest release, and his review intrigues me to read the whole article. This is what is primarily why I deem this article praise-worthy. Marchese gives the reader the good and bad, describes what the artist is trying to accomplish on the album, notes the influences in what he hears and what he thinks the artist is pulling from, and tells it in storied fashion.
The difference between these two reviews is like hot and cold.
SOURCES CITED:
Sheffield, Rob. "Arcade Fire: The Suburbs", RollingStone.com, August 3, 2010, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/reviews/album/17385/182695
Marchese, David. "Arcade Fire: The Suburbs: In a hopeless, heartless world, rock's righteous collective rides in to save our souls (again!), Spinmag.com, August 11, 2010,
http://spinmag.com/reviews/arcade-fire-suburbs-merge
