I decided not to read any reviews of the album (and still haven't -- not even the long reviews offered here), for the same reason I avoid reviews of a movie I'm really interested in. I'd like the initial experience to be as personal as possible.
But does anyone know how these reviews in the media are done? Do the reviewers choose what they want to review? Or are they randomly assigned? Do reviewers generally listen to albums several times or merely give their first impressions? I assume it varies from place to place, and reviewer to reviewer, but does anyone know how it usually works? Or is their any pattern to it at all?
I somehow doubt these organizations monitor their reviewers and make sure they listen to the entire album. You never know what they have or haven't listened to, or how many times. I've mentioned this before, but DVD review websites are notoriously transparent in that some reviewers clearly aren't looking at all of the contents before they publish the review. You can even see some reviewers who use a clear template and just fill certain bits of info in.
It's harder to that with music reviews, since each album is pretty unique to itself. But I wouldn't find it hard to believe some reviewers have listened to the album once, or maybe even skipped forward to the next track early. I also *don't* think that just because a review is negative and doesn't mention every song it means they didn't listen to it enough. We would never know, other than a few total hack reviews with confirmable false information.
It's even easier to do with music, because review copies of albums come with press releases. Want to know why so many album reviews begin by trotting out the same kind of generic chronology or backstory? Usually because it's on the press release. i have a few at home.
Author
