|
Post by dungeonsynthzine on Feb 5, 2020 16:45:59 GMT -5
Recently I've been struggling with making the first issue of the zine, and it seems like soon it will be ready. One of the blocks that I discovered was reviews. Do you ever find it's difficult to write a good DS review? What style do you prefer? One way is referring to the source of inspiration and imagery, like, let's say Hole Dweller -> The Hobbit and go for something like "you can almost see hobbits walking in the countryside bla bla bla". Another way would be referring to musical inspirations, and that sounds the most professional to me, like Old Sorcery - Kraus Schulze influences. Truth be said, most DS is very similar, and saying things like 'it's repetitive, and it's dark, and you know, you feel like you crawl in the dungeon and there are skeletons and shit" (dammit, I've just described Dungeons of Irithyll hehe, I still love it though) doesn't take you far, and my assumption is that the point of writing a review is giving the reader some idea of what the album sounds like. How do you like your reviews written?
|
|
|
Post by element0s on Feb 5, 2020 19:21:28 GMT -5
I think a review should tick two main boxes:
- A description of what the music sounds like - Why you think it's good or bad or shit or outstanding or meh
How you go about saying these things is up to you. As a reader I personally like it when writers try to make their reviews as fun to read as possible.
|
|
|
Post by andrewwerdna on Feb 5, 2020 21:34:28 GMT -5
One thing I used to do back when I did reviews is describe imagery that the music would bring to mind, usually barely even relating to the artist's intended themes and subject matter. The music would take me on a journey and I would describe where it brought me. I think dungeon synth is one of the few genres where that would make sense in a review.
|
|
|
Post by skirmisher on Feb 6, 2020 4:37:38 GMT -5
Reading your post I feel you have everything you need, you just need a way of putting it together. If I read a dungeon synth review I'll mostly be interested in:
-The sound. Arrangement, sounds, production choices etc. -The mood. what kind of a world does it portray? What emotions does it evoke? What is the scenery? Theme?
After all dungeon synth is fantasy music and the imagery it describes is a very important part of it. It has to be both. The music, the imagery. You can't do without the other. I'd imagine the challenge is doing this without being repetitive and clichΓ©. Since, you know, dungeon synth is kind of both a lot of the time.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonsynthzine on Feb 6, 2020 7:10:47 GMT -5
Reading your post I feel you have everything you need, you just need a way of putting it together. If I read a dungeon synth interview I'll mostly be interested in: -The sound. Arrangement, sounds, production choices etc. -The mood. what kind of a world does it portray? What emotions does it evoke? What is the scenery? Theme? After all dungeon synth is fantasy music and the imagery it describes is a very important part of it. It has to be both. The music, the imagery. You can't do without the other. I'd imagine the challenge is doing this without being repetitive and clichΓ©. Since, you know, dungeon synth is kind of both a lot of the time. 1. I think this is the thing that mostly artists themselves know. I'm just not pro enough to say what kind of setup they used. Maybe it will come with time. 2. Agreed generally, but feels kinda like a trap. First, I'm afraid that the imagery in our heads is highly influenced by the artwork of the album. We would need a blind test for that, like listening without seeing the cover and titles. Like for example, if we take the visuals from Hole Dweller, do we still imagine hobbits in the countryside? If we don't know about Arthurian inspirations of Malfet, would we think about them just by listening? etc. The next trap is how differently people perceive music. One may sea a shipwreck somewhere on an island, and another, let's say, mountains. That's extremely individual. Someone may be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Feb 6, 2020 10:52:01 GMT -5
I think a review should tick two main boxes: - A description of what the music sounds like - Why you think it's good or bad or shit or outstanding or meh How you go about saying these things is up to you. As a reader I personally like it when writers try to make their reviews as fun to read as possible. Correct. I have never been comfortable with track-by-track reviews. They're boring, mechanic and sometimes even childish. What you can do is underlining a couple of highlights, then go like element0s is saying. Nice tip I can suggest: writing comments on Bandcamp is a great excercise, because it forces you to work with a very restricted number of words.
|
|