So, let's begin. First we have an introduction. There may be some prequel here. There can be a story about what led me to listening this release. Here there can be reflections on various genre shades (especially if it does't enter into my personal preferences). There can be reflections on thinking / behavior of project members. Or maybe some stuff that first came to mind.
You already noticed, I use rating system. Rating is measured in parrots. For those who don't understand - this meme from this cartoon. It matters "an intuitive assessment that is not attached to strict standards."
And I also mark my assessment with different colors. You could notice the green and yellow. But I will use more.
- From 0 to 24 - Red. Absolutely unlistenable shit.
- From 25 to 49 - Orange. Project is trying to do something, but there is not enough of something significant.
- From 50 to 84 - Yellow. Quite a diverse category. There are wonderful talents here, which were not enough for something. It can be completely devoid of talent persons, who put their best to the limit of their abilities. Or another doll with serious support from the outside.
- From 85 to 100 - Green. Excellent masters work, in which everything was fine.
Yes, your eyes have not deceived you. "Green" segment is just 15 points. There is nothing surprising. Average ("yellow") rating is a very wide variety, and "green" rating is not a frequent occurrence. I have so far evaluated only four releases. And I also try not to listen to releases that I can estimate lower than 30. My favorite music is that it's rather complicated and interesting, and turning it into something completely unintelligible - you have to try to do this. I can also refuse evaluation. For example, if result of work is priceless, or there may be great difficulties in evaluating an extremely specific work .
But let's return to our musicians. Introduction somehow smoothly flows into evaluation of the whole work. I try not to make harsh statements and categorically evaluate this or that element. I understand that people can't be the same, everyone thinks differently. Nevertheless, first composer work is evaluated: general sructure, subject of the narrative (if any), setting of artistic task, methods of its implementation, variety of these methods.
Then voice is evaluated. Statement of breathing, pronunciation (if the language is not native), a variety of vocal techniques. If there is good hearing and good headphones, then this can all be heard.
And also instrumentalists are evaluated. Instrumental parties are of varying complexity. Depending on complexity and interest of instrumental parts, you can evaluate separately each instrumentalist, individually each subgroup (lead and rhythm section) or just write a few words about everyone. There is a lot of space here, so I don't stick to any narrow patterns.
Conclusion is also a separate story. There necessarily will be an opinion on general intellectual value, assessment of the perspective and some advice (if required).
Love of art is not the only thing that moves me: art can be loved in silence. I also want to convey to musicians and listeners what they lack. I hope I succeed.
