Question about the succinctness of reviews?

[Quantium]

Ok, so I've been coming OCR for years now, was gone for the last 2 or so, but now I've come back to just to see how things are going and to listen to some new music. One thing that I've NEVER understood nor cannot stand most of the time is the glaring nonsense of the song reviewers. Why do they make up the majority of their reviews just talking about things that don't make any sense, and take up space? It's like "the syncopated rhythms developed by an overt understanding of multi-staged worldly percussion makes the sublime tenor reminisciesnt of something I heard 2 months ago while trying to write a haiku on the bridge of maxwells". Like wtf? Can't they just cut out the sillyness and talk about the MUSIC itself. Can't they just say "The main melody has been replaced with thumping bass, and strings added in too". It's very simple and easy to understand. Half the time whenever I read a review I end up re-reading it 3-4 times just because I want the MUSIC information, not this rambling about who knows what. Another example taken recently from the LOZ:ALTP review:

"The tempo transition (at 1'36", specifically) actually DID bother me...almost like the clutch got stuck momentarily while shifting gears... but the delay effect & vocal intonation - ultimately much more important - did not. It's a little risky to anchor a mix on a vocalized melody like this, and even more interesting to do a male-female duet of sorts in the process, so definite kudos are in order for trying something different and making it work. I think it's an approach that is particularly well-suited to the source material - "ahhhs" and "oohs" certainly make sense for the appearance of a goddess, right? - so that contextuality also serves the bigger picture. The sheer range on wildfire's vocal really does lend the right sort of ambiance & otherworldliness, so the collab certainly resulted in this vision reaching a more complete realization. Good, unique stuff!"

Now, couldn't this be seriously compacted into more direct information as:

"There is a tempo change at 1:36 that I didn't like. The voice additions were nice, a different change of pace. The duet between voices works well. Overall, unique stuff".

Was that so hard? Look how much crap I cut out of there, and STILL had the appropriate musical information. I just, I don't understand this. And it's been this way for YEARS. That's originally why I stopped coming to the site, because I got tired of DECODING what the hell the reviewer was talking about. Other then that, great site guys. Thanks for finally adding preview audio options.

P.S. Any chance we could get a "style" added to each remix so we know what to expect? Like "ambient", "electronica", "rock" etc?

[djpretzel]

Now, couldn't this be seriously compacted into more direct information as:

"There is a tempo change at 1:36 that I didn't like. The voice additions were nice, a different change of pace. The duet between voices works well. Overall, unique stuff".

Was that so hard? Look how much crap I cut out of there, and STILL had the appropriate musical information.

You've lost a lot of meaning in your "compacting." It's completely unhelpful - and bad writing - to say "I didn't like the tempo change" without explaining WHY. If you don't like my writeups, don't read them, skip to the user comments.

If you want a soundbite culture where nothing is considered at length, contemplation is labeled "crap" and summarized inaccurately, and everything is compressed into literary "McNuggets" for your expedited & convenient digestion - you've come to the right century, but the wrong website.