Breaking the rules.
Since I have been writing reviews for various magazines, sites for a total of about twenty years now and since 2021 for my own website and later on for Background Magazine, I think it is time to evaluate what development I have gone through. This is also partly due to a column I read by Erik Groeneweg on the site of Progwereld.
According to some, there are a number of basic rules for making a good review and I too have learned and used them once, but now, years later, I am of the opinion that this does not have to be the case. When I started I wanted to give a businesslike description of what I heard and was of the opinion that the reader should be able to judge whether he/she (and nowadays the or theirs) would want to listen to, and possibly buy the album. For me as a reader this was always the starting point, is what I read a reason to spend my money on what was discussed?
The range of magazines but especially sites that are about prog rock has increased enormously and I am also part of this development with my modest site. The main reason for going my own way was the doubt whether I would be able to meet the requirements of the magazine I was writing for at the time, IO-Pages, after my cerebral infarction. In particular, those rules and the fixed maximum length of a review always felt like a limitation and that is of course my fault. I understand that as a leading magazine you have to pay attention to the quality of your content.
When I started reading reviews, the supply was very limited and so was the number of reviewers. That meant that I soon knew how to interpret a review by a certain writer and I really liked that. I still do. If you know how someone’s musical taste is like, that's a clear advantage. Of course you can also say that it would be a shame if you would miss out on a nice album because you normally can't follow the writer of a review about it, but that's up to you.
Well, that's the big advantage of having your own site. You hope that the people who regularly visit your site have also taken the trouble and time to read your introduction and columns, because that creates clear frameworks within which you can better assess the reviews. What is very nice is the fact that you can decide for yourself which conditions your review must meet. That's why I decided to ignore all the rules and just write from the gut feeling. Still with the intention though that someone knows what to expect after reading a review. However, I don't care anymore if I mention the word "track" or the name of the band too often and certainly not if the third paragraph starts with a "hard return" (Erik Groeneweg, I understand your frustration). I recommend you to read the column on Progwereld to understand what I am talking about.
So, be done with all the rules and just write what comes to mind and keep that spontaneity and use it with all its imperfections. Of course I read everything over and adjust things several times, but I try to let the "soul" of those first thoughts exist. And indeed, I do it my way.
You wouldn't expect it from someone who has worked in the commercial sector for most of his life, but I'm not much of a marketing strategist and probably don't do enough to bring my website to the attention of parties that might be interesting. That's how I am now and I'm at peace with that. I have nice contacts with various people in the prog industry, to use a marketing term. I don't have to become the most influential site in the field of prog and I never ask for financial support or free downloads. It's just nice to be involved with music.
P.s. It's always nice when people respond to my writings, so make me happy and keep doing that.