Originally Posted by Samuel Harris
And it only makes sense. If I were getting paid for the reviews I have been giving, I would be broke because nobody just wants to hear what is wrong. They want to hear what is right. The trick for me will be: How do I stay honest and positive at the same time.


I respectfully disagree, Joe. While I'm sure *some* don't want to hear what is wrong, I think they are in the minority - certainly in this forum. Thing is though, they want to hear what is *right* too. If a song has good points and bad points and we only point out the bad ones, we are not, in my opinion, giving a complete critique. Of course I may be guilty of thinking everyone feels that way just because I do smile

So why cover the good points before the bad? Simply because it makes the person who posted the song more receptive to the criticism. I've seen people receive public reviews of creative work where not a single positive thing was said. Usually, they completely disregarded the critique, arguing that the critiquer just didn't "get" it.

On the other hand, if they were also told what the critiquer liked, they would find it more difficult to disregard the critical parts of the review.....

Scott

Scott's EP "The Mayor of Kingdom City" - Free download at Prosity Records

Scott's CD "Full Assembly Required" on CD Baby

http://soundcloud.com/s-w-campbell