It's a "sophomore effort".

Reviewers love a bit of hyperbole - you know, the "shimmering sonic cathedrals" school. I sort of feel for them, to be honest - it's the old dancing about architecture problem - but if I ever read the word "sonic", I'm afraid I tend to snort derisively and disregard the entire review.

Eamonn Forde has said that there are really only two reviews possible: Shit and Not Shit. I'm sort of with him on that. Unfortunately, most reviewers haven't had the memo.

some sort of skinny, brown, knobbly vest?

For some reason, I began thinking about music journalist reviews last night during a bout of insomnia. A bit better than counting sheep I suppose. I thought "why do they always say 'sophomore effort' and remember the Paul Morley era NME when Echo and the Bunnymen and friends were always producing 'Sonic cathedrals'? You know what? there is a Word thread there." I thought to myself

Then I look at today's site and.....spooky. Anyone know about Sheldrick's Morphic Fields? Looks like they were working then.

An adjective much beloved of music journos.

I've always found it (ahem) difficult to swallow.

Write your own B.A. Thesis, you slippered pantaloon. You weren't there for my woodwork "O" level.

that says something can't just be beautiful, it has to be hauntingly beautiful. Much like how anyone who gets a bit cross now has to be incandescent with rage...

a return to form. Even if they aren't.

I agree with Twangothan. Reviews are not totally useless in that they can "pique your interest and generate exitement in a new record"

My fascination with reviews stems from exactly the fact which Bob pointed out: "describing music is really difficult and enormously subjective, and mostly pointess".

To me, that in a way is what promotes inventive language use (or sadly, as many of you pointed out, also tired empty metaphors and cliches). It's a challenge to convey the listening experience to a reader in a way that's tangible and interesting, and make it at least appear authoritative and relevant.

Also, all that needs to be done quickly and within a word limit, which I imagine is one reason for lexically heavy sentences in which every noun is modified with as many adjectives a as possible.

..for a lot of this stuff. Who was responsible for starting that mag...? Oh.

If you need reference material, I have every issue since 8 in the loft...and every single Mojo....(ceiling collapses).

Track one is where an artist often 'sets out their stall' and, as caPtain haddock has been mentioned above, I have often read guitar solos described as 'blistering'

Getting off the point I admit, but whenever I read reviews of the kind of novels that are entered for the Booker Prize, they seem to contain a phrase like "a meditation on themes of identity, memory and loss."

What a doss!

In my day you certainly couldn't do one an anything that is read for fun.

...of The Tide is High by Atomic Kitten, in Time Out, writer forgotten, review committed to memory...

'This record will appeal to the kind of woman whose idea of a great night out is to get plastered on Bacardi Breezers at the Limelight Club, followed by a blazing row in the street with her boyfriend, then making up in the Gerrard Street car park with a drunken fuck.'

go straight to AllMusic and Pitchfork.

Pitchfork's reissue reviews very rarely mention the music or the artist under discussion, usually consisting of a memoir of the author's masturbatory adventures in the college dorm at whatever time the record originally came out.

Band A and Act B." See also, "Imagine a cross between..." or "Should appeal to fans of..."

It's sometimes appended with, "... but without the banjos" or some such. This is only done to try to prove the reviewer has at least fast-forwarded through a few of the tracks rather than paraphrasing other reviews of the same record.

I think it was Stuart Maconie who said - "No one sings, they carry out the vocal chores"

things tend to be like something 'on acid' fairly often too.

Wasn't there a thread about phrases that Mr Ellen won't allow in reviews? (Or maybe it was on a podcast.) 'Foisted on an unsuspecting public' was one.

...are never "written". They're "penned".

Mixmag
ethereal- anything "Chill Out"
Eclectic - Whenever refering to a mix that has no flow.
Intelligent - time signatures that don't work.
Ambient - there's no beat.
Brainchild - bloke who doesn't actually play anything
Sensual - Your bird might like it.
Deviant - for people off their faces.
Dubbed out- Someone has a new effect.
sumptuous - Loads of instruments
sun-dappled wonky electronica -Google translator didn't recognise the language.

"I have no idea what to say, except it sounds amazing and has no precedent apart from the hundreds of musical references" - of which the reviewers can probably count two - "rock" and "classical".

Neither of which they know anything about.

Because, as FZ is alleged to have said, they are writers who can't write, reviewing musicians who can't play, for readers who can't read.

There is your thesis.

that was slightly left of centre was always "the bastard son of Johnny Cash".

The words have a connection that isn't immediately obvious, but that connection, in this context, is so strong that normal punctuation simply can't handle it.

I think it should be called a Brady Bunch. Why? Because the eight members of the Brady Bunch are two unconnected groups of four. When you blend families together, the two surnames are often separated - and also connected - by the hyphen.

The hyphen tells us that the words are connected - it also tells us that the words are separate. Sounds confusing and contrary? Yes. But we understand the hyphen completely. Again, a parity here with the Brady Bunch. No questions were asked. We just understood.

a "plank-spanker".

Post-vinyl, they never really came up with any elegant-variation terms for CDs, did they?

And nobody seems to have mentioned "duties" yet, as in "[name] on [instrument] duties".

Oh, and the other big two much-mocked clichés, besides the shimmering soundscapes, are "unrepentant doowop harmonies" and "jangly guitars".

My current favourite, though, is one that a certain doyen of Bono toadies and inspiration for a major motion picture - he'd best remain nameless but we fans just call him "the Master" - has used more than once: "percussive drums".

not their finest effort then, but far from their worse

the Guardian Guide's review of the Fugees "When We Were Kings" which, as you may know, is heavily reliant on samples from ABBA's Name of the Game:

"If Doctor Johnson heard this he might say to the Fugees, "Sirs, your rap single is both good and original: but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good""

Ace, whoever wrote it.

..."groinal bass"

How low can one get?

that you have people who (apparently) know what they're talking about when it comes to album reviews. We have to put up with idiots like this muppet (http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/blogs/blog-on-the-tracks) here in the Colonies....

in Australia, but one thing I've never understood is the Aussie/NZ media's insistence on referring to bands in the third-person singular all the time: "Coldplay has just released its fifth album".

ITS fifth album?

They do it with football, too. 'Manchester United slumped to ITS first home defeat in 50 years on Saturday" etc etc.

Not only in the print media, either, they say it on radio and TV too.

I don't doubt that it's possible to find an explanation for why, strictly speaking, it's correct but bloody hell, it doesn't half sound crap.

I mean, the countries who use third-party singular would never say "Coldplay IS coming to America. IT will arrive next month.

At least we appear to be consistent in the UK.

(waits for someone to point out a glaring inconsistency).

"Doom Laden" - Slow songs, see "Black Sabbath" by Black Sabbath

"Bludgeoning" - Fast songs, see "Neon Knights" by Black Sabbath

"Gonzoid" - Songs where the guitarist's foot is on some effects pedal or other.

"I think it was Auden, was it not, who said of Alien Sex Fiend: 'Bloody 'ell, are they still at it? What a load of pooh!'"

And I think he may have written the review of Genesis's execrable 1991 live set We Can't Dance, which ended with "I bet even the Sting album's better than this". The Sting album (another live clunker) was reviewed directly below it - the review ending with, "I bet even the Genesis album is better than this".

RIP that man.

you need to.
A/ Get reverb mixed up with tremolo (especially when writing about the one good single The Electric Prunes recorded.)
B/Refer to Nick Drake whenever some twazzock picks up an acoustic and sings quietly.
and C/ Continue to rave on about The Velvets, MC5 and The Stooges even though after 40 years, still no-one is interested.