Most of the reviews I write on this site are strongly positive. Part of this is down to a self-imposed rule that I won’t write a negative review where I know the artist. And to tell the truth, records where my reaction is “meh” are harder to review; it’s always easier to say what you like or don’t like about a record that to expand “It’s OK but nothing special” to any length.
But does a site need a few less-than-positive reviews to put the positive ones into context?
I’m thinking of Dom Lawson’s reviews in The Guardian. Almost everything he writes is a solid four stars. I can appreciate the reasons why The Guardian’s only reviewer with a deep love and knowledge of rock and metal shouldn’t be devoting too much of a limited space to second or third rate records. There’s so much good stuff out there which no-one else on the site is likely to review fairly. But since taste is music is deeply subjective, the more you know about a reviewer’s own tastes the more you know how much you can trust their opinions. So perhaps it would be useful to know more about what Dom doesn’t like?
Back to this site. Should I try and write a few more less-than-positive reviews of albums and gigs that I wasn’t that impressed with? Or should I stick to what I actually like?