CD Reviews: 6, 12, 50?

I have a finite amount of time to write CD reviews. I could spend that finite time to write 50 brief weekly 3:1 reviews each year. That’s more or less the approach I have taken for the last two years.Β Alternatively, I could spend four times as long on each review, and write one review per month. Or, I could double that, and do one review every other month.

Which would you rather see?

[polldaddy poll=5917547]

For more Southern Gospel news and commentary—follow our RSS feed or sign up for our email updates!

30 Letters to the Editor

Southern Gospel Journal welcomes letters to the editor. We will post the most thoughtful and insightful submissions. Ground rules: Don't attack or belittle groups or fellow posters, or advance heresies rejected by orthodox Christianity. Do keep comments positive, constructive, and on topic.
  1. I find great value in the quick reviews. I think you should keep doing them once a week, while every once in a while when you feel the need, doing a more in-depth review.

  2. Oh, and a fairly important follow-up question for someone who might say 6 or 12: Would you still say that even if it meant your favorite groups didn’t get reviewed?

    And what are the groups whom you would think ought to be reviewed here, no matter what?

  3. I enjoy reading the longer reviews that you and other bloggers have written. If you went to a fewer review format it wouldn’t bother me if you didn’t review one of my favorites. I look at any reviews as a bonus and I appreciate the time you take to do them.

    No Matter What? I voted for 1 a month. Here is a list of 12 groups.
    The Kingsmen
    Gold City
    Gaither Vocal Band
    Greater Vision
    The Perrys
    Brian Free & Assurance
    Triumphant Quartet
    The Kingdom Heirs
    The Dove Brothers
    Legacy Five
    Mark Trammell Quartet

    • Thanks for the feedback! Interesting list, and I wonder how it would line up with others’ lists.

  4. I’m between 50 and 12. I like the 3:1 reviews, but I also like in-depth reviews as well. Though usually the ones you do a 3:1 for are usually reviewed in-depth in other places.

    As for the groups to review no matter what, that’s a tough one. It’s hard for me to narrow that list down. Maybe as an alternative, you could narrow it down by only reviewing national projects?

    • How would you define national projects? Are the Dixie Echoes a national group?

      • Oh, yes. Maybe national was the wrong word. I simply meant non-table projects.

      • OK!

  5. I think the quick reviews work quite well. I know a lot of people look to your reviews for new projects to buy, and if you limited the number many people would miss out on some very good lesser known projects.

    • You have a point – fewer new groups would get a shot, unless they’re absolutely exceptional.

  6. I wouldn’t mind seeing long reviews, but not at the expense of fewer of them! I’d rather keep seeing the 3:1 reviews.

  7. I’ve commented in the past that I like the 3:1 reviews so I probably don’t need to say that again (but I did πŸ™‚ ).
    I don’t have the time to read large reviews. If it’s a group I’m interested in I’ll read the longer review but the fact is often times I don’t have the free time to read all of the 3:1 reviews but what they do is allow me to skim over and catch the highlights. I also am often enticed to read about groups that I might not pay attention to otherwise.


    • I’m both intrigued and glad to hear that someone actually prefers the smaller format!

      • I, too, am very much a fan of your 3:1 reviews.

      • Thanks!

  8. We can’t decide between 12 and 50. Maybe somewhere between? If we can make up our minds, we might vote! πŸ™‚

    • If you end up finding a conclusion, I’d be interested to hear it! πŸ™‚

    • If you end up finding a conclusion, I’d be interested to hear it! πŸ™‚

      Say, who would you name as the groups that simply must be reviewed every year?

  9. I read more of your reviews than any other blogger. If it takes 1.5 minutes to read about a group I don’t love or recognize, then I will read it. If its a 15 minute read of my favorite group I may not read it all. As you lower your numbers and increase the length you lower the number of people who actually read them.

    • You do have a point; I’ve noticed that my greatest labors of love, the intensively in-depth Cathedral Quartet album reviews, sometimes get almost no attention or discussion, despite an incredible number of hours involved in writing each.

      Make no mistake, I still enjoy doing one every now and then, but since they end up too long for most readers, I just have less motivation to do so! πŸ™‚

  10. Well, I enjoy reading the Cathedrals ones, but don’t comment on them all So don’t confuse lack of discussion with o interest.

    • Thanks, and I do know what you mean! Comments aren’t a perfect measure of interest, but sometimes they’re all I have! (Visitor stats are so consistent that it takes a significant spike or drop to really catch my attention!)

  11. QM makes a fair point, as do others, in that “comments” are a blunt sort of arbiter of interest, especially in relation to REVIEWS in contrast to NEWS. The 3:1 format gives beneficial exposure to some lesser known groups, which must be vital oxygen to some.

    However the “big beasts” – no matter what groups – are probably worthy of longer review. The Cats stuff is more historical and of personal interest to you, Daniel, but valuable as archival comment none the less.

    Perhaps a suggestion: in the past conbined reviews were popular [I would judge] and also it may be that some competent reveiwers/bloggers don’t get the exposure/traffic/comment that SGB gets. Perhaps some full length reviews could be farmed out to more ‘guest reviewers’?

    I wonder what persentage of readers [not commentors] read most or ALL of the SG blogs? Maybe a poll could shed some light? Perhaps a COPY review from a ‘lesser-blogger’ could be featured or LI NKED from your own 3:1 shorter review?

    Just as lesser-known groups need the oxygen of exposure, so do the lesser-read bloggers. Some lengthy and decent quality work elsewhere seems to generate comparitively little comment. Some may blog for love, but very little of what is good quality out there [VFTBR for one example] goes up in five minutes.

    A hearty thanks to all – especially from a far-away-reader who appreciates SGM 95% by proxy!

    • Regarding getting others involved, I do this in two ways:

      (1) I do open the door for Sony and the Garms Family to do album reviews, and they do on occasion. But generally, most of the people who want to put the time in to do a review end up deciding to launch their own site. πŸ™‚

      (2) I do link to album reviews under “Worth Reading” in some Saturday News Roundups, whenever one stands out. But I don’t do it under a notion of every blogger deserving equal time; it’s based almost entirely on merit (though I do factor in a little factor of public interest in a group.) In other words, the stronger your review is, the more likely I am to feature it. πŸ™‚

      • Daniel, you could have a legacy tree like the Cathedrals. YGG made a few guests posts and branched out on here own. I made one post and got “hired”. (LOL)

        On a serious note, though…you have always been more than gracious to your fellow SG fans online, despite your well-earned position as the “top dog” of bloggers.

      • Thanks for the kind words! I’m still a little grumpy with myself that I didn’t think to ask you before Adam did, but I certainly hold no grudges! πŸ™‚

        Don’t forget Sony, who has her own site, too, even though she still continues to do the Sunday devotional posts here. πŸ™‚

        Also, I don’t consider myself the “top dog;” among active bloggers, I’m certainly not the most senior (DBM and Doug have been at it longer, and DBM is still at it on a fairly consistent basis). But I do think I just might be the “hardest-working dog”; five and a half years ago, I made a commitment to daily posts, and I’ve only missed once or twice (due to factors beyond my control) since then! πŸ™‚

      • I thought about Sony, but I didn’t know if she had her blog before or after she started contributing here.

        You didn’t need me, and it’s mainly because of that commitment you made. The Lord put me in the right place. Check it out, by the way. We’ve got it all spruced up, ready to get going better than ever. πŸ™‚

      • Sony was contributing here for about two years before launching her site. πŸ™‚

        And I do have to admit that you’ve fit in well where you are. The new site design does look great!

      • Daniel Mount=Ed O’Neal of bloggers

      • πŸ™‚

        I have kept Sony as a steady contributor for over four years now, and I’m hoping to keep both Sony and the Garms family around here for a long, long time yet. πŸ™‚ I’m also fairly confident that my siblings, who blog occasionally, won’t go off and start another site! In other words, YGG is really the only full-blown former contributor, in the sense of focusing all energies on a separate site (though Sony also has a separate site, of course!)