Originally Posted by Zack

In my experience, there are three basic subsets of music reviewers:

1. The trained musician who knows some basic theory, and some impressive terminology, and likes to discuss music as though the end result should be appreciated the same way a municipal building is. Structural integrity, adherence to theoretical norms while simultaneously being innovative- these are analyzed and dissected and snobbed about. Minimal consideration to the beauty, interesting or any meaningful result of music is given. Don't be this guy. He's a jerk. Nobody likes him.

2. The guy with little-to-no musical experience, who just talks about "connection," "symbolism," "speaking to me," "transcending norms," and the rest, but really tells you absolutely nothing about the music aside from whether or not he enjoyed it. Also, the music he reviews is almost certainly relatively bland, just out of the mainstream pop that disguises itself as high art through excessive use of reverb, or through out-of-fashion clothing. You can be this guy, but most people won't take you seriously.

3. The working musician who has played a variety of genres, knows at least basic music theory and so can really talk about what's going on in the music, gets around the music scene, isn't bored by Beethoven and yet also isn't affronted by Lady Gaga, and has a touch of knowledge about most genres. Most importantly, he or she remembers that the theory and form and structure and symbolism and compositional techniques used are extremely important, but that what listeners care about is the effect. His or her reviews tackle music with the language of someone who CAN dissect music, and who DOES know the theoretical and formal terminology, and who WILL use it when appropriate and necessary for descriptive purposes, but the main focus of each review will be detailed description of the aural effect and evaluation of the overall musicality, musicianship, innovation, and accessibility of the music. Be this guy.

So, my personal requirements for a good review:

a. A good music reviewer should be a musician. It's just hard to say much that's very meaningful of you have to say "sounds sad," when what you mean is, "extended minor harmony." Or worse, to say "in minor" when the song or piece actually is just a subdued sounding kind of major. And yes, I have seen that. If you can't identify the most basic of musical elements, and don't even realize that you can't, I have limited faith in the rest of your review.

b. Just because you KNOW the theoretical concepts in the music, doesn't mean you need to prove it to us. Remember that your audience is (hopefully) less musically versed than you. Anyone that will understand what you mean when you say "understood best as a neo-classical, modal interpretation of Schoenberg's concept of roving harmony, mixed with multi-timbral drones in just intonation," will appreciate the info (and if someone told me that, I'd be one that track in a second!) but if most of your readers have to wikipedia five terms and a name to understand your sentence, you'll lose their attention reaaaal fast. Use terminology that explains what's going on in the music, but keep it reader-base appropriate.

c. Draw comparisons to familiar musics by way of explanation, but don't name-drop. The best way to convince someone they'll like some piece of music, is to compare it favorably to something they know and like. The inverse is also true. However, going on and on about niche artists and niche recordings that most people haven't heard, but which make you sound intellectual and well-versed is not going to get you anywhere with readers who have no idea what you're referencing.

d. Remember that the most important components of a review are these:

d1. While remaining accessible, describe the music so that readers get a clear sense of what it might sound like.

d2. Evaluate who well the music achieves whatever it's meant to achieve. If that goal is complex conceptual innovation, fine, talk about that. If it's a dance album, talk about that.

Don't forget these two goals. If you know what you're talking about, and you keep in mind that your readership do not, then in my book, you're on your way to writing good reviews.

Just don't get too caught up in your personal, spiritual connection to the music. That can be part of it, but it tells us zip, aside from whether or not you liked it.

Also, don't use reviews as an excuse to demonstrate your immense technical knowledge. While your vocabulary may be enormous, to use all of it is an enormity.

Originally Posted by Zack

d1. While remaining accessible, describe the music so that readers get a clear sense of what it might sound like.

d2. Evaluate who well the music achieves whatever it's meant to achieve. If that goal is complex conceptual innovation, fine, talk about that. If it's a dance album, talk about that.

Don't forget these two goals. If you know what you're talking about, and you keep in mind that your readership do not, then in my book, you're on your way to writing good reviews.

Originally Posted by Trollheart

I am not a musician, never will be, but I know that and don't try to pretend I am. Nevertheless, I think I'm a decent reviewer and talk about what the music means to me, what I think the musician is trying to say and also try to put their work in context.To say you have to be a musician to be a proper reviewer is quite an insult to those of us who can't play, but certainly know our stuff.

Originally Posted by Dylstew

I especially like it when females hug me.

Originally Posted by grindy

That's gay.

Originally Posted by grindy

That's gay.

Originally Posted by JamesJCage

It is not stuck to any particular genre. I prefer to listen to all types of music.