Legendary music critic Lester Bangs. (Image via skirmishblog.net)
Reviewing an album is an art form in and of itself. With less print and more digital media in the music space, the review itself has changed. Some reviewers are music critics, people who review the music, well, critically and analytically. Others are music writers, who write about what they like and effectively describe what it sounds like while documenting a scene, style, or niche.
All music journalists have different methods for writing reviews. Some scribble notes on a pad. Others make notes on their smartphones while listening. Some have resorted to writing something positive so it gets shared on the artist's social media pages to increase traffic. Sad, but true, and also indicative of the world in which we live. But generally, here's how music journalists review albums.
We listen
Because, duh. We listen to the music that has been presented, and then point out what we do and don't like about what we're hearing. That's the process boiled down to its most base parts.
We read bios and press kits
Personally, I don't rely on bios or press kits to write a review. I don't want my review to be too clouded or colored by other people's language or marketing jargon. I will use those materials for fact-checking (singer's name? producer? fourth album?), but not as a crutch on which to base or influence my review. Others will read accompanying materials, so they know what expect or to look for going in.
We try to listen without bias and place it in context
From bios to bias! A lot of music writers will try to listen without bias. We will try to analyze what we hear and relay it to the reader by placing it in a context as well. We will look to the artist's catalog for where it fits and how it relates/compares, what's new or different, and what stands out; we'll also review with understanding of the artist's peers. This is the service being done for the reader, who will then decide whether or not to listen or purchase from that point on. The one-time nature of the music reviewer was that he or she was someone to be trusted, based on credentials.
We try to speak informatively
Music writers are considered experts in the field. Or at least they should be, thanks to years of bylines and experience with listening to and talking to bands. They should be able to speak about albums with an informed notion. Yes, a lot of reviews are opinion-based, but where that opinion gets its merit is based on the writer's credentials and history.
We keep the reader in mind
When I was writing a weekly column for a trade magazine, I used to keep my readers in mind. I may not have loved the album I was writing about, but my readers looked to me to get the scoop and the breakdown in bite-sized form. So I had to look for the strengths, point those out, and be of service.
A music review is meant to be a service so the reader or fan can get a sense of the record before hearing it, and either use it as a guide to know what to expect or use it as a deciding factor on whether or not to buy the music being reviewed.
Learn more about how to impress music journalists in our "Ask a Music Journalist" series.
Amy Sciarretto has 20 years of print and online bylines, from Kerrang to Spin.com to Revolver to Bustle, covering music, beauty, and fashion. After 12 years doing radio and publicity at Roadrunner Records, she now fronts Atom Splitter PR, her own boutique PR firm, which has over 30 clients. She also is active in animal charity and rescue.
