1. What does it sound like?
As simple as this should be to accomplish, I’m still amazed at how often I finish a review and find that I have no clue what the album is actually going to sound like. These are generally shorter, capsule-style reviews, which is even a bigger travesty- if you have a few words to describe a fire, you should be able to get across that it’s hot and dangerous, shouldn’t you? I’m not asking for a note-by-note description, but just a general idea of what’s going on, so that Point #2 below is easier to arrive at.
And I will add this- things like "imagine Pavement meeting Richard Hell at Mission of Burma’s house while Joey Ramone makes pizza" are somewhat useful, if only to:
a) let the reader quickly identify bands they like and dislike and then decide if it’s worth reading more of the review, or
b) none of the bands are familiar to me, the reader, so I’ll stop right there. When’s that new Huey Lewis comin’ out anyway?
That being said, these sorts of name-dropping metaphors should be considered frosting, not the whole cake. Use them within the context of other descriptions, don’t make them the focal point of the review. The reader may not have heard of anyone that you name-drop, but may still be interested once they read the rest of the review.
2. Will I, the reader, like it?
People read reviews for a reason- to see if they should check something out themselves. The mere fact that a reviewer likes it is not enough. The review should, again, give a good idea what the album sounds like. Paint a detailed enough picture to give the reader an idea of whether they may like it or not. There’s no way to guarantee success here, of course, but by attempting to answer the question, the writer is at least heading in the right direction.
3. The writer is not smarter than the reader.
Whoop-de-doo, you review records and you owned Bleach well before Nevermind came out, or any of a number of cooler-than-thou touchstones. That doesn’t make you smarter than anyone else. The record reviewer should feel as though he’s helping a buddy out, trying to get them to enjoy some of the great music out there, not looking down his nose at the uninformed public. That should be left to the independent record store clerks.
4. Not everything is good/not everything is bad.
Some music sucks, some music is great, and it’s all a matter of opinion. This should be remembered at all times. Don’t like or hate everything, say how you personally feel about it. As long as the first three points are remembered, this should come across just fine and will probably add to a better understanding of what it sounds like/will I like it.
5. Make the review worth reading.
It’s O.K. to be a smartass, or witty, or to go into great detail on why Brian Wilson is a genius. Make sure that somebody other than yourself will gain from this. Keep the writing interesting. You can describe an album perfectly, but if the review puts the reader to sleep, the reader will assume the same about the album.
That’s my basic guidelines for writing a good review. Please enjoy my future posts in which I inadvertently break these rules one by one.