So you are a music blogger who critiques music. Or perhaps, you are a musician who creates music constantly, putting your heart and soul into the melodies you hear in your head, trying to convey to the rest of the world what it is that sets you apart from the rest. this is a noble cause, right? In our minds, this is the zenith of any sort of art: musical expression. However, a problem arises when you become so absorbed in your music (or your idea of what is good music) that you fail to recognize the other voices out there who strive to do the same thing you do. They might not be as experienced, and they might not have the knowledge of music that you do but they deserve a chance – didn’t you?

Writing a music review is a simple and essential part of the world of music. The medium of writing relates so closely to music, and without words, we would have no way of bridging the gap between the musician and his or her audience. Websites, music blogs, online radio, flyers, radio promotions, word of mouth… these are all forms of communication that allow music to follow its natural path. The realm of music reviewing, however, is perhaps the most valuable of all forms for two reasons. First, not only does the music reviewer practice his/her own writing skills, which is essential to anyone who likes to write but it allows both the music reviewer and the reviewed musician to learn, grow, and expand his/her music knowledge and skill. Secondly, music reviews can be written by anyone – whether you are a musician, a music blogger, a music writer, a music journalist or none of the above. you do have to be a fan of music, though!

I believe in the power of communication and realize that it goes hand in hand with a musician’s art. Without the support, where does an artist draw credibility from? The topic of credibility could take up a whole separate article, but it’s important to realize that this is the driving force behind the act (and art) of music reviewing. of course, many times single and album reviews act as gestures of goodwill and companionship between fellow artists and bands. But at the heart of all this, musicians want to know if their direction is working, they want to know if others can connect with their personal musical interpretations. Don’t always equate this to an ego boost, because for the most part, it’s not – it’s merely the natural instinct of the musician.

This said, let’s get into the actual act of reviewing an artist. (I want to preface this by saying that this is my personal approach to reviewing, and is not indicative of how every reviewer approaches their writing). I am sure many of you reading this have experience either with reviewing music, writing music, performing music, and listening to music, but maybe you’ll learn a thing or two about writing a detailed, informative, and helpful music review for an artist.

First, and most importantly, keep in mind that all music reviews should be objective. No musician wants to hear, “I didn’t really like that chord progression,” or, “I don’t like the length of this song.” You do not know what the musician intended when he or she created the music, so don’t assume, and definitely do not tell them how their art should be. Instead, try to remind yourself that all musicians and all listeners are different – what is an ugly chord progression to one is a beautiful, emotional progression to another.

Objectivity is important, and another equally important aspect of writing a music review is comprehensiveness. Listen to the artists’ or bands’ work thoroughly, maybe two or three times. Don’t sit down, put on your headphones, and write your review while you’re listening to the first song you hear. Instead, use those two or three listening periods to get into the music, and to try and see where the artist is trying to take you. Then, reflect momentarily on what you just heard. Was it successful in its approach? Did the artist draw you into his or her world? Were the sounds appropriate, and were they played or programmed well? After you consider these questions, begin your dissertation of their music.

Remember that music is an art and art is an extension of the artist. So, writing up a few sentences about a song that you only gave half of your attention to is equatable to an insult, a slap in the face, if you will. But if you are thorough in your attentiveness and in your writing, you will make a musician a happy person, and you’ll increase your own credibility as a music reviewer.

We’ve talked about being objective and comprehensive, now let’s focus on the third major aspect of reviewing: honesty. Honesty generally refers to telling someone how you truly feel. At first glance, it would appear that honesty and objectivity are antonyms. Can the two elements be fused? absolutely. Being objective (in terms of reviewing) means you explain what you heard – this is for the benefit of those who have not heard the music before. If you are honest, you increase the amount of objective information in the review. For instance, if you notice a certain sound in a song that is off-key and detracts from the overall atmosphere of the piece, engage your honesty by stating, “there is a key at such and such a place that sounds off-key from the rest of the music.” that is not an insult, it is an honest evaluation. Little details like this rely much more on honesty than objectivity. It’s easy to overlook minor problems in a song and even easier to not mention them in objective reports but remember, honesty is an ethical response to a set of variables you are presented with, and to create an ethically sound review, you must be completely honest.

You’re probably thinking, “this guy just contradicted himself.” granted, I did say earlier never to say things like, “I don’t like this and I don’t like that.” even if that is your honest opinion, it is subjective and doesn’t help you, the musician, or the reader. However, there is a big difference between telling an artist that you didn’t like something and telling an artist why he or she may not have succeeded with their work. Again, ask yourself some questions when you’re presented with a difficult situation: why didn’t this particular part of the song work? What elements distract the listener? And probably most important, why don’t I like it? Do I have a standard set of expectations? Am I unfamiliar with this artist and his or her work, and does this alienate me from the style he or she is presenting? All of these questions are vital when you begin to have strong feelings about the music you are listening to.

Of course, this can go both ways – you could praise the artist and focus on how much you like their music. but again, as positive as this is, it is not helpful. Yes, it’s always nice to hear the “I love your music!” bit but, if you are a serious and dedicated musician, chances are you are constantly on the lookout for ways to improve and to expand your sound. A smile is nice, but it doesn’t equal success in the music world.

Hopefully these three major points – objectivity, comprehensiveness, and honesty – have been helpful to you. I do not expect every single person who reads this to go out and give a ten-page review of a random artist, with quotes from 16th-century books and vocabulary derived from college professors. However, at some point in your musical career, you will be faced with the prospect of writing or writing a review, it is guaranteed. I urge all of you to take advantage of the art of music reviewing and use it to benefit everyone involved with the music scene. The more you write about music, the more you learn about it, and music reviewers constantly apply their words to their own music (if they are also artists, that is). It’s a win/win situation, and hopefully, with a little effort, you too can experience the many benefits of a good music review. Happy music reviewing. Fabrik Nos.

P.S: This post originally appeared in Raw42 and has been suitably enhanced and updated to reflect current trends without compromising its original integrity.