Say it was a singles collection. If there seems to be a pattern with regards to their release then you can perhaps cover it in such a manner so that you go through each era, allowing you to deal with any changes in direction.

Thanks for all the ideas - maybe I will get round to it sometime soon.

Oh well I just found this.. so.. Usually I do some brief history, track by track analysis and sometimes go over the top with the structure of the song - Im a professional musician so sometimes it doesnt pay to be too analytical - but its good sometimes to wax lyrical of how the songs appeal to YOU - the review is after all being written by you.

Another issue which I don't find with most music reviews is the lack of content with the inlay booklet. Its bonus info by the way, particularly if its a remastered CD or one thats been dropped in price - some CD inlay books have additional lyrics added and glossy photos and its good to read what you get with the music if you concentrate on the...(ahem) package..!

I agree, it's not something I would look out for in a music CD review.

Like anything else, if it's important to your own purchasing decision, then include it. If not, then don't. If you won't buy an album until you've gotten an idea of every single track, then do t-b-t. If you only require an overall view of the album, then write it that way. If something catches your eye, then tell us about it, but don't include it to pad out the word count.

As I said its bonus info which isn't necessarily adding padding to a review but sometimes it makes the review seem a bit more personal rather than a generic track by track. I mean, if you want padding you'll get history by the bucket loads. CD inlays arent' all just pop or rock music based - the classical ones can be quite eye opening at times.

Well I do my CD reviews track by track but I do try and compare the track to rest of the album these days. It helps me because I can figure out what music influences the band has, etc.

As far as knowing what to write, I love music but do not have a very good grasp of music, I just write what I think, I am not a professional music critic, just joe average who likes to listen to commerial music.

Ive read some great music reviews where a track by track wasnt fully worded or had just an adjective inserted! And you can get by on that easily but then the album review also concentrated on its whole position either within the charts, or surrounding the events publically on the time it was released or putting in a whole load of information about styles and info on previous albums making the actual review a bit of a comparison which can sometimes add a little more interest rather than a track by track and that's it.

I started off with track-by-tracks, but I got bored pretty quick. Nows I like starting with a brief bio of the band, and then wandering off, talking about songs, general tone, etc, in a swishy sort of way.
I do think people should talk about all the songs on the album within their review, mind, and you won't get a high rating from me unless you do.

Not sure you need to talk about every song on an album review just as you would not review every chapter of a book or every scene in a film. For the limited number of album reviews I have written I tend to pick out style and theme and cover personal favourites and mention any weakness in the album including any weak tracks.

Track by track reviews just get boring.

Track by track reviews do get boring but people have different tastes. You are better off writing at least something of each track I suggest... I love when reviews speak of everything rather then skipping parts that portray to the writers personal favorites, its useless when I want to read something in particular but the writer skipped it. I must add I have not written a review on a cd but I am a fan of reading the reviews for some tracks.