In the future I have many plans.

One of these is to write reviews on music CDs.

I know by a track by track is one way of doing this but I don't plan to do it like this, I would like ideas to flow into one another.

What signifies at least a 'Helpful' review in your eyes? Do you feel it is necessary to say something about each of the songs?

I hate track by track reviews. I do not think you have to say something about every song. I think you have to say what you think about the CD overall, perhaps with some songs, or a mention that one or two songs were weaker in the middle, or whatever.....

A track by track review would never make me buy a CD. I think I would review them in the same way as you might see them reviewed in a sunday supplement, and that is definitely not track by track!

I think they should be done as ideas flowing into another. I would be more inclined to rate a track by track review down to H, as these are usually boriing, but would rate a short 600-800 word flowing review VH (assuming there was enough there to warrant that!)

I hate track by tracks as well, though much depends on the style of the music itself. Sometimes a track by track review can be disguised by not separating each track into their own paragraph, but to lump a couple of songs into one and not get descripting like "now comes this, then comes this, and now comes this" unless you really think it important to know (speaking of personal experience as I used to do stuff like that and only do it mostly for major classical reviews these days).

If the music basically consists of a whole rather than parts, then a set of highlights and other important moments are good to know of in more detail, and the lesser bits can be ignored or discussed with less detail.

Also avoid extended quotes of lyrics, as those are really not that interesting to read. Track listings are good to be added at the end of the review, rather than at top or middle. Perhaps a little history of the band/artist/composer, but nothing really over the barrier of it becoming a biography.

And above all, give a clear idea as to what the music sounds, rather than what it is about (instrumentation, playing, anything specific to note of performances or such).

At least that is stuff I always consider when doing music reviews.

Seems you all hate me, lol cos I do them track by track. Its not always the best way I know but its how I like to write them - I sit there with my CD on and write as it plays :-p I'm still perfecting my review writing though, so I'll bare your comments in mind

I think the important things are stuff like, what it sounds like, genre, if a particular instrument stands out, whether it meets the standards met by previous albums by the same artist / in the same genre. Personally I like songs that tell a story, so if a particular track has a particularly meaningful story, summarise it maybe.

I tend to go for a middle ground and that is write about most of the tracks but do so in flowing cohesive lumps of description. Use the various tracks to explain what the music is about and if some tracks seem to cover similar ground don't bother repeating yourself.

Also one thing that many people seem to overlook is the actual music. i have read whole reviews that concentrate on just what the lyrics are about and have little reference to the music. Describe how songs make you feel, music is an emotive force, explain the effect and if all you can say about a song is that its "catchy" or "upbeat" or "good" then go and do something else instead.

Also assume the reader knows nothing at all about the CD (a good tip for any product) and dont resort to its better than album x without a full explaination.

there are some good guides to this sort of thing to be found on ciao and dooyoo in the non-payment areas so its always worth checking them out.

itis weird if you look at themetro you will oly get a paragraphh if you are lucky. Ony major major albums get trak by teck reviews in Q.
I like to know who it might be similar too . Whehter it is ballds or up tempo stuff, genre is imprtan to me as there are genres i am not that keen on I like e the odd lyrics if they are silly or beautiful. i know i quoted a full verse in a an album review buti relly liked th lyic.

i am not keen on full biopgraphies of band.s. there are a couple of people on Cuiao or were on Cuioa who are experts on their fave bands and the reviews are so bio heavy they bore nme.

i actuall read 170 word music review that was rate mostly sH that was rwlly good and told me a lot more than one 10 times the length

I like a review that tells you if the album is worth buying or not analising track by track unfortunately does not do it for me. A long as you review the cd and how the artists perfomance is then it will constituet a very helpful review.

Why is it that when some people quote lyrics, they seem to quote the really naff ones, cringe-making ones, but ones they appear to think say something good about the CD?

Why gives me an idea....what is the most naff lyirc you can think of? I will send this to the banter forum, join me there.....

I always like track by track, it helps me find what you think of each song but I tend to only give VH if each track is mentioned.

I don't think track by track is the end of the world, but it's important to keep talk about the actual music on top. Song lyrics can take on a personal interpretation but I would deal with such matters briefly, along with band history and the like.

I would love to do a music review, but often find it hard to pick out what the instruments are. For example I love the spanish Artist Juanes, but apart from the Guitar and drums I can never work out what the other sounds are. Lisa x

That would be the didgeridoo, hardinger fiddle and the motha'fac'n sax.