[
I know Tore wrote a guide to or help with writing reviews, but it's now closed and after consultation with him or her, I've decided to try writing my own. In addition to giving tips on writing reviews, as well as other ideas on how to “spice up” your journal, assuming you have one, I'll field questions should anyone have any.
But first, some disclaimers:
1. This is of necessity going to be a long and possibly evolving guide. I'll be adding to it as I go along, but anyone who knows me from my writings will understand this will be long-winded and detailed. So I'll try to encapsulate the important points in headings, so that those who want to can skip my usual waffle (those who want to read it are more than welcome!)
2. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should write their journal, or come across as a know-it-all. This is just a guide, with suggestions and ideas. You are completely free to ignore everything I say here, however the basic stuff like spelling and grammar should be taken on board if you want your journal to be read by others.
So, with all that in mind, off we go!
1. Well, I'd like to start a music journal, but it seems so complicated!
If you're looking at starting up a journal, but are a little daunted by the process, I can help with that. If you have a journal but are unhappy with its structure (or lack of same!), content or direction, perhaps I can be of assistance there too. Having written close to 400 separate album reviews over the last year (I know: I have no life!) I think I'm relatively qualified to put forward some advice and suggestions, and explain how to get the best out of your journal, and make sure others do too.
Of course, this is all my own personal opinion, based on my experiences with my own journal, and everyone is free to do what they like with their journal; no-one is under any obligation whatever to follow the guidelines I'm setting down here, and that's all they are, guidelines. But if you do, you may find that it really improves your journal, gets more readers and garners more interest in what you write, and that writing itself may cease to be a chore and become much more fun.
1a. Album reviews
Looking then at album reviews first, because, let's face it: they're going to be the main staple of anyone's music journal. Most if not all of us started journals because we wanted to share our enjoyment of certain bands with everyone, and that usually comes about by the medium of reviewing their albums. It isn't, of course, the be-all and end-all of a music journal. You can theoretically have anything you like in your journal --- I just recently began discussing my favourite TV shows --- but a large percentage of the time, it's going to be music related in one way or another. Perhaps the link with music is tenuous, but usually there is one. Somewhere.
1a (1): Using the English language
The first point I want to make, and it's an important one, and applies not only to album reviews, but everything you write in your journal, is what I like to call S&G: Spelling and Grammar. Now, some of us are not the world's best spellers, but that's no excuse. I personally am a great speller, always having had an interest in the written English language, but even for someone who finds it hard to spell properly, there are dictionaries (online and in book form: yes, they exist!), spellcheckers which come with virtually every word processing program available and for those who are really stuck/lazy, there's me. I'll be happy to check and correct any spelling or grammar in any articles anyone wants to post. Just send them to me in a PM here or email me at
trollheart@gmail.com.
Spelling is basic, but even at its heart it's simple: you either spell a word correctly or you don't. Grammar is a little more involved, but can actually be more off-putting to a potential reader than bad spelling, although that's also annoying. Bad spelling can sometimes be explained away as someone being in a rush, not double-checking, not understanding the context in which the word they want to spell is being used, or a hundred other reasons. But bad grammar is just laziness and shows a basic refusal to understand what you're writing. And if you're not that bothered, how can you expect someone reading your articles to be?
So try to pay attention both to your spelling and your grammar. Some word processors have built-in grammar checkers too, though I find these are often more a hindrance than a help, as most of them are created in America, and their grammar (and spelling) will often differ from how we use it. But you shouldn't really
need a grammar checker: it should be basic common sense. I mean, which is correct of the two sentences below?
I haven't heard of none of these albums before now
or
I haven't heard of any of these albums before now.
Answer, of course, the second one. Yes, that's a simple example, and grammar can be much more confusing. But again, anyone who is unsure is welcome to send me their work to be checked and, if necessary, corrected.
But spelling can also be a simple matter of thinking things through and taking your time, or looking something up if you're unsure. If you don't know the difference between the usage of “their”, “there” and “they're”, you can really confuse your readership. Similarly, one letter out of place can change the whole meaning of a word, or even sentence. Consider this:
This album is now available from itunes can change, with just one letter, to
This album is not available from itunes. See? And that's more than likely not a spelling error,
per se --- who can't spell “now”, after all? --- but just someone rushing and not taking the time to check their work before submitting it.
One more point: punctuation. Yes, we all have problems with when you use a colon or a semi-colon, but commas and full stops (or as you Americans would have it, periods) should always be used in the correct place. Not enough of the former makes a sentence seem overlong and too many just makes it look silly. But you don't
have to use colons, semi-colons, hyphens etc if you don't want to, as long as you remember to break up your sentences with a least a few commas and end them with a full stop/period.
So, that's enough about spelling and grammar then. But if you master both of these disciplines and use them properly, your piece will look and read a lot more professional, and people will enjoy reading it more.
1a (2): And so it begins....
On to the actual review itself then: what do you need? Well, obviously you need a heading, as Tore points out in his/her original guide. It should consist of, at a minimum, three main parts, which should really be self-explanatory, but just in case, they are: TITLE OF ALBUM, ARTISTE and YEAR RELEASED. You can switch the first two around if you want --- I usually do it the way shown --- as long as the information is there. So you would have as an example something along the lines of “Script for a jester's tear --- Marillion --- 1983”, to which I would usually add the label, and you can also mention other things like Producer, Studio, anything you want to really, but a word of caution: don't overdo it. Certain information can be divulged within the article; there's no need to have it all in the heading. As a personal rule, I stick to Title/Artiste/Year with Label in brackets, but that's just me. Whatever works for you is good, however once you have your format you should stick to it, as people will expect to see this.
You can then highlight the heading in various colours and fonts, available from the menus at the top left of the “post article” dialogue. I usually highlight the whole heading, then choose Font, Size and Colour. This makes the heading stand out and be very visible. Usually it's expected that either beneath or immediately above the heading you have a picture of the album sleeve, which can be easily retrieved from any online source (Google/Wiki/Yahoo etc). If you're a total beginner (and there's nothing wrong with that) and need a step-by-step guide, click
(How to review an album: music journal step-by-step guide 2012)here, but I won't put the details in the main thread so as not to bore those who have done this sort of thing a hundred times and know it inside out.
I normally then start with a brief introduction, either to the band/artiste or the album itself --- the former usually only if this is the first time I have reviewed their material --- perhaps a quick history, or some idea of what contribution the album has made to either the band's own fame or music history in general. Something like, using the above example:
Marillion's debut album, one which helped spark the resurgence of progressive rock in Britain in the eighties, “Script for a jester's tear” remains the standard for prog rock bands even today, and while many compared Marillion to Genesis, there is in fact a world of difference between the two bands.
You don't need to write paragraphs and paragraphs, but a few lines is at least preferred. Of course, you don't have to do this: you could just launch right in describing the album, but I always feel it helps to set the scene for your readers. Remember, just because you love (or hate) the album and know it backwards doesn't necessarily hold true for everyone. Some people will never have heard of, for instance, Marillion, and will want to know who they are, what sort of music they produce, if they're still around and so on, so a basic grounding is never a bad idea.
My other important point to note when writing a review: WIKIPEDIA IS YOUR FRIEND. Of course, no-one wants to read a regurgitated version of what's on Wiki regarding your specific album or artiste; plaigiarism is frowned upon, here as anywhere else, and anyway it's lazy. If all you're going to do is copy-and-paste someone else's article, what right have you to call that review your own? But you can use the information in the Wiki article to flesh out yours. You can, for instance, find out about the band or artiste --- details you perhaps were unaware of --- and you can also get a proper tracklisting, see who plays what, who writes what, what chart position, if any, the album attained, and so on. There are also often interesting little anecdotes pertinent to the album or band or artiste in these articles, which will help bring life and character to your review. Just remember: if you copy anything verbatim from Wiki you MUST advise your readers this is the case. Quotes are fine, but reference them.
I personally find Wiki a huge knowledge and research resource, and almost every album I review, no matter how well I know it, I find out more about when I look for it on Wiki. Another good source is Discogs (
www.discogs.com), where you can get the liner notes or additional information on many albums, although it is by no means a complete resource. You can also use Wiki as the source for the image of the album you are reviewing, as shown in the step-by-step guide. If there is no picture available, try Googling it under images; there's usually something out there.
1a(3): Duh, what should I write?
How do you actually review your album though, now that you've got past the heading? Well, the short answer is there is no particular or standard way to do this. I personally tend to write a short (or sometimes not so short!) introduction, often bringing in elements from my own personal association with the music being reviewed --- for instance, it might be the first time I got into the band, could be the first album I bought, etc --- and then go through the album track-by-track, with a wrap-up usually at the end, but that's just me. I often quote lyrics, of which more later; some people do not.
Many people do an overview of the album, referring to certain tracks to make their point, eg
Pink Floyd's “Dark side of the moon” is a classic album, with a mixture of powerful, expressive instrumentals like “On the run” and “Any colour you like” and stone classics like “Time” and “Money”... all of which can be expanded upon, or not, if you prefer. Then sometimes people will just pick a few tracks to concentrate on.
You can do it any way you like. I run a section in my journal called “The 200-word album review”, which, as its name suggests, tries to review an album in two hundred words. With a restriction like that, there's no way you're going to be able to go track by track, and that's a challenge I set myself, which I enjoy. But there's no reason you should do that too (I have it copyrighted, by the way!
) --- whatever method suits you is the way you should do your review. Whatever's comfortable. Don't try to emulate someone else's style, as it is, after all,
their style, and you'll just come over as trying to copy them. Develop your own, make it yours.
Next time I'll discuss how to structure your review --- well, how you CAN structure it, if you want to do what I do --- and how to make it interesting to read as well as accurate. Until then, feel free to leave any comments, questions or indeed articles you want spellchecked or grammar-checked.