Hopefully by now you’ve figured out what’s going on here. In this segment we’ll be cross checking different staffers’ approaches to putting words together. Maybe you’re a budding reviewer, on the cusp of greatness, searching for that piece of the puzzle lost on the floor or maybe your mum just logged you on to the household’s singular trusty laptop and you don’t know what to do with your fifteen minute screen allowance before the older sibling demands the computer for…research? Either way, close that incognito tab and let’s deep dive into “how to write a review.” More seriously though, I was out hiking the other day and we found a guy stuck down a well. No, not the Batman kid. His name is Johnny and he sweeps legs. We told him we’d help get him out or toss down a roast chicken (just one of these, not both) if he answered a couple silly questions first.

First off. Who are you and how did you get here? If this does not conform; what are you?

I am a tall body in the back of a black van and I am asking many questions with my hands right now.

Is there anyone on this site you share high percentage tastes with? Well, enough to have a signature handshake with?

Are you trying to infiltrate my harem?

Ah, no. Call it a professional curiosity.

Well then, this being a bona fide *music site*, there are loads of people I have enough overlap with to tune into and ask recs from! But, uh:

Milo and I usually have the same taste in good music.

Jesper and I usually have the same taste in bad music.

dedex and I have both had sloppy seconds from yesterday’s Sputcore, which more a awkward locker room side glance more than a consummate handshake.

pizzamachine has no taste, good or bad, and there is therefore a high percentage of things I know I won’t review that he will if prompted.

Anyone on Staff who doesn’t indiscriminately rep emo/indie folk/alt rock/pop punk/country pop/flavour-of-the-week metal(core) is welcome to a handshake any time.

Guess I’ll just leave this hand in my pocket then lol

I often wish I spent less time tuned into whichsoever whatever rabbit holes, and more listening to specific parts of the the userbase, especially for electronic. AnimalsAsSummit, Avagantamos, Ryus and normandogtagon are obviously iconic staples of that branch of Sput, but there are lesser-known users like izakaya and myri14 who I’m always glad to see stuff from. Post more and write reviews, you lazes!

How many reviews do you have on this site? No, disregard that. How many reviews are you truly proud of?

Cheap answer: the DJ Sabrina The Teenage DJ – Charmed review is easily one of the best pieces ever published on this site, but I can’t take credit for that beyond editing and coaxing out other contributors’ genius. It’s been an honour, pals.

Beyond that, I dunno – I’m proud of most things I’ve done that engage with cultural or language barriers, or anything unapologetically negative, even if the review isn’t perfect. There’s a lot of stuff I’m proud of because it serves a function, but wish I’d gone about differently. 

But as for reviews where I was actually completely happy, uh: Pinkshinyultrablast, Carnage, Glitch Princess, Amamoyou, The Book, Once Twice Melody, Everyday Life and I guess God’s Country and Midnights spring to mind. Maybe i85mixx21-22 from this time last year, but that had so much to unpack and I’m not sure that I nailed it. l0v3L3$$R0BxT and Dawn of The Final Hour were really satisfying writes this year, and I was fairly happy with my Dream Dolphin and John Zorn pieces – those had a heavy informative burden, and it’s rough rolling with that that without locking your reader into a labyrinth. I’m kinda proud of my Homephone TE review for a similar reason, but in hindsight it felt like a work-in-progress (and there’s a lot I’d add now)! 

From older stuff, Tenkibashira was such a fun pseudo-collab that it somehow made that whole Tentenko phase retroactively worthwhile (thanx Milo). Yamane was a surprisingly cathartic (accidental) one-and-done MarsKid review. That’s most of it? Throw everything from this and the previous paragraph into a box along with everything on Ichiko Aoba, the three most recent Seiko Oomori LPs and ofc DJ Sabrina; I could forget the rest. 

It’s probably self-congratulatory to cite so many, but consider the bodycount left from ye olde 315-review corpus: that’s a 7.6% KEEP rate.

That said, fuck it, Cloud Rat. And Chemtrails.

That Chemtrails?

Happened. It was fun, it was scary, and then it was fun again. I’m glad that Youtube no longer displays thumbs-down reactions publicly – my channel took a hit there.

Do you have a style? Explain it in words easy enough for a simpleton to follow please.

I dunno, probably. The way I look at language is consistent, at least – I think very actively about lexis and syntax and turns of phrase (original or citational) when I write, but that’s mainly out of a desire to avoid saying the same thing twice, wherever possible.

By that token, I try to avoid writing the same review twice. Music journalism is formulaic and very boring if you let it be, and this is dangerous because most of its formulas kinda work. I didn’t realise this at first – I just went with whatever felt best without worrying too much, and it was only after writing a pretty substantial amount that I started to realise what my patterns were and how I felt about them. The model that I guess became my comfort zone goes along the lines of:

1. Contextual intro
2. The Shape Of The Record
3. Analysis of one or two defining moments
4. (Optional: significant flaws and/or saving graces that don’t define the record as a whole)
5. Wider significance of record and/or At The End Of The Day It Be This Way…

…though I’ve been drawn more and more to a 2-para structure that affords (1) the same space as before and compresses (2)-thru-(5) into one paragraph.

Patterns suck though. Or, they’re maybe reflections of a useful approach, but you don’t want to be defined by them – take control of that shit. There are three main variables that I end up playing with to keep things fresh and avoid retreading too many of the same steps. These will probably be old hat to a lot of writer-readers, but since this is meant to be more of a guide than an interview(?), let’s go:

Scope: What is the review doing? Is it a (hi)story or an analysis or an argument or a satire or a promotional piece, or some combination of any/all? Who am I hoping to convince/inform/entertain (and in what balance)? Should it have any specific bearing that I’m the one writing – do my platform and/or personal voice factor in? What ultimately matters most about the record? Am I describing the music or reflecting it or amplifying it or providing a framing for it? Answering any/all of those questions gives me a really helpful sense of clarity from the get-go, and feeling confident that you’re reviewing each record for its own specific reason definitely raises the odds of you doing something fresh each time.

Register: Once I’m clear on exactly what I’m writing, the fun part comes in and I get to choose how. This part comes the most naturally and is usually a direct answer to how seriously I take the record/artist/target audience (which has surprisingly little correlation with how much I respect them). From there, questions of personability, formality, (ir)reverence and forms of address come up and resolve themselves in short order. The record dictates most of this, and since every record is (uh) different, I end up getting to play with all kinds of different tones.

Structure: Structure has never been my strong point, and I’ve got a bad habit of leaving it til last (which usually means defaulting to the comfort-zone template overhead), but I’ve started to appreciate more and more just how much impact and excitement structural decisions can pack if you make them creatively and early! I find it hard to find possibilities that really work, but often have the easiest time writing when I get there. Like, I stalled for days on the new Lana del Rey because the record bored me and the thought of going through the motions just to get my thoughts down bored me even more – but all it took in the end was the idea of a super simple, circuitous structure that basically ignored the need for an intro/development/conclusion and just parrotted everything I found facetious and hackneyed about the album title (and persona(lity) underpinning it); everything just fell right out of my head and onto the page.
Radical (well-reasoned!) structural chances force you to break your habits, learn how to write again and ultimately appreciate which parts of what-you-normally-do are worth conserving. It makes me think of something the great Winesburgohio once said: u should write like it’s your first time writing. Let it capture that ineffable energy, ambition, promise. There’s something about first novels that just crackle with energy even through flaws. After that a kind of caution sets in. If you’re good, you should always feel ok about throwing that caution to the wind. Amen.

Abuse a thesaurus for me.

Yay! Abuse>misemploy>flub>blunder>blow>vibrate>throb>pound = cash money. 

Thesauruses are wonderful and everyone should feel good about using them – but!!! I also think it’s extremely dangerous to diversify your vocabulary for its own sake. Every choice you make in a review should be coordinated to produce a coherent snapshot of either the music in question or the headspace it induced in you; every nuance of every word should be tailored to this end. It’s usually obvious when someone is spamming out a wide lexical range without this in mind. Proper thesaurus abuse is like mixed metaphors on a word level. It reads like mud.

Tbh I barely ever use a thesaurus to find full synonyms (although there are definitely cases when I’m wary of overusing a word) – most of the time, at least once or twice per review, I’ll think of a word that kinda works but know that there’s something better that fills the slot with a more cogent nuance. Out comes the thesaurus: 90% of everything gets immediately ignored, and then I usually go one or two clicks further into the wordfield until whatever I’m looking for jumps out. If it still isn’t happening, I go back and restructure the clause to use a different part of speech. 

Occasionally thesauruses remind me of great underused words (cosset is a recent highlight), but usually they’re just shortcuts to find what anyone would have agreed was the best fit to begin with. I don’t think I’ve ever learned and remembered a new word from one. Words and new words are great though! I remember there being some consternation over my use of hagiofication re. GY!BE, which tbqh was taking the piss in the knowledge of Latin grammar it presumed in its readerbase, but for the most part I think colourful words and evocative specificity are great, as there’s obvious context signposting what those words mean by itself. Don’t get these from the thesaurus though – learn them from books! Or anywhere where their past life is clear and alive. 

How relevant is a music reviewer these days, before and after release day?

There’s a near-infinite amount of content you could be listening to at any given point, and critics still have a pretty significant role gatekeeping what gets attention; their audience’s main variable has just shifted from limited LP funds to limited binge time and/or attention. 

Some critics enjoy the Fantano treatment and can popularise whatever obscure albums they so please, but most of us are only as relevant as the records we cover, try as we might to bring off-map stuff to attention. That puts special emphasis on whatever we do before release day, where we kinda end up as a part of the record’s early history (however briefly) – that’s a big part of why I only take promos for records I’m excited for and expect to like.

Is that often?

No lol, but that’s more because I’m rarely organised enough to both dib hopefully-good records with a good chance of a promo ahead of time and remember to ask for a promo. The hoops, man…

Spaghetti thrown on a wall or a verbiage Sledgehammer? Which one are you? 

Paha, depends who’s reading. Like I said for the thesaurus question, I think every part of a review should be in some way coordinated with every other, which is all well and good in my head, but it’s about making those links obvious enough for whoever you imagine/care about reading to Get It. There is a time and place for disgruntled spam (hello Periphery, Loathe and Car Bomb; new Deftones when?), but most of the time you should be knocking on people’s doors rather than shitting on their porches.

Take a look to the left and right of your class for me. Is there a style here that you think reviewers on this site (and elsewhere) should emulate more? Why? What sets this writer or style apart, above or in the next pay grade?

Oh damn! Well, first up I think that Sput writing is in probably the best place that it has ever been since I joined. Really impressed with some of our new contribs and certain user reviewers who have popped up out of absolutely nowhere. Staff is, honestly, kinda overstaffed to the point that it’s harder to keep track of things than I’m used to, but the standard has definitely been ratcheted up over time, even if we are short a couple of exceptional old hands. 

So, where to look? We’ve got a decent spread of archetypes on the go. Depends what your vibe is – if you’re into chipper irreverence and amiable Gonzo dabblings, Milo and Asleep are keeping that in fine vogue (as it should well be – love yous); if you prefer a more measured approach full of seemingly casual moments of striking insight, you should study Blush, granite and robertsona; if you want to hype records so corny that they can only be rendered tolerable by the most burgeoning heights of heartsomeness, read Rowan and Sowing; if you hate reading, read Jesper. That lot are all accomplished at what they do and should give you the right kind of launch pad. 

The writer we should all be taking notes from right now, though, is Kompys. Their pieces are thoughtful as all hell, their presentation of relevant context is impeccable, their humour is pronounced but never overbearing, and they have the best grasp of figurative language of any active Staffer since Wines or Jots. Read Kompys. Write like Kompys – you won’t, but you’ll be better for trying.

On the other end of the scale without naming fingers or pointing names do you think there’s something professional reviewers should be stepping away from? I mean you could be really, really vague here but throw someone under the bus perhaps?

Hmm no names no names, that makes things difficult (especially since I can’t just cite every single Iai review ever – truly the ajcollins15 of og Staff). Well. Hmm. I definitely see reviewers where I feel like I get through one review and I’ve read them all. Y’know the beat:

1. Regurgitate the press release (or similar) for a Wikipedia-style context summary of the band/album
2. Album sounds like X and the good bits are Y 
3. The bad bits are Z
4. Album still sounds like X

Like, I’ve already had enough conversations with Chat GBT thank you very much. If you’re going to recycle the same structure and style and voice between everything you write, please develop enough personality to tide things over. If the ‘good bits’ are riffs and the press release is a laborious unpacking of some putatively esoteric Latinate album title, odds are your clientele are not accustomed to flair and you’ll blow their damn minds with even the faintest whiff of it (as I’m sure you, dear Gnocchi, are well aware).

I like how you’ve name-dropped me in the “under the bus” section haha.

Not at all lol, I meant that I’ve felt spark in your recent pieces and feel that this has made its mark! There are a load of more specific tropes in metal reviews that I could talk about, but I’m going to hide them away for a standalone blogpost. 

There’s also the other, (usually) indie-schmindie end of the spectrum: writers who place emphatic weight on their own emotional responses. There’s a time and place for this, but – call me cynical – if I see the same writer double down on the same emotional maximalism time after time, I’ll phase right out. Gives me a similar ick to those Youtube reaction videos where you flat-out stop caring about where the authenticity starts and ends because the whole deal seems so overdone. Don’t be a hyperbolic yes-man, especially if your attempts at emotional depth just scan as an index of the most superficial parts of the record’s vibe or subject matter. Like – that record touted as nostalgic by the band, the Bandcamp description and a hundred Rateyourmusic reviews made you feel …homesick? That Covid record made you think about …isolation? Keep up the damn blog, kiddo.

Some writers are talented enough to develop the kind of personal narratives that ground this (Wines and Dewi spring to mind), but the risks are real. Bad or, worse, bland diarism is just the worst (and I’ve been as guilty of this as anyone). Please have mercy – I’ll end up resenting your prose and hating myself for it. This isn’t a fingerpoint at anyone in particular – it’s more a site-wide tendency that virtually all of us have had a brush with, and it accompanies the same passionate writing impulses that, with a little work, have also produced really wonderful pieces. 

Last and tbh least is the infamous one-paragraph craze. Some of these are absolutely fantastic, most are throwaway whateverness and a cheap shortcut to the features tab. If all you’ve got to show for your listening experience is a short stack of adjectives and a list of 2-3 highlight songs, odds are I’m not going to be mad about investing in the album. Litmus test for these is whether they’re easy reading because they’re succinct and digestible, or because there’s hardly anything to digest.

Your favourite review found in the catacombs of Sputnikmusic’s dusty servers?

Eisley – Room Noises is a legendary internet moment and probably gets my pick. 

GeorgeCostanza’s City of Caterpillar review is a close second. 

Jesper’s Hypomania review would have been my pick if one of the mods hadn’t deleted it in an unprompted fit of cowardice. The January hack was a cover-up.

Ramon et al.’s Angelic 2 The Core collab deserves a mention too – a thoroughly blessed enterprise all round.

And separately, the review that first inspired you to write for Sputnik, become a contributor and eventually become Staff?

Hmm, I started writing because everyone else was doing it and I thought it would make me a ‘deeper’ listener (which maybe isn’t entirely untrue, but lol my first review does not show it). 

When I applied for contrib in 2019, Nick Greer’s stuff formed a large part of what I considered good writing, probably because he was articulate and rigorously flexed an understanding of the technical components of music, which I considered very important at the time for whatever reason. Fripp was by far the active Staff member I most looked up to.

I couldn’t pick a single piece that inspired me to apply for Staff, but from after that time I do remember plane’s blurb for How I’m Feeling Now on the end of year list being a huge inspiration for what I wanted to do going forward. And actually, I did love Chan’s Norman Fucking Rockwell! review from the year before. So much jaded confidence, and so astute – I feel like I’ve read reams on that album at this point, and nothing cuts it down to size like his penultimate paragraph (all respect to Ann Powers). Loved his Big Freeze review too.

Also, this deliciously catty Steve Albini column always gives me a kick when I want writing with bite.

Parting words for new faces, scribes or people who only type using their respective pointer fingers?

Write more, pester more, start trouble, don’t take anything too seriously, don’t take not taking anything too seriously as an excuse to be a prat, get people to proofread your work, make sure they’re not giving you the absolute bare minimum of positive reinforcement, listen to Dream Dolphin when this gets you down. 

Words for everyone else?

Thanks for reading!?

Oh! One thing – more callouts on stuff you don’t like in Staff reviews please! Like, we are fat cats and we do love praise, but please do be a dick and pick your bones if you have any to hand. I don’t see as much of this as I used to (been a hot minute since Trebor.’s State Faults review) and maybe this a good sign, but also a healthy heckle does help a gang grow. None of us give two shits about your disagreements on the music, but if you have a quibble with the way we’ve written, lay it right down.

I wish people were meaner to each other when they proofread (within reason, obviously)! That kind of feedback is so so valuable and can easily be the most important part of anything you write, plus the for-your-eyes-only dynamic is generally the least traumatic place to grow a thicker skin. 

Um okay, peace.

Dewinged MarsKid AsleepInTheBack Tyman Jesper

Follow us on…

Facebook
Twitter