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 (wwwdiscogs.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.

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.

Thanks guys! Sticky away if you can, I don't know how.

Thanks for the positive comments!