How does a good review look like?

But I am not a senior "prog reviewer", so what do I know?

I agree, and I have written few music reviews.

I tend to favour fairly concise yet informative ones. For interest I often do like some humour sprinkled in, and individuality in the writing.  Most important to me is that it describes the music, mentions key "favourite" tracks if applicable (since I might check out a track before listening to the full album), talks about the styles of music on display, and references it to similar music (similar bands/artists and albums).  Good reference points are very important to me.  This can help me not only to find if I might like this album, but to discover similar music if I already know the album being reviewed.  "Similar to and reminds me of" can be very useful to me, and is often what I am looking for.

As for what I don't like: Don't tell me that I should buy or value the album; avoid hyperbole (unless for humour); generally avoid spending much time justifying the rating, and avoid making subjective claims as if they were objective truths.  Ones that seem to confuse subjective appraisals with objective truth can be really off-putting to me.  I generally don't like to be told that I should like something, except if direct and specific comparisons are being made, and even then I prefer such statements to be qualified.  "This album may appeal to those who enjoy x, y, and z" is the kind of thing I like.  Also I prefer those that say more about the music qualities themselves than how much the reviewer likes the album.  

Describe the music itself more than your feelings about the music....  Various of my favourite write-ups describe the music very well, give interesting background and make associations, while avoiding subjective appraisals of the value of the music.

That said, there is no one type of review I like ,and I like to see a variety of approaches and styles.

This, I think, answers the thread's question. 

I am afraid I have sometimes overstated things in reviews ("hyperbole", as you say), though that's usually what I usually genuinely feel. Perhaps it's because I tend only to review albums I like, for example, every review I have written on this site is either 4 stars or 5 (though I did a 3 star one that isn't on the site's database yet), because most of them are modern prog, an area of prog I like and am very interested in. Other than that my reviews are all of old albums that are my favourites - Moving Pictures and Dark Side of the Moon, and my 5 star Duke rating (words cannot describe Duke ). Do people generally only review albums they like, so to see if others agree, or review anything they have an opinion on, good or bad?

FatherChristmas wrote: ^Like I said, I always put that in - my personal feelings on the album. So I'm probably the Daily Mail of reviewers.

Hahaha

But your reviews are quite comprehensive, so...

I guess it comes down to finding your own way of writing them.

Absolutely, and if they all were done the same that would be really boring to me.  Vive la difference.

One thing I will add is that sometimes people review albums of a style that they despise, and often ignorance of the musical idiom is displayed.  People write better about that which they both know and "understand" (that really should be clarified since we are into fairly deep epistemological waters now).  If one is, say, unfamiliar with and has no appreciation for similar music, then it is much more likely that the person will not be able to share more than their feelings/distaste and make poor associations instead of comparing it to music that is similar and judging it against other music of its ilk.

Some complain that too many people here give too high ratings, but that's because people are more likely to review music that they really appreciate and feel that they "get", and in my case have listened to again and again and again.  I wouldn't want to review music of a style that I don't appreciate and am not very familiar with, and feel then that often I'd have little to say beyond "I don't like it." If, say, someone reviews Tangerine Dream, and has little experience with and knowledge of progressive Electronic Music, then it's probably not going to come across as a well-informed, instructive or balanced review.  I'd much sooner read about the benefits, hazards, efficacy of a vaccine by, say, a well-respected virologist/ immunologist/ medical expert than, say, someone who has not studied such things.  The more familiar with the subject, then the more one is likely to have to say about it.  Now that doesn't mean that a fanboy or fangirl is necessarily going to be informative instead of just gushing. 

And Father Christmas, the reviews I read of yours I thought were good.  I think that my band bios have been better-written than my reviews.

It's really hard to say, since all my reviews, specially in film (over 500 of them over 30 years!), since for me it is all about my reaction and WHY.  So, in that sense, they are VERY PERSONAL, and the funny thing is how many times several of my reviews have been referred to in a couple of Film Festivals.

My reviews, here, are few ... and I stopped doing them, because the listing of the albums is an incredible list of bad stuff, and in some cases false/fake releases by who knows what/where, that is likely to be an attempt at selling some of the albums, without having any kind of permission, or legality to it. AT LEAST you don't see that in film, but seeing 14 renditions of the same song in various releases, many of them singles and just included in a best of something stuff, just is not my style of supporting an artist, even though he/she might deserve it ... I was appalled at the listing for one German band, as was the musician himself, but asking PA to change that and remove some of those listings (at the time) was impossible.

We don't need reviews of 17 releases of the same song or album. A remastered or remix is OK with me, but not otherwise unless it is a new compilation that includes new material which is happening with re-releases of a lot of stuff! But both the remastered and remix have to show the differences in the recordings, so we all have a reason to go get it ... but just saying that this or that is better than the original is not enough, and compared to what most folks said ITCOTCK done by someone else is NOT BETTER than the original in my view, as it distorted the visuals and took away the livelihood of the original.

As for the requirements? My own is that I be honest about it, in letting people know how I feel about it! Plain and simple, and there is no method, or format whatsoever ... it is what it is, and how it comes out!