A good music review is nothing more than the following two characteristics: first, a clear stand, and second, accurate writing. The so-called stand is clear, that is, what you write should clearly tell readers your own views, that is, what about this disc and this song: good or bad, any problems, any problems, and how to solve them. In fact, to put it bluntly, music criticism is argumentative, which is taught by primary school teachers. There are three stages in writing argumentative essays: asking questions, analyzing problems and solving problems. Most of the so-called music reviews often fail to ask questions (let alone analyze and solve problems), just list songs and take readers to the garden, and they can't figure out why. Come on, it's not a music review, it's a reflection, it's a running account. Pretending to be objective and ambiguous from beginning to end is equally annoying. You know, no viewpoint or attitude can be absolutely objective, not to mention that the auditory experience in music is absolutely private. As I said before, whether an artist or an artist, first of all, he should subjectively identify with what he is about to have sex with, and subjectively disagree (like is positive identification, dislike is negative identification), which is meaningless, let alone objective analysis. In this case, there is no objectivity in front of art, but the question is whether it can be justified. (See "Beyond Faye Wong, Tell He Yunshi the News-Comment on Lu Qiaoyin's Theory of Evolution" for details. Of course, if you don't express any attitude or opinion, it is probably absolutely objective, but such a music review is meaningless. And the text is accurate. This is the hardest thing to write music reviews. Music is not like movies after all. There are real images to capture. Even if you haven't seen the work in advance, you can restore the relevant plot according to the scenes in your life. Music is not good. It's hard to imagine without previous contact. This time depends on the writer's writing skills. Personally, I hate the works of Prog ××××××××, Ambient××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××× This is not writing a music review, this is pretending to be B. Except for insiders, most readers can't have that much accumulation. If you deliberately want to tell a wider audience what this music is like, you must describe the form clearly in words through rhetorical devices such as description, metaphor and metonymy, so that the audience can suddenly understand. This is much more effective than rambling about listing technical terms. Even if you want to compare some old bands, they should be familiar to everyone and don't need to try to remember them. It's best to add some rhetoric to help you understand your meaning better. In fact, subtle words of innuendo are often more helpful for readers to understand the object of comment than straightforward and seemingly professional sketches. Because, in many cases, what we need for music description is only some kind of feeling and emotion, not its specific characteristics. For example, the broken melon written by Yan Jun. He wrote, "The best day is always autumn. In the evening of the university campus, I walked on the path with a girl in a novel, continuing the youthful dream doomed for an instant, and endured the last love with the shadows of fallen leaves, puddles and fences and a painful memory out of nothing ... and I am your lover, your nothingness. " (Excerpted from Iron Stone) These short lines seem to have nothing to do with the broken melon, but when they are used as the beginning of the broken melon article, people can easily capture the characteristics of the broken melon. This article is not a music review. I'd better kill someone by using the knife. For another example, a friend of mine commented on Cat Power, saying, "Cat Power, who hasn't shown a movie for three years, is more calm and generous, and the new work" The Great "it brings makes people unable to hear the impatience after a pause, just like a full cat, stretching its limbs leisurely in the sun and occasionally throwing one at people close to it. (See Hit Light Music, March 2006, Cats in the Afternoon, Electricity in the Quiet Night —— Comment on Cat Power's Great Works, and The Scattered Ashes. ) a metonymy is much better than moving out of n inexplicable technical terms! If you can do the above two points, there is basically no problem in writing music reviews. But if you want to write a good music review, you have to work harder. Especially the accumulation of auditory experience. Any record is a point on the coordinate, with the abscissa representing the singer and the ordinate representing the music scene. It is impossible to find the correct positioning of records only by knowing that singers don't know the music world (such as fans) or singers don't know the music world (such as some self-righteous professionals). You must listen to classics when commenting on English records. Listening to a hundred so-called indie records is not as valuable as listening to a classic record by Bob Dylan or neil young.