How We Write Music Reviews

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin

The first thing we do is listen. It’s a pretty important step (we assure you, not everyone does this). But ours takes a little longer, we try to digest projects properly before making any definitive statements about them.

Of course, once a song drops, we talk about it on our group chat or maybe tweet about it. We take this time to gauge initial reactions. However, we understand that projects need around 10-15 days of constant plays to really appreciate. If we preview a project before it drops, our response time is a little quicker. Sometimes, projects require a little research.

Our reviews typically offer insights. We do not write take-down pieces. We understand the hard work behind the creative process— a few of us have been there. We do “Track by Track” reviews where we feel a project is important for the culture. We also understand that art improves through criticism, we do ours constructively (in a bid to improve subsequent releases).

Here’s a breakdown of what our rating system means for projects:

4.5-5— Legendary

4.0-4.4— Peerless

3.5-3.9— Impressive

3.0-3.4— Average

2.0-2.9— Poor

0-1.9— Stinker

In Legendary, you’ll find projects that are heads and shoulders above everyone and everything else. Peerless offerings are better than 95% but fall short of “Legendary” status. Impressive projects are definitely worth the try. Average projects could have been better. Poor and Stinker, are used to classify projects that aren’t very memorable.

You too can rate projects (we told you this on Medium). Just tap the exact star rating it deserves— your vote gets recorded instantly. The more votes a project gets, the higher it ranks on TXT. You can also suggest projects for us to rate. Do it for the culture.

Your friends,
TXT Mag.


Written By

Don’t take me too seriously, all I have is facts.

More From TXT

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x