Publishing our standards means you can hold us to them. Here they are.
No numerical scores
A number invites argument about the number instead of the record. We would rather write a paragraph you disagree with than a decimal you fight about. Every review ends with a plain statement of who we think the record is for.
We say where we started
Reviewers disclose their prior relationship with an artist’s work — long-time listener, first exposure, previously unimpressed. Reviews are not objective and pretending otherwise is the dishonest part. Knowing the writer’s starting position tells you how to weigh what follows.
No coverage-for-access trades
We do not agree to a tone, an angle, or a publication date in exchange for early access or interviews. If a condition like that is attached, we say so in the piece or we do not run it.
Community reviews sit alongside ours
Any member can post a review to the forum, and a well-argued member review gets promoted to the front page with credit. Karma is not editorial control — we do not run something because it was popular — but we read what the community writes and we say when it changed our minds.
Corrections are visible
Factual errors get corrected in place with a dated note at the bottom. We do not quietly edit and move on. If we got something wrong about a credit, a date or a sample, tell us in the forum and we will fix it and say we did.