I had this thought wondering who made better/more compelling reviews. Musicians or non-musicians. Musicians reviewing other bands means theyve got an understanding of how the record was put together, use the correct musical terms and usually have an understanding and respect of what the band was trying to set out to do - even if they didn't quite achieve that. Meanwhile non-musicians are usually more creative when it comes to ways to describe a sound or idea and can help engage readers. Is there a preference for both readers and bands trying to get their record reviewed?