What should I review for a "functional review", and why the hell am I trying so hard with this.

I thought this would be easy, but it's proving to be insanely difficult, I have no idea what kind of review to do, I can't seem to find the passion to review Playgroup Party Mix, even though I am enjoying listening to it. I think My House in Montmartre might be a better choice, but then I think maybe they want a really dispassionate "Trevor Jackson is the man behind Playgroup, yawn fall asleep" type of review and I'm not sure I'm into that.

if yr worried someone will notice just change the names: viz [akufen's] legendary fourth or "symbols" LP...

ok the second bit is a bit jokey (actually not entirely, you're being judged on yr approach not yr opinion)

The important thing is not to get too worked up about your opening. If you decide that you're going to write the best paragraph of music criticism written in the last ten years, then it's going to be another ten years before you get anything written down at all.

As an alternative, why not decide to try and write the worst paragraph of music criticism ever written? Every writer knows the feeling. Once you have something down on the screen in front of you, you can do something with it. It's like putting up some scaffolding. You can say, this looks OK but I can work on it, build on it and make it better.

Of the options, I would agree that the PartyMix CD would be the best - because your readers/audience will already be familiar with the contents. All you then need to do is put it in a new context and explain what Trevor J's done with the raw material, how he's done it and why you think that the end results are successful and worthwhile. It's like the chorus that Mike Love added to "Good Vibrations" - the familiarity of the tracks is a hook which the audience can hold on to while they enjoy the journey.

another thing he does is write a review and then put the words in alphabetical order

(Sorry, I have an aversion to the tendency of some dance reviewers - nobody here - not to mention what the track sounds like, just go, "you'll all have heard this one out, sounds wicked in a club!!! massive breakdown!!!!!" when I am thinking, "b-but I will never hear it in a club because I don't dare go in because I don't look like Julienne-17-gurning-fashion-student in your look-at-my-expensive-top photospread on p6, tell me what it sounds like... rrrr... ahem. Caaaaaalm.)

That thread makes me think of what you say here Rebecca, it's a good point. But I sympathise with that style of reviewing, and god knows I'm sure I've done it a few times. It's just that often, as a result of what SR says in the thread I'm linking, it's better to try and articulate the thoughts of people who already like the record, yourself the reviewer included. I mean it's not ideal but most people never think of why they like a record and so it does have some use, some kind of a "yeah!" response is desirable at least.