fRoots has some interesting thoughts on this subject in its writers' guidelines. The magazine's had more reason to think this through than most of us, and it sounds like eminently sensible stuff to me.

"Q: So how do I get to be a reviewer and get all those free CDs?
A: Er . . . that's not actually the motivation we seek for in reviewers! However, if you are interested in being considered as a reviewer, first look at our writers' guidelines and then send us some samples of your work along with a brief outline of your areas of interest and expertise. First and foremost, apart from being able to write expressively, our reviewers will be able to say if something is good of its kind or qualified to say why it's not."

And a couple of extracts from those writers' guidelines:

"In fRoots, we call a spade a spade. Readers like the fact that we don't hedge around whether we like things or not, and regularly say that they are more inclined to believe our many enthusiastic endorsements because we pull no punches in cases where things aren't up to scratch. Being neutral about everything does nobody any good. We don't do beige."

"Please remember that you are reviewing the music on that CD; although some background is desirable, we do not want to learn more about the biography of the artist or the reviewer than the item in hand."

"Any musically average CDs, especially if self-released or on imports that are barely available, any straight re-issues or compilations of readily available material (unless significant), any fringe items of marginal musical relevance (however good) and of course all the complete crap should be reviewed in the And The Rest... section. This is a simple listing of artist, title, label and catalogue number plus a snappy, maximum 40 word description. Readers expect savage wit, whether the views are positive or negative. In the And The Rest section, you will be anonymous."

Full copy here: http://www.frootsmag.com/content/about/writeguide/