A useful music review explains what is working in your song and gives you specific changes to consider. To get the most from it, describe what you’re aiming for and what you can change. That context helps you judge whether a recommendation is worth trying.
RateMySong (RMS) analyzes an uploaded recording and provides scores and written feedback. This guide explains how to give your review context, choose a recommendation and compare a revision. It includes a song created with Songbird, the advice RMS gave us and two edits you can hear.
What to include when you ask for music feedback
Tell the reviewer what you want the song to do. A quiet chorus might suit an intimate acoustic recording; a dance track may need a more pronounced change in energy. Your intention gives the advice something to be judged against.
Include these details in your brief:
- The intended sound. Describe the style and the effect you want, such as a conversational verse and a bigger chorus.
- What you want to keep. Mention a vocal performance, lyric, melody or other choice you’re happy with.
- The files you have. Say whether you can edit separate vocal and instrument tracks or only the finished mix, where those parts are already combined.
- The help you need. Ask what to work on first, or name a section you’re unsure about.
In RMS, you can use Full Review with Deep for feedback across the song and add this context to your request. You’ll find the brief we used in the example below.
How to choose which recommendation to try
A review may suggest several changes. Before starting, check which one addresses something you want to improve and is practical with the files you have.
- Listen to the passage being discussed. Check that you can identify what the review describes. If you can’t hear it, investigate before making the change.
- Check the reason for the suggestion. Decide whether it supports your intention. A recommendation to make a chorus bigger needs to make sense for this song.
- Consider what the edit requires. Adding a harmony needs another vocal part. Changing the length of an introduction may be possible in the finished mix.
- Set a question for the comparison. Write down what you hope the edit will achieve and what it should preserve. Save the starting version so you can compare them.
You can choose a later recommendation if it is more useful for your next session. The example below shows why we did that.
Example: choosing an edit from RMS feedback
“Porch Light On” is a country-pop song about coming home after a difficult week. We wanted conversational verses and a chorus that opens up around the singer. We chose to work with the finished mix and preserve the performance.
Songbird generated the music and vocals. To construct this example, we repeated the opening guitar figure, moving the first lyric from about 12 seconds to roughly 51. We knew what we had changed, but submitted the recording to RMS with a neutral filename and a brief that did not mention the extended opening. We selected this example after several other trials.
Here is the brief we submitted with Full Review and Deep:
Country-pop single with an intimate story and a chorus that lifts. I have the full mix and can edit the structure, but I want to keep this performance. What should I improve first, and preserve? Reply in English.
Listen to the opening of the working mix. Notice how long the guitar plays before the first lyric, and whether that introduction holds your interest.
What RMS recommended
RMS’s first recommendation was to add vocal layers in the bridge, the section leading into the final chorus. Its second was to give a phrase in the chorus more emphasis. Both involved work on individual vocal parts.
Its third recommendation addressed the introduction:
“Test a shorter intro that preserves the acoustic-guitar and piano mood while reaching the first lyric sooner.”
The review explained that the long instrumental opening delayed the story and the main hook. It suggested retaining the strongest guitar figure and the transition into the verse while removing some of the repeated material.
Why we started with the introduction
We could shorten the introduction in the file we had, keep the existing performance and bring the story forward. That made it a practical first test. Our comparison focused on that edit.
The question for the comparison was whether the shorter introduction still gave the song enough time to establish its mood.
What we changed
The first cut removed about 30 seconds of repeated guitar, leaving one extra repetition. The second removed all 39.9 seconds we had added, restoring the original Songbird introduction. The performance, mix and ending stayed the same.
Compare the two openings below. Both start at the beginning and use the same volume adjustment. Listen for whether the extra guitar repetition adds anything you miss in the shorter version.
When does the story begin?
Working mix · same playback gain
Switching restarts the opening. Listen for the first lyric and how much instrumental setup you want before it.
The shorter cut brings the first lyric forward by about 40 seconds. Whether that is a better opening depends on the listening comparison. We have not tested which version listeners prefer.
Listen to all three complete versions
How to interpret the scores after a revision
All three versions were rated against RMS’s Country benchmark:
| Version | Change to the opening | Overall score |
|---|---|---|
| Working mix | Extended introduction | 67 |
| First cut | Removed about 30 seconds | 68 |
| Shorter cut | Removed all 39.9 added seconds | 70 |
The higher score does not establish that the shorter introduction is better. RMS scores excerpts selected by their position in the recording. Shortening the file changes which passages are selected, so the score difference may partly reflect different material being assessed. We have not separated that effect from any musical improvement. RMS’s revision assessment also left the pacing goal inconclusive.
For this comparison, the listening question remains whether the song reaches its story sooner while keeping enough of the opening atmosphere. The scores alone cannot settle that choice.
Get feedback on your music
Upload your recording to RMS, choose Full Review with Deep and add a brief describing your intention and available files. Use the recommendations to choose a specific change you can try and compare with the original.
You’ll need to sign in and have review credits. The app shows the cost before you run the review.
Recording and review notes
Songbird generated the source music and vocals. We assembled the extended opening and made the cuts locally. Four repetitions of the first ten seconds, joined with 25 ms crossfades, added 39.9 seconds. We reduced every version by 3 dB to leave headroom. The cuts removed 29.925 and 39.9 seconds respectively. Sample checks confirm that the final rated version contains the whole original decoded recording at that gain. Listening copies use a further shared gain and identical MP3 encoding. The comparison plays the first 75 seconds of each version.
We’ve kept the earlier EQ, arrangement, vocal-balance and reverb trials in our private research records. A preliminary submission of this opening used a descriptive filename. We excluded it from the diagnosis claim and submitted the same audio once more with a neutral name, before reading its recommendations. Both scored 67. The neutral-name review supplied the quoted suggestion before either cut was made.
The final factor scores were mixed: Hit Potential moved from 48 to 54, Sound Quality from 95 to 94, and Broad Appeal from 76 to 71. These are model scores. The first-cut comparison also described mix changes that our checks of the audio do not support. Songbird’s listening checks differed on some timestamps and the ending, which is unchanged. No audience test or owner music review has established a preferred version. This selected example does not show how reliably RMS identifies issues across other recordings.