Writing is half the battle, objectivity is the other half.
If you write JUST about your favourite bands and albums, it's not a review, it's sucking their collective dicks. I just read the Katatonia interview and it seemed more like a fanboy rant about why they're the best band ever, no offense.
You need to show that you're not blinded by your personal love for a band's music to the extent that you aren't pointing out any negatives, or POSSIBLE negatives. Even some of the most perfect albums out there have parts that just don't quite end up being as perfect as the rest of the album. And don't just review your favourite albums. When you get a new album, listen to it as objectively as possible, and then write a review about that album too, whether you loved it, hated it, or thought it fell somewhere in between.
Personally, I think the style of writing is a bit too colloquial. It doesn't have much of a professional sheen about it. Try and keep stuff that implies personal opinion out of a review, and state everything fairly matter of factly in stead. Perhaps rather than saying "I think this is one of the greatest albums of the year" say "This is one of the greatest albums of the year." A small but fundamental difference. After all, if you're looking at a review, you ideally want the opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about, and that sort of confidence in your writing and your opinion to the point where you leave out the "I think"'s puts you in good stead with the reader.
Also try to be more descriptive about the soundscapes and textures of the albun. Adjectives are the key. Make it an interesting read.
Also, song by song reviews are nice 'n all, but if you re-wrote the Katatonia review to be about the same length, but summing up the themes, feel, flow, sound, texture, production blah of the album descriptively as a WHOLE will probably be much more satisfying as a review and as a read.
Hope that helps dude
