Two listeners hear the same demo. The first types "hard 🔥" and rates it four stars in nine seconds. The second scrubs back to the drop, writes two sentences about why the vocal disappears under the snare, and rates it three. The second one earns more, and gets asked back.
That's the whole economy in one paragraph. Spins pays for feedback because feedback is the scarce thing — a music feedback app where reviews are one-tap emoji is just a like button with extra steps. So it's worth being specific about what "good" means here, both so you earn well and so the artist on the other end gets something they can use.
Depth is what gets paid
A review that earns is a review an artist can act on. In practice that means three things.
It's specific. Name the element and the moment. "The kick loses definition once the pad comes in" is worth ten times "mix could be tighter." You don't need engineering vocabulary — "the vocal feels buried when the beat gets busy" says the same thing in plain language and lands fine.
It's placed. Pin the note to the second it's about. Timestamped feedback is the single biggest difference between a note an artist reads and a note an artist uses, because they can jump straight to the bar and hear what you heard.
It's balanced. Say what's working, not just what isn't. "The melody in the second half is the best part — I'd get there sooner" is a critique and a compliment doing one job together. Artists act on that. Pure negativity gets dismissed, pure praise gets ignored.
Two or three sentences is plenty. Nobody's asking for an essay — a short note about one real thing beats a long note about nothing.
Listen to the whole thing first
The temptation is to review from the first thirty seconds. Don't. Half of what's wrong with a track is structural, and structure only shows up on a full pass — the second verse that repeats the first, the outro that runs eight bars long, the drop that lands before you've earned it.
You'll also be fairer. Plenty of tracks open unremarkably and turn into something in the last minute. Rating from the intro means rating a different song than the one that exists.
Rate honestly, including the low ones
The star rating is not a tip. It's data — it feeds the charts, it tells artists where they actually sit, and it only works if people use the full range.
A three is not an insult. A three from a listener who explains the three is one of the most valuable things an artist can get. Rating everything four to be nice makes the whole system useless: charts flatten out, and no artist learns anything.
Your ratings carry more weight the longer you review well, so honest scoring compounds in your favour.
What gets flagged
Low-effort reviews don't just earn less — they get flagged, and repeat patterns cost you access to the queue.
- Copy-paste notes. The same "great vibes, keep going" on nine tracks reads as exactly what it is.
- Reviews written without listening. Notes that don't match the track are obvious, especially the ones that reference a drop in a song that doesn't have one.
- Speed-running the queue. Two-minute tracks reviewed in eleven seconds, over and over.
- Personal shots. Critique the track, not the artist. "This is trash" is not feedback, and neither is anything about the person who made it.
- Genre punishment. Rating a drill track two stars because you don't listen to drill isn't honesty, it's noise. Review what it's trying to be.
None of this is about policing tone. Blunt is fine — most producers prefer it. It's about whether there's a real listen behind the note.
The reason it's worth doing properly
Most people on Spins are on both sides of it. You review in the evening, you upload on the weekend. The queue you're reviewing in is the queue your own track lands in, and it's exactly as honest as the reviews going into it.
So the selfish move and the generous one are the same move: write the note you'd want to get back.
Open the review queue and write one note with a timestamp on it. That's the whole skill — the coins follow.