now this is interesting. don't really know how it would work out. with books i sort of mistrust critcs not so much because i think they 'know it all' but because many times it seems like they've read so much that they're only interested in...uh....complexity. for me, the best reviews are ones that show the review to be in love with music. maybe the best example of this (from the past) is Lester Bangs. gees, i just loved his reviews when i was a kid. i didn't always know where he was going with something...but it was a fun ride. and really, i just want to know what the damned recording sounds like....not whether so and so is a 'master'. the reviews i like the least are the snotty ones...where you just know that the reviews hates, say Dave Douglas, and always has. i mean, what's the point?
If music had something like the NEW YORK TIMES REVIEW OF BOOKS, where the reviews were written by people with actual hands-on experience in the field the book in question douments, it would likely balance things out a bit (example: Teller -- the guy from Penn and -- reviewing the latest Houdini bio).
-- Mark Saleski - marks@foliage.com | http://www.foliage.com/~marks "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell