See I'm a bit mixed on that one, reason being possibly I've been reviewing stuff for various zines and shit for the past 15 years or so, some of that "work" even helping make ends meet (I do some freelance now and then for a "mainstream" metal/goth/whatever magazine). I would agree that most reviews aren't worth the rope that should serve to hang the reviewer, including mine as I put close to zero effort into that sellout job stuff. And so-called "objective", descriptive reviews piling up metaphors and adjectives are completely useless. On the other hand, I find that on occasions, reviews are a nice tool to spread the word on buried gems, or on the contrary tone down the mob wanking on overpraised albums. I don't know, maybe it's just a case of sometimes connecting with the reviewer's style and taste more than with the review itself. In the end it's you and the music and "listen for yourself" and whatnot but I'll always be more attracted to a record (or disc) in the first place reading a well-written and/or funny review, preferably in a print zine than being drowned under random fagspace/facebuck/jewcamp links of the latest Internet hype. And of course reviews by dudes like NAD are always the best. Anyway, I don't even remember why I opened this post. The generic review hatred I just find puzzling, is all.