Pablo replies to me:

>Musical criticism is just another literary gender.  It has its own
>aesthetics and one can enjoy it in itself.  It implies, of course, that it
>can be subject of criticism, as every other discourse.  In the worst cases,
>it becomes a branch of soft journalism, and here lies a confusion: a true
>musical critic is not intended to be a public server.

As usual, you make a good point.  But this begs two questions in my mind.

First, to the critics claim to be any more than that.  Would they represent
themselves as experts who should be listened to? Has the world come to
understand them as more than another literary genre.  If one called a
janitor a "custodial engineer" I'm sure he would not correct you and say,
"No, I'm just a janitor"

Second, does anyone criticize the critics.  Here would be a nice website.
A page on the leading music critics that criticizes their critiques when
they are wrong, as it turned out, went over board for some suspicious
reason, showing their background, salaries, and extra curricula activities.
But who would build such a site.  The criticized composers would have no
perceived objectivity, looking like they are just getting even.

Why not, we have a website on everything else.

Bill Pirkle