Don Satz writes:

>It's as if their basic view is, "Recordings are not good or bad, just
>different".  I consider that premise of little use and merely a cop-out
>on the reviewer's part.

If the reviewer makes it clear how a recording is different, I can judge it
to be good or bad.  A reviewer's opinion as to whether something is good or
bad is of no use to me unless I know exactly what such a judgement is based
on.

>I much prefer when a reviewer openly states his/her view or bias, then
>moves on to judge the recording based on those views.

So "good" or "bad" really means "I like" or "I don't like"? Again,
regardless of how one labels the categorization, we're talking about
differentiation.

>Another category of reviewer I don't care for are those who gush over any
>recording which is "pretty".

I don't think I've ever read such a review.

len.