If it annoys me that reviewers give review scores (yes, I know it makes them easier... and if we didn't have review scores how'd we know what the reviewer thought? try reading the review), it annoys me doubly the way reviewers review. Every hack beings to review certain preconceptions about what the record should sound like; these're generally the things they like about the band. So if the reviewer particularly likes the band's loud, aggressive songs, they'll want an album to sound like that, and however much they disguise it, the review will reflect this.
So thus the review becomes more subjective; rather than a literal ranking of the quality of the work, they're merely telling us how much it fulfilled their own personal expectations.
Even if the album (or whatever) is new, the preconceptions still guide the review. Journos may claim to dislike artists who stick to predictable genres, but often it's artists who refuse to be pigeonholed which suffer most. Writing about music is inherently difficult, because you have to describe a sound to someone, and reviewers like points of reference. Thus it's easy to compare a track by one artist to another, in the hope of giving the reader some idea of the sound. But in doing this, the reviewer is automatically devaluing the music by making it seem less original. Also, genres make it easier to write; how many times has 'grunge' been used to talk about heavy guitar noise, or 'folk' used to talk about acoustic music? I'll give you a clue; lots.
So, basically any artist who doesn't really fit into any category is difficult to write about, and I think that this makes bad reviewers dislike them, however unconsciously; because their style is simply to pick and mix whatever bands or style the artist vaguely sounds similar to, if the music itself does not strictly fit into these categories, the review seems weak, and injecting some bile and critical disgust into it makes it seem more vibrant, when in fact very little is being said of any value. Oscar Wilde said that it is the duty of the critic to translate their impression of beautiful things into words, so the reader can understand the art. Though good music isn't necessarily beautiful, and it can be harsh and jarring while still being great, the principle holds. A critic who fails to give you an impression of what they criticize fails as a critic; and because no decent band ever sounds like the description given by a bad critic, then the criticism fails. Only mediocre bands can be pigeonholed; Feeder can be called grunge, just as Limp Biscuit can be called rap-metal. The Delgados or Sonic Youth can't be called anything except themselves, and the only way they can be described is by somehow capturing an impression of the music itself; simply saying one track sounds a bit like another band achieves nothing, particularly if the reader hasn't heard that other band anyway!
Good reviewers, of course, can write about sound and music without using shitloads of comparisons, and making revolutionary music seem genrified. But there aren't necessarily that many good reviewers around.
