What I said was that an unfavorable or, even, lukewarm review of an unfamiliar artist is of no service to the artist or the reader. Does anyone think that a new artist's work is going to be bought by someone on the offchance that it might be good? The reality is that without the review, the CD would be unsold in markets where the artist is unknown. That said, to whom is the reviewer speaking? To a market that wasn't about to purchase the product anyway? Of course, a critic should not publish untruths. But why, with all the CDs being made, why does the critic feel the need to review unsatisfactory work?
Column inches are too scarce, too precious to waste on those CDs I find inappropriate or substandard. I get more than enough CDs each month to provide my readers with recomendations. My reviews are as sincere and insightful as anyone's and I am able do write without putting down the efforts of any artist, even those whose work doesn't happen to fit my tastes. Obviously, if I were reviewing nationalally known artists, my reviews would be more general and more critical. In that case, I might well be warning a potential customer about an inferior product. But panning an independant production is exactly what I said it is, an ego trip for the critic.
I have, when asked, given "constructive" criticism to artists about their CDs but I do it privately, out of the sight of their audience. It's the least I can do for those heroic folks who pour their hearts and dollars into these projects. They are worthy of my respect and my support and, if, for some reason, I find their efforts wanting, I can bloody well keep it to myself.