you conveniently ignore all the critics who are also musicians, often quite successful ones. this is the case a hell of a lot more often in "niche" musics (folk, jazz) than it is in rock. That generalisation about sarcasm is nothing more than a generalisation.

Dick Miles' original question – is music criticism redundant now that the Internet allows us to easily hear (the majority) of the sort of music covered by music criticism - is a very bad one.

It's inherent absurdity is revealed by the kind of knots you have to tie yourself in just to phrase it - what is the sort of music generally covered by music criticism? Two immense bloody elephants in the room immediately trumpet:

1. The huge preponderence of ONLINE REVIEWS – the Internet has seen an explosion in the popularity of music blogs, online magazines etc
2. the fact that youtube and myspace have, built-in, the facility of commenting upon (or, to use a different word REVIEWING) the content. (Note: the quality of comment is almost always superficial: generally either "AWESOME" or "YOU SUCK" variety)

But there's a million bloody obvious other reasons why it was a lame proposition. Like the fact that criticism doesn't just discuss CDs, for one thing - it covers gigs too, which as independant events, someone online most definitely cannot 'make up their own mind about'. (The idea that music criticism inhibits anyone from making up their own mind is laughable to anyone who doesn't have jelly instead of a brain).

The main reason, that I and others have stated and restated, is that people who LOVE MUSIC like to TALK about it. Christ, this is like wading through treacle.

To anyone reading this who is new to folk music: please don't be put off. We're not all self-patronizing dunces who can't read.