I have read some bad reviews - that doesn't mean they were wrong. I have read some badly-written reviews - that doesn't mean they were wrong.

Most of the reviews I have read appear to give an honest opinion of the event or album. They usually give me an idea of what to expect from the performer, perhaps by comparison to someone else. If they're critical, in most cases they explain why.

If a review makes me interested in a performer, I'll try to find out more about them. Perhaps I'll buy the album - if I'm disappointed, that tells me something about the reviewer as well as the artist, and will help me to judge their reviews in future.

I doubt if there is any one critic who has the power to make or break a performer or an album. If anything, the internet makes it easier to find other opinions.

Should an artist have a right of reply? In general, no - a review is one person's opinion, and who is to say if they're right or wrong? The whole point of reviews is that they are an opinion, and one learns whose opinion one can trust. It is usually obvious if there is some personal vendetta.

If the reviewer makes a factual error, then of course the artist should be able to get that corrected, and in most cases the editor will agree, if it is indeed incorrect and material.