I agree with you Paul - if you want to promote a band become a promoter, organize a tour for them or something.

I also think it's a mistake to think that a bad review is worse than no review. I think all publicity is good publicity. (Well, OK, 99.9999% of publicity is good publicity.)

Put it this way: I've bought CDs that had bad reviews. The review made it very clear that the reviewer had diametrically opposite taste to mine: what they considered faults, I considered pluses. I mean, if someone describes something as "unlistenably avant-garde" or "heavy going" or "perhaps one for the purists" or something, I generally prick up my ears: this sounds like my cup of tea!

I'd go further: I don't think a reviewer works for his readers, I think a reviewer works for himself/herself. His sole responsibility to his readers is to write good prose. If more writers started thinking of themselves as writers, rather than music enthusiasts, then the standard of arts journalism would improve dramatically. I don't think it ever occurs to most music writers to ask themselves questions like "how is my writing different to that of other writers?" or "could a reader find re-reading my review exciting and interesting in the way they might re-listening to the album I'm writing about?"

Most simply plump for "this is a great album from one of the rising stars of the folk scene. 8 out of 10" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz