I'm of the opinion that a bad review is better than no review at all.

quote: "If you can't find something nice to say about a recording, why not use the editorial space to comment on someone else's recording that you *do* like?"

Because that ultimately devalues what's good. If nobody published anything but "good" reviews, critical writing would cease to be critical writing: ultimately it'd be valueless. You're not a critic unless you're prepared to nail your colours to the mast.

quote: "I sent the CD back, saying there was nothing good I could say about it so I would rather not review it at all. However it sounded to me, the people concerned had obviously put a lot of work in and tried their best. I did not want to be the one to damn them in print."

For all you knew you might have been the only mag prepared to review this act. In my opinion, if someone makes their work public, a writer OWES them the respect of an honest review, whether or not that's good or bad. I would rather have a bad review than no review at all. In fact, I'd rather have a bad review than some string of stock phrases like "a real gem" ending in that ghastly meaningless one-word sign-off "Recommended".

People need to get over the idea that music writers have some kind of omnipotent power of mass-suggestion.

Anyway, I've bought many a CD based on very negative reviews that made the album sound like it'd be right up my street. Whereas no amount of glowing reviews have ever made me purchase a Seth Lakeman album. Go figure.