Actually, I do enjoy them, and if I am looking for the type of item they are writing about, I pay attention. I allow them a great margin as they look for analogies and metaphors to describe what they are hearing. Some folks are naturally good at it, and others less so. But like movie or art reviews, it is almost more important that I understand the taste of the reviewer over time, rather than investing belief in someone just because they get paid to write it. I am less paranoid about who compromised by corruption. I'm sure it has happened somewhere, by someone(s), but only because we are human, and corruption is part and parcel of human nature.
For the most part, I just take them at their word - they liked this or that, for this or that reason. It might make me curious. It might not.
I like reviews that tell me how listening to the item under consideration makes them feel - some reviewers are great at this. I dislike reviews that are too heavily invested in measurements, and don't talk about whether the piece gives them goosebumps, or made them start clapping, or bored them. To me, that is useful - once I get to know the writer.
David

