I've spoken to music reviewers who've said straight up to me that when they get something they don't know about they look online now and read some other people's reviews to get a feel for how it's being received.I find a lot with indie rock journalists that if you read one review, you've read them all because they are all seeking validation from the next guy and rehashing a feedback loop of opinions in order, presumably, to maintain cred and not look like they are unknowledgeable.
I've spoken to music reviewers who've said straight up to me that when they get something they don't know about they look online now and read some other people's reviews to get a feel for how it's being received.
I think I like music by all these artists... in fact, I like maybe 90% of the artists mentioned in the thread so far... but I hope that's not the point.
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/your-band-sucks/indies-sacred-cows.php
Funnily enough I don't think I've ever read anything derisory about Girls Aloud in the music press (of course I could just be thinking of the Observer Music Monthly here), which is strange to me because I think they're fucking awful.
I think a lot of these people only seem to get positive press because noone who doesn't like them bothers to write about them. I mean, a new White Stripes album (say) is a bit of a media event anyway, and people are going to review it and some of them may not like it. Whereas I can't imagine many mainstream editors getting worried that they haven't covered the new fall album and people will think they're out of touch...Yes you're right, it isn't the point. I'd consider myself a bit of Fall fan but that makes their sacred cow status amongst journos all the more annoying