I like Neil kulkarni's writing but then he has terrible taste. You read his reviews and think fucking hell that sounds amazing must check that one out. Then you give it a listen and it's dogshit.
But taste isn't necessary for good writing. May be many of the best writers had bad taste actually.
i wouldn't go that far, but yeah now and then i have bought things that Neil has raved about - uk hip hop types things - and not been able to quite see why he's so excited.
there are definitely writers who are totally enjoyable to read and have interesting / unusual / provocative things to say but you would never use them as a guide to what to listen - Chuck Eddy, the late Steven Wells, quite a few others
on the other hand, i sometimes think that taste is the sine qua non with a critic - i mean, if they can't get that right, then how could you trust them on anything?
my favorite critics have always had near-infallible taste (Barney Hoskyns for example) or perhaps it's that their audio erogenous zones and mine are in synch, i don't know
it doesn't matter so much nowadays, as you can check out anything yourself, zero cost or effort required - but in the old days, it would matter,
if you were the kind of person who would buy a record unheard just based on a frothing purple piece of advocacy.... if the consumer tip was duff, there's goes 5 quid down the pan, which in my impecunious teenage and student years was a calamity - i can only think of one or two records i bought on Barney's remote advocacy that underwhelmed, out of a hundred at least i should think
he also (as did others) had the ability to make me give things a second try - unimpressed by the Smiths, didn't like Cocteau Twins - but then pieces by him unlocked them for me