Okay, so, I'm assuming everyone here reads many a music review, whether it be live, or recorded or whatever - but it seems that a reviewer can never get it right in everyones eyes.
Having read numerous debates, it seems that some people like to know a band's influences and who they sound like and relevant reference points - whilst others think that this just pigeonholes a band.
Some people like expansive, descriptive writing, and others like straightforward, to the point efforts which can be read in a few minutes.
Personally I love lengthy 'intelligent' feeling articles with lots visual imagery and nice metaphors, I prefer to know how someone genuinely feels about a band, as it's the writing that makes me read a review more often than my interest in a band. So I guess, to me, good writing is writing that holds my interest, tells a story, gets me a bit excited and clearly demonstrates how the record/show made the writer feel.
So what do you think constitutes a brilliant review? What do you look for? Examples? Or do you just think it's all a load of rubbish?