I think that we should remember that any piece of criticism is one person's opinion at one moment in time. I know I can respond quite differently to the same recording at different times. Sometimes one is more open and receptive than others.
I do look for critics who search for the positive. Creative artistic endeavour is involves a huge amount of hard work and the artist is taking a risk by leaving him or herself very vulnerable. If you spent an afternoon putting a new wardrobe together and then someone walked in and told you it was the worst wardrobe they'd ever seen you might be a little hurt. Imagine then spending years developing a repertoire/composing a symphony/writing a novel or whatever, finally presenting it to the public , and then having it trashed by someone.
If I come across some music that I at first don't like or respond to I try to look for what I might be missing or to approach it from a different angle. Artists give a huge amount of themselves and don't deserve to have they're efforts dismissed out of hand.

Nick,

I wrote a long reply to your post and, just before posting, did something weird with my laptop 'touchpad' and lost the lot.  B****y touchpads - I must get my mouse out of its cage again....  Your comments are far from 'vacuous' and they have stimulated me to produce a (too) long reply.

Like you, I have been forced to think a bit about this issue since the Hatto business.  In my youth, I was in thrall to the critics (Gramophone etc. as well as newspaper reviews of concerts) and their views helped to form mine.  I always wanted the 'best' recording and didn't have enough money to risk wasting it on poorer performances.  As I gained confidence and experience and began to understand more about the fallibility of critics (and as I saw major disagreements between them) I relied on them less and became increasingly willing to risk the odd 'duff' CD for the sake of a bit of adventure.  As I widened my scope, I found many treasures and I gradually gained my own critical independence. The 'mistakes' sometimes turn out to be anything but that on deeper acquaintance - and as you say, Nick: 'Indeed my enjoyment of any particular recording can vary hugely without input from anyone else, just simply the passing of time and the changing of moods.'  Yes, and that does indeed 'go for critics, too'.  Nevertheless, we need critics to help us find our feet when we are young or inexperienced.  We are not born with fully developed musical critical faculties and each of us will gain our independence at a different point.

What I do expect in a critic is honesty, balance, and enthusiasm.
 
Honesty seems to be a lot to ask for in this cynical, commercial world but I increasingly know which critics I can trust (and I have a long memory). 

Balance is crucial - I cannot accept vehemence in a critic.  If a performance is really dire, there are ways of saying this which make it clear to an intelligent reader but which don't labour the point and, as you say, there is no performance which is entirely devoid of merit.  David Hurwitz (and others) really should know better.  Extreme reactions say more about the writer than the subject IMO.  We see enough of that on the message boards - just look back to the R3 boards and see some of the OTT comments from posters more interested in rubbishing the 'Hatto' recordings at all costs (and many had not bought or heard any) - more interested in being 'right' than anything else.  Some of the recordings are very fine (I still enjoy the modest number that I bought, by the way) and I will continue to ignore the more extreme reactions on the various message boards.  I am simply waiting to hear who actually played them!

Genuine enthusiasm is something which will always seduce me into exploring a new area, even though these forays are not always successful.  Like you, I am grateful to enthusiastic posters on message boards who have encouraged me to widen my view (even though it is currently costing me more than it should).  Critics who cannot generate enthusiasm should consider their position.  Yes, I buy CDs on the basis of enthusiastic reviews, even if a review contains caveats.

I risk losing the plot.  To come back to your post..... Yes, the positive is very important and I want to hear 'positives' in reviews but I really do want 'negatives' to be considered, too.  Not just gaps in a review - that could be an avoidance of an issue or it could be laziness (or even an Editor pressed for space). The negatives must be justified and argued but they do have an important place for me.  Sensitive but constructive criticism is so important in life.  Would you want any professional who is handling really important things in your life to have been trained on the basis that his/her teachers only commented on the things (s)he could do well? I don't want a mechanic working on my car to be very good at engines but useless at brakes because his teachers concentrated only on the positive!  Take that one stage further and consider medics....

I guess what I should also have included as important (in all things?) is a little humility.  We all make mistakes and nobody has perfect judgement.  Once a critic thinks (s)he is close to God then they should be ignored.  Especially if they aren't very good at whatever it is they are criticising!

Sorry about the length; my first effort was more succinct.  Please don't criticise.

John

Ah, but some critics are concerned to demonstrate their 'taste', believing they are some of the chosen few that have been invested with such a thing from birth - the views, priorities, interests of other mere mortals don't count according to such a perspective.

"You can't expect a critic to remove their opinions from the equation"

I quite like when a critic tries to do this (they don't trust opinions - everybody has one) and doesn't put a final thumbs up/down in a way that implies they've stopped thinking about a certain piece or record.

Basically, I'm more interested in critics who 'show their work', less in the outcome of that.

Hey

I really don't mind if the reviewer finally gives the impression that they think a recording is awful (yes, with reasons!) but to simply state their opinion AS FACT seems to me to be missing the point that we are essentially dealing with subjective arts. To be honest, it just comes across as arrogant.

It would indeed be irresponsible to ONLY report the positives, but it seem much more sensible to say things like....'I can imagine that some listeners may not be comfortable with xxx' etc etc. Let us know what the critic thinks they like or dislike and let our own hearts and minds guide us in the rest.

I happen to really like Hickox's V-W Pastoral, so it seems peculiar to simply damn it as 'the worst ever recorded'.

We seem to be arguing on the same side here, so I'm going to shut up now.....