Does anybody actually read George's reviews or do just like I do and skim/scroll through'em? 1,000+ words per album is way too much. 500 words seems like a reasonable ideal for a review, not too short (hello, Wilson & Alroy) and not a lengthy ramble that nobody but someone who's already a fan of his writing wants to actually read. I feel the same way about Mark's reviews. The only ones I actually read are the reviews that are a paragraph or so long. Which means mostly Prindle's earlier reviews, stuff like Bob Dylan and the Fall where he just briefly describes the music. Prindle's blog postings of the past few years are an interesting glimpse into the man's personal life and are fascinating psychologically, but you already have to be a fan and know about Mark & his life history in order to enjoy them. I'm just of the opinion that a music critic should spend most of his time talking about the music. The other extraneous crap is 90% crap most of the time (hello, Pitchfork, Lester Bangs, half the rock critics to ever walk the face of the earth - who cares about your political views or pathetic sex lives or trivial Facebook-update-of-my-mundane-life style of "reviewing"). Actually reviewing music as just music and keeping it readable, funny, interesting, and concise - that's a very difficult job. Which is why 99% of music critics don't do it. Instead they take the lazy way out and just blog their inner feelings. That's not writing, that's typing.