Generally music critics are pretty tough on bands like the Rippingtons, Spyro Gyra and others. It's not uncommon to be told that these bands "seldom take chances" with their releases, or "are not breaking any new ground." Such statements are common when you read publications like the "All-Music Guide to Jazz" and other such works about jazz.

Do you feel that critics do an impartial job when reviewing music? Or do you think they are guided by many of the same prejudices that the rest of us have?

There is no such thing as impartiality and why would anyone want there to be? Part of the fun of writing about music is subjectivity...
I have written reviews and columns for bunches of publications over the years..here
are my qualifications
1. somebody else thought I was a decent writer
2. I got free CDs in the mail
do the facts that I get free stuff in the mail and love to write make me better able to evaluate what music you are going to like than your own personal instincts. Do I need to answer that question.
Music reviews originally were relied on because people had no way to hear all the music that was being released, so they began relying on reviewers as guides to keep them from spending a lot of money on music they didn't like . Now you can hit any number of CD store's sites, artist's sites and label sites and hear the music yourself so there is no reason to let someone elses tastes influence your responses to music you like,regardless of their "credentials". The best music critic for you is you (not just you phil, everyone reading this)..if you love it personally then it is wonderful no matter what anyone else says about it.

Amen to Shannon! Be your own critic, review CDs for yourself, and listen to what you like. If some 'critic' pans something you love, so what!! Their exposure to jazz is probably limited anyway, and they may give an unfairly biased review.