Honestly, I can't really think which I find more infuriating: the ultra-pretentious , self-absorbed wanksters from Pitchfork or, well, pretty much any metal reviewer you care to mention, bar a select few. "Egad!" I hear you cry "But, surely, your hatred for hipsters is legendary across the ether, how could the reviewers of your favourite genre inspire such hatred into you?"
Well, let me list the problem with the large majority of metal reviewers:
1: They are small-minded pieces of shit, who wouldn't know musical innovation if it came up and played jazz chords with their spine. If a band is not black enough, thrashy enough, deathy enough, downbeat enough, upbeat enough, well produced enough or badly produced enough for their impoverished personal taste it will be dismissed out of hand. They have very little
2: They are lazy and bigoted. These go together well. Reviewer doesn't like a band? "OMG THEY'RE GAY". Reviewer doesn't like the vocals? "OMG IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S SUCKING COCK AS HE SINGS OLOLOLOL" Now, I'm not advocating political correctness in the metal world, because political correctness sucks, well, whale cock. What I am suggesting is that a) certain death and black metal reviewers take a good, hard look at their own sexuality and b) that anyone indulging in this practice tries to remember that they are a music reviewer, that is reviewers of music. The shit with the notes and the chords. If you just say a band is gay, I might think it's some sort of wicked crossover queercore or something. How about describing why it sucks? WARNING: You may ACTUALLY have to know something about music to do this.
3: They are self-absorbed. How many times have you read a review that says almost nothing about the actual release as well, but is just a long load of waffle in which the reviewer goes on some extended, bizarre metaphor about what the band sounds like (in the end telling you nothing about what they sound like), or just describes in huge detail how much he hates the band and would like to kill them (I'm not gonna name any names, because that's rude, but there's a certain review I'm thinking of here, that possible counts as the worst metal review ever. And it's not even by UltraBoris. I'll just say that it's on a site that specialises in gore metal and it involves hockey, and leave the knowledgeable to nod and smile) or something equally inane. Sometimes, you will not even be sure of the genre of the band in question at the end of the review.
There are a lot of other annoying practices metal reviewers indulge in (Excessive namedropping (the only one of these crimes I could realistically be charged with), elitism, pointless digresssion and atrocious writing are the major ones) which bug the shit out of me, but that covers most of it.
I will add this caveat: I am mainly directing this against metal reviewers online. Metal reviewers in magazines are either sell-out whores (Kerrang!, Metal Hammer et al) or mature, sensible people who know a bit about music and can actually write (Terrorizer, Zero Tolerance et al) and are thus excused.
EDIT: Except for that wierd semi-nazi who writes for ZT sometimes. He's an idiot.