I would also not be surprised to learn that those aural artists you mention have people whose knowledge and opinions they respect vet their work–and listen to what's said. That's not to indicate they'll blindly make changes based on input, but they acknowledge, as do I, that after a time the creator becomes too familiar with the creation to be able to obtain sufficient distance to see flaws. We see what should be there instead of what IS there.

However, your point regarding the unrelenting bias against non-traditionally published books is well-taken, nor does it apply only to the self-published. On several occasions, I've asked reviewers to please scratch comments about their having found “a few typos” in one of our books, unless it's their custom to make that same observation about traditionally published books. Usually, they've understood my problem with it and obliged.

We make every effort to ensure our books are as error-free as they can be. If some major flaw is discovered, we will go to the time and expense to correct it. However, human beings aren't perfect, and even the most skilled proofreader is likely to miss something. By calling attention to it, even if the error in no way impedes one's enjoyment of the book, simply feeds the naysayers who insist nontraditional=amateur.

Ironically, reviewers who never read the books they discuss aren't new. They've been around pretty much forever–I've heard traditionally published authors telling how a newspaper review was nothing more than the publisher's press release reprinted under someone's byline. So, the ongoing attacks on new-model publishing has precedent, which doesn't make it any less obnoxious.

So the status quo is to believe that an author is incapable of creating a worthwhile book on their own while at the same time giving them sole credit for the finished work.

Does that make sense?