Music Critics Make Shitty Historians

I have an advanced degree in history. Over time I have noticed many major music reviews tend to cover the span of the bands history as they review their latest album. The one issue with this is that these reviewers are pretty goddamn shitty at it. These reviews fail to put into proper context a bands history. Again and again they use subjective methods off the top of their head to offer limited perspective on what a band was and how they are perceived currently In popular culture. Their views are impressionistic and altogether wrong. These critics only remember what were their observations at the time which may have changed but in no way can this ever be objective. No evidence is ever offered up as to where they got their information and this in fact causes a problem. In true historic scholarship evidence is presented to support argument but in today's music criticism this evidence is discarded it observations are made at random to be presumed as fact. It is a fucking joke. For example time and time again for the strokes new record I have seen reviews that when they were making the album angles Julian Casablanca's walked out on the recording sessions. These reviews make it sound like the lead singer of the strokes told the other members to basically go to hell and make the album themselves. This could not be further from the truth. No where do these reviews mention the fact that he was still finishing up touring his solo album. He emailed his recordings partially because he was not going to be done for a while with his solo tour But nowhere is this benefit of the doubt ever mentioned in any of these articles. Stuff like this just fucking pisses me off because I just want to say to a majority of these reviews why don't you fucking do some research before you goddamn write a review.

Pitchfork.com

Alas, we come now to Pitchfork.com. I love Pitchfork's festival. I dig some of the musician's they get to go there. For example, Vampire Weekend, Trail of Dead, Modest Mouse are all cool acts to see there. Yet, their idea of music criticism leaves a lot to be desired. They are in love with the idea of being completely indie. Even more so, than they are in love with the idea of good music. As the ecard saying goes, Pitchfork.com is so indie that they saw a band by themselves in an underground room then killed the band so they would be the only ones ever to see them. One of the first things they like to do is punish bands for wanting to make money and upgrade to better tours, equipment, houses. Second, one particular review of Pitchfork wonders whether Pitchfork likes music at all anymore. Third, they have to be completely anonymous. These tools need to understand that I want an honest review of the bands we all know, not a shit talking, dishonest review because you'd rather highlight your crap, no name, bullshit, awful fucking band. I guess what seemed like a venture that was honest and true in the beginning has become an endless mission to become the coolest hipster on the planet. Pitchfork needs a wakeup call. Here is a newsflash. Hipsters are dead. EDM in no way embraces the hipster. Nobody wants to be called a hipster. They run this site as if it were 2005. The final part of the utter hilarity that is Pitchfork comes in the fact that this site is the embodiment of hypocrisy. I am reminded of when the Strokes new album came out, Comedown Machine. They previewed the album acting like it was this buzzworthy album then proceeded to trash it a bit. Also, they called them irrelevant as they proceeded to sell Converse shoes on the same page. What a fucking crock of shit they are. These pretentious douchebags don't even let you comment on their reviews. Putting up blinders to the truth that they are all a bunch of haters with no style no substance and no integrity.

My Reply to Spin on The Strokes Review

Nobody much asks what the Strokes will do next anymore. -Keith Harris
Am I wrong in that everyone wants to write about how nobody cares about the Strokes anymore, but in reality much of the media does care very much what they do whether it be fascination, interest, ridicule, jealousy, I knew it, or I told you so. I really did not see this kind of interest in a new album like the Killers with absolutely no pr whatsoever. Where was the Vevo concert? Where were the magazine covers? Where were the interviews? You know who does not care...The Strokes. I listened to the new Phoenix album which this album has been compared to...The Strokes do a better Phoenix impression on Comedown Machine than Phoenix did for the past 13 years except for 1901. Next up, not in this review, but still prevalent are the endless unoriginal headlines that this is letdown machine. My God, be original you dumbasses. Next we have to hear the endless psycho/cultural/poetic/intellectual bullshit about the Strokes, their legacy, their history, their brand, their place in time. Finally, since this review you have released 2 articles specifically mentioning the Strokes with the obvious point to show how irrelevant they are. Quick tip: to make a band seem irrelevant...stop f'ing writing about them... How about that awesome 6 bitches?