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.