Ten Bullet Points Summing Up Just About Every Review on The Strokes

• Reviewers cannot separate one album from the history of the band.

• Apparently, everyone wants to go back to 2001. Man, I did not realize how fucking awesome 2001 was. Jesus, now I want to go back.
•  You can only make albums of music that made you successful in the first place. You are not allowed to make an album completely different unless you are an elitist snob into the electronic garbage Radiohead spits out. Make it the same, but not exactly the same, but kind of different, but if you go too different, then we will get you for that too.
•  Do not ever make a solo album because reviewers will compare your new album to that.
•  As a musician, you are not allowed to have influences, but all these reviews mention is what…their own influences of what the album sounds like…(A-ha, Technotronic, Tom Waits). 
•  Make up your fuckin’ mind reviewers: Are the Strokes bored and lazy? Or are they working really hard to look bored and lazy? What does it matter? How can you tell if a band is working too hard or being bored? Am I just that obtuse when it comes to listening to an album one time?
•  One trend about music reviewers: They will talk shit about everything (Muse, Mumford got 4 out of 10 in Spin). People don’t read the blogs of reviewers that say nice things. 
• Whether it makes people feel cooler or whether they are just joining the crowd, but it is hip and cool to hate on the Strokes. Also, these moronic douchebags try to turn their reviews into high art and poetic criticism by talking about the Strokes on a cultural scale that should only be written about in a college classroom. Sometimes an album is just a fucking album.
•  The Strokes are not new, and are mainstream. They arrived in 2001. Places like Pitchfork hate them. Anything that comes out of their mouths is always going to be looked upon as unoriginal.
•  The Strokes don’t give a fuck. They already saved rock once. They can do whatever the fuck they want.