You win at confusing Paper Planes and Crazy for rock songs, but that's about it.

E.Buzz, you're not getting it. Of course they don't review all the same records, Rolling Stone can't keep up. But that's because they use the print medium where space is limited, whereas Pitchfork can review a million albums a day if they were so inclined because their reviews don't have to fit in a 100 page magazine…

This is pretty much what I was saying with the example of the Stooges. You could even make that case earlier with Big Band's popularity totally eclipsing the advent of Rock n' Roll (i.e. before there were white people making rock n roll.)

Yikes. I'd listen to 88.9 before 102.1, and that's saying a lot.

Sorry, I'm obviously not acquainted with either band well enough to notice something like that. 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Stooges influenced Green Day so much more than Chicago that it's not worth bringing up, without even knowing if that's a fact or not. If I'm wrong, I guess I just got yet another reason to hate Green Day.

I think they'll get their "due" in some way… look at the Killed By Death records. Rabid punk rock geeks (like me) eat that shit up, start their own bands, and then cover the KBD tracks. I'm willing to bet that the original KBD bands weren't even hoping for that and ended up getting more than they even asked for. Hell,…

Well, of course. Popularity doesn't equal quality. Look at the Stooges. Incredibly influential band essentially unknown in their time, but they go on to influence an entire generation, launch a musical revolution in punk rock, and then achieve some type of popularity among the mainstream (and squander it on horrible…

There's a whole industry built up around giving people who can be called "dispassionate fans" of music (at best) something to spend their money on. Unfortunately, this industry isn't as innocuous as it seems, it's draining our culture of substance and vitality.

Hey, it's one of those hilarious comments that read like a headline! You don't see those one thousand times or more everyday around here. It even has what I presume to be an internet joke!

E.Buzzles, they review the same shit and have the same general opinions about 80% of what they cover. The differences are cosmetic and only really apply to each outlet's medium. Try not to sprain your wrist enjoying whatever it is that you're mistaking for sexual tension.
WMR, I can see your point, however as you…

I think we all know that the manuscript will just be 200 pages coated in incomprehensible glyphs, crayon-drawn diagrams, and vomit.

I wish I could tell if you're being serious or facetious.

Another salient, intelligent, and interesting point from Mr. Cooper. At least the quantity of his comments doesn't seem to influence their quality.

I have no problem with Steven's writing either, just to be clear. I've always admired his effortless ability to stir up some shit and rile up nerds like myself.

You got it buddy.

Correction: broad, accurate generalizations of rock critics. Seriously, there is no difference between the critics here, at Rolling Stone, at Pitchfork, or any other large music criticism outlet. Sorry if you view that as "rock critic-ist" or whatever label you have on hand to condemn any attempt to provide focus to…

Eloquent retort.

Steven, I think you may have me unfairly pigeon-holed. I actually do not listen to very much "garage-punk" (a tag that lost relevance a long, long time ago to fans of the genre, but seems to be gaining traction among the perpetually behind the curve mainstream rock critics) and the current bands I enjoy that receive…

Radiohead and Wilco are opposite sides of the same, bland, mediocre modern "rock" critic coin. On the one hand, you have the band critics love to call "difficult," as it serves as a kind of intellectual badge of honor for the critic that 'gets' their music, even though there's nothing really difficult about their…