I spent an unholy amount of time this week archiving With Teeth reviews. I don't "do" reviews, and I hate Pitchfork Media with the force of a thousand suns, so forgive me when I ask this... but are all music reviews as shoddy as the ones for this album have been? I think I only came across three or four criticisms that laid out, analysed and displayed the album as it truly exists. The rest - and there are 50 of them archived on the Hotline - basically revolved around a tired preconception that Trent is:

a) a multimillionaire, which is a bad thing, because we all know money solves our problems, so what right has he got to have problems?
b) encorporating the same sounds as he always has done (this one is really popular).

Now, I know it's a fruitless task to try and take on these kinds of opinions, but... what? Are they listening to the same person's album as I am, or are we in different universe's? At what point did money buy you a secure relationship and install a forcefield around your life to stop shit sticking to it? And who says he's a millionaire in the first place? Being famous does not mean that you have money anyway. And as for b). That's more of a subjective thing I guess, but the last time I checked, I didn't hear Trent singing that well or using live instruments or those disco beats or avoiding walking into an album filled with blind negativity on any other album.

I don't think Trent's the one rehashing an old sound. I think what I'm hearing when I read these reviews is the sound of a hundred or so "journalists" neglecting to research their subject and offer informative interesting opinion pieces. Which is a shame, because with an album like With Teeth on their hands, people could be doing a whole lot better.