Re: Contrast

1. Most of the reviews covered the whole album, rather than the specific song you mentioned.

2. Most of the reviews covered the whole experience, not the lyrics judged independently of the music, which was what Griffith and I were discussing.

If the song/lyrics had been problematic, they would've said so. Critics are vicious.

3. Reviewers are frequently "encouraged" in various ways to write positive reviews for mediocre works, and public relations firms have been known to finagle search results in their clients' favor, thus they cannot be trusted even if one presumes that their words have weight.

Yeah, you haven't read a lot of pop/rock music reviews, have you? In my experience it is the opposite; most critics are conservative in their praise of good stuff an tend to pick stuff apart, often unfairly (consider the critics' generally poor to mediocre reviews of Connie Talbot's album, attacked on the piss-poor excuse that Connie was too young to understand the stuff she was singing, which was hardly the point of her album anyway.)

4. Regardless of all the above, a reviewer can be wrong or simply have simplistic tastes, which are not relevant to the discussion Griffith and I were having.

Yes, it so often happens that nearly every reviewer happens to make the same bad assessment of an album, doesn't it?

In short, non sequitur

Not.

non sequitur,

Not.

appeal to authority,

. . . is a valid form of argument when you are referring to actual authorities on the subject.

and De gustibus non disputandum est.

LOL! How ironic. What's really going on here is that both you and griffith just don't like certain things (which is fine), and because you don't, rather than accepting that others' tastes are simply different from your own, you pretentiously dismiss it as being of poor quality. You both revel in a self-image of being refined and superior to most people. How exactly is the rarefied air up their in your ivory tower, Your Elitenesses?