I mean, when you don't have much time to review, you write about what you're passionate about. Naturally, you're more likely to review music you enjoy that music you don't enjoy.
If he was still doing 50+ reviews a year and they were positive, then sure, I hear you - but he's written six this year, with one fairly negative (Transit, which you mentioned), and two N/A scores. I don't see why other positive reviews invalidate his opinion.
Also, if that thought process is true, I'm in trouble too.
I want to backtrack on the word "positive", its really the hyperbole bothers me. BUT, if hes only writing 6-8 reviews a year, why is he getting the "high profile" reviews? i know a lot of people (including myself) that want to hear this record, and these reviews are the ones going into metacritic and the like. so why isint a more experienced reviewer (like yourself) taking the lead on these? i get that hes passionate about what he writes, i wouldn't expect an unpaid contributor to write about crap he dosent want to listen to, but it seems strange that someone who takes only 6-8 reviews a year to write the only staff review about the most anticipated records of the year (including Generation). I get everyone has their biases (i dont think ill ever read a negative ETID review from drew, even if they did a faithful Katy Perry cover album) but some times it feels too much.
i love this site, been my #1 source for years, but when i see you guys in all the major review places, i just wish the reviews were taken more seriously.
EDIT: And how can you call TGG a N/A score? He would that record a 12 if he could of. Its my favorite album this year by far, but come on, i get when he did that with Ocean Avenue, but to do that for TGG is nonsense.