Why Serious Rock Critics Are So Transplendent

I've been thinking about what makes "serious" rock criticism so ridiculous, and here's what I've come up with so far: All critics have the task of explaining what a work of art means and whether that meaning has any value, so how do they go about this?

• One work may have a simple message and another may have a complex message;
• some critics have a simple interpretation of a work and some have a complex interpretation;
• some critics use simple language to explain their simple interpretation of a simple work;
• some use simple language to explain their simple interpretation of a complex work;
• some use simple language to explain their complex interpretation of a simple work;
• some use complex language to explain their complex interpretation of a simple work;
• some use complex language to explain their simple interpretation of a complex work;
• some use simple language to explain their complex interpretation of a complex work;
• and some use complex language to explain their simple interpretation of a simple work.

And since all you ever need to say about rock and roll (most of the time) is "it rocks me" or "it doesn't rock me," it's very silly when serious rock critics choose the complex-simple-simple instead of simple-simple-simple.

(When I say simple, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Simple can still profound.)