Can reviewers be unoriginal?

Hello trustful fans.

I hope you're enjoying this grey Wedensday. Well, at least it's grey in Denmark! Today we got a review from a webzine called Soundvenue. They gave us 3/6 which I think is OK, although I personally think it's worth more. The thing is that the reviewer doesn't seem to know any music other than Mogwai and Sigur Rós, which they describe as Post-Rock (and therefor we are Post-Rock as well). But why is it that reviewers claim that Mogwai (Sigur Rós as post-rock I can't take seriously)? The band itself rejects the term and in all honesty I do understand them. Bands first referred to as Post-Rock are acts like Talk Talk and Bark Psychosis! And if you listen to Talk Talk and then listen to Mogwai, please tell me you don't think it sounds the same? Listen to Mac, Get Your Gear On and then listen to Sigur Rós or Mogwai, and please tell me it sounds different? Does 'Dads' sound more like Mogwai or more like Do Make Say Think? Does Cats On Fire have jazzy elements in it and screaming punk-ish vokals in the end, or is it just another Sigur Rós ripp-off? Why is it that so many reviewers that review alternative music like ours don't mention any other bands than Mogwai or Sigur Rós? There are so many bands we're inspired by, and many I can hear in our music as well. Aereogramme, Animal Collective, Pavement, Why?, Do Make Say Think, Broken Social Scene, Russian Circles, Tortoise, Annuals, Toe, Maps And Atlases... If you ask me, it's just too easy to write 'Mogwai' and 'Sigur Rós'. Most people know them and the reviwer will look like as if he knows what he's writing about.

I think that was it. This is just my point of view. If you have an opinion, if you think I'm right or wrong, please by all means, let's debate.

Speak soon,
Snævar