No, not “enough said” actually.
Remember when the way an artist’s personal life related to his art was the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one? I’m not defending Chris Brown or his album, but I am defending that maybe the job of a critic is to evaluate a work with respect to its real-world context, not to let that real-world context overshadow the work altogether.
This original photo has 2000 reblogs already because it’s so easy for people to go, “Yeah! Right on, man! Everyone hates Chris Brown.” The author is catering to that impulsive Internet binary. But, obviously, everyone doesn’t hate Chris Brown, even if Chad Taylor thinks everyone should. So why does Brown still have fans? Is that not worth analyzing instead of this blanket nonsense? In what ways does Brown’s music atone for, disregard, or comment upon the fact that he hits women? If the music doesn’t address that fact at all, feel free to criticize him for that. But it’s callow and flippant to assume that you don’t have to do your job because no one will call you out if you don’t, and it serves the worst parts of our culture.
If Taylor felt so negatively toward Brown that he thought his review of the album would be unfair, then he should have recused himself and let someone else write it. Instead of Chris Brown, the readers are the people being treated unfairly with this glib review. And they’re congratulating the guy for it.
Is it difficult to evaluate music that way? When you have to parse your own morality, acknowledge subjectivity, and risk being wrong? Sure. But you have to try, and it probably requires more than two sentences.