Originally Posted by Trollheart

You sound like Buffy after they dragged her back from Heaven.

Originally Posted by WWWP

I want to open a school for MB's lost boys and teach them basic coping skills and build up their self esteem and strengthen their emotional intelligence and teach them about vegetables and institutionalized racism and sexism and then they'll all build a bronze statue of me in my honor and my bronzed titties will forever be groped by the grubby paws of you ****ing whiny pathetic white boys.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

like I’ve said many times pitchfork is a great resource

The only time I think they get out of their depth is with jazz.

I think when it comes to classic jazz records they shouldn’t assign a numerical score to them

Like I’ll know the significance of a record and they’ll be like 8.6 or 9.3 like it’s a new release

It’s reductive and not helpful to put a record that still holds up 40 - 60 years later on that continuum when time and history have already spoken for it.

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums...onk-palo-alto/

This is a new issue but it’s Monk from 68.

Gets a 9.1 ok

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pitchfo...d-fantasy/amp/

Kanye gets a 10

So I mean they’re going to attach a numerical value to this

Kanye never made anything better than Monk in 68. If I had those guys in a room and I called them out on this they’d know damn well their position was indefensible.

If they really think there’s a .9 shortcoming in Monk’s performance that night they should do themselves a favor and leave the rating off and just write about the recording. You don’t judge Monk like you do Beach House or whatever. Monk’s place in the pantheon of greats is already determined. They need to stick to helping us sort out new music and make discriminating choices to focus our listening time. But don’t try to tell me you’re giving Monk an A minus. Bitch, you don’t get to grade Monk.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

MBDTF is considered by many many people to be a 10 though.

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien

There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

I know.

And for a casual fan whatever. Even for a pop music critic whatever (plus a sigh). But for a publication of professional critics to put a numerical value on it that is higher than how they scored Attica Blues https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums...-attica-blues/ just makes them look ignorant. They could save themselves that embarrassment by simply not having the audacity to put a number on anything by Archie Shepp, which would also signal to me that they know how to stay in their ****ing lane.

They do excellent and informative write ups on jazz records and I respect that but they’re not serious jazz critics. They should respect their limitations.

Originally Posted by jeokaleo

Never forget their 5.9/10 10,000 Days review where they called it an "APC" album.

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

I don't know **** about jazz. So maybe it's rated like that in the context of jazz music.

I think numeric ratings are reductive in general though, for this reason. I'm more interested in what they have to say about the album than the actual rating when watching/reading a review anyways.

Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien

There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.