My Favorite Pitchfork Reviews

Pitchfork Media is of course one of the most important music site on the planet as we know, and no, I don't constantly read their reviews. But, known also for their pretentious ranting about indie bands and bloated reviews that leaves you scratching your head, here are some of my favorites:

Autechre
Untilted
[Warp; 2005]
Rating: 7.4

This review is not a review, but instead a play. It involves a conversation between the Tortoise and Achilles about the Autechre record. What better way to review a record than this memorable way? Somebody put this on Broadway.

Audioslave
Out of Exile
[Interscope; 2005]
Rating: 6.8

This one is awesome and it makes me laugh. In the author's own words, the review is about "Fresh out of exile, Chris Cornell is trying to re-adjust to the real world. Cornell has one problem, though: He only communicates using Audioslave lyrics". Really, it's funny. Here's a sample:

"Chris Cornell at the eye doctor:

Eye Doctor: So what's wrong, Mr. Cornell?

Chris Cornell: I've stared straight into the sun.

Eye Doctor: You can't see anything?

Chris Cornell: I've seen 50,000 names all engraved on a stone.

Eye Doctor: So you see some things, but not other things.

Chris Cornell: Send my soul away.

Innovative indeed.

Next we have Jet, again, it's not a review, but a Youtube video:

Jet
Shine On
[Elektra; 2006]
Rating:

I would think that this was rated 0.0. Since the video was about a chimp reliving himself.

Next:
Tool
Lateralus
[Volcano]
Rating: 1.9

This "review" was written in the perspective of a Tool fan. Basically it was the fan talking how good music comes in the cycle of every 16 years. it brings out the stereotype of Tool fans likes doing math and that kind of shit. Did the reviewer even listen to the record? I didn't see any straight-forward description of what the music on the disc sounded like. You can't blame them, since major label artists suck (in the eye of Pitchfork), right?

Why not another Tool review?
Tool
10,000 Days
[Volcano; 2006]
Rating: 5.9

The reviewer was not a Tool fan to begin with, because: "At 28, I'd feel funny mocking 15-year-olds still finding their place in the world. And as for taking them seriously-- well, I take Tool about as seriously as I do black metal or Lil Jon or the films of Tsui Hark. Which is to say, not very."

How can a review be fair if you already dislike Tool to begin with? Even if all the reviews are subjective, let's not make it this fucking obvious.

"If only the music had one-tenth of the Public Image Limited song's power. Instead I find myself in the awkward position of trying to sell you on the merits of a deeply uncool band by telling you to go buy their last album instead.
I guess the more opinionated, the better. No, I'm not that big of a Tool fan and I don't think 10,000 Days is a great record, but that review was just so subjective and predictable.

At last but not least:
Nine Inch Nails
The Fragile
[Nothing/Interscope]
Rating: 2.0

The reviewer complained about the record being bloated and predictable, but the irony is the review itself is bloated and predictable. I don't even know long the review itself it, but it just rant on about how much Nine Inch Nails is stupid and Trent Reznor sucks. It critized The Fragile being not concised enough, and the review itself was not concise itself.

And yeah, let me point this out:
" 1:49am: "Even Deeper," a track mixed by Dr. Dre, spits aluminum riffs into my headphones. The entire concept of pairing of Dr. Dre and Nine Inch Nails, a match ,maid in Kornboy heaven (or most likely the Interscope commissary) is laughable."

It's "made", not "maid".

Of course Pitchfork Media has its legion of haters, and I would think that reviews like that contributes to it.