The Pitchfork Effect
The only thing we like more than discussing Pitchfork are articles about Pitchfork. From the new Wired...
It's hard to pinpoint a single factor responsible for Broken Social Scene's rise. The band's talent has certainly helped, as has a prolonged slump in major-label rock that has sent frustrated listeners scrambling for anything new and nonconformist. But the group also owes a lot to a backhanded rave from an online music fanzine called Pitchfork.Here's the whole article, which reveals things you know already (Ryan Schreiber = bearded, Travis Morrison = 0.0), but is worth reading.Ryan Schreiber, the site's editor in chief, reviewed Broken Social Scene's US debut album, You Forgot It in People, in 2003. He began by lamenting the fact that he was receiving more promotional CDs than he could possibly write about or even listen to, and he acknowledged that he had plucked this record from the slush pile at random. He chastised the group for its gloomy packaging and liner notes ("How could they not be the most unimaginative, bleak, whiny emo bastards in the whole pile?"). Then he conceded that he'd been listening to the record obsessively for months. It "explodes," he wrote, "with song after song of endlessly replayable, perfect pop." Schreiber awarded it a score of 9.2 points out of a possible 10. An indie rock star was born.
"That's when the phone calls started coming in," Drew says. "The next tour we went on, we suddenly found ourselves selling out venues. Everyone was coming up to us, saying, 'We heard about you from Pitchfork.' It basically opened the door for us. It gave us an audience."
Picking on Pitchfork is fun (and easy!), but Stereogum does read it everyday and believes its staff of writers to be talented and good people.
That said, let's make this fun: Wrongest PFork rating ever? ... Go!
Posted at 12:50 PM
Tags: Broken Social Scene
i love that they refer to Pitchfork as a 'fanzine'
Score = 0
I think that Travis Morrison rating was way too harsh. There are some good tracks on that album. But I'm still curious as to ::how:: they got to be so influential, if they are as influential as they've been painted out to be in countless articles.
Score = 0
Agreed on the Travis Morrison thing. It was just a little much.
Score = 0
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds = 7.5
"If this were not the Beach Boys, but some indie pop outfit on Parasol Records, it might make a few critics' Top 10 lists, if it didn't just vanish into obscurity."
whole review: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/15336/Beach_Boys_Pet_Sounds_Remastered
Score = 0
Nada Surf - Let Go - 3.8
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/20292/Nada_Surf_Let_Go
A pretty lousy number for such a great record.
Score = 0
Does anybody remember The Velvet Teen? I remember them giving a really low rating to arguably their best record.
Score = 0
my first pick would be the nada surf record, but someone already mentioned it.
i'll go with longwave's "the strangest things." the 'fork gave it a 3.7 rating, which i think is criminally low.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19457/Longwave_The_Strangest_Things
Score = 0
belle and sebastian - boy with the arab strap, 0.8
basement jaxx - rooty, 3.8
are, I think, the most "off" ratings. Numerically, it's basically impossible to beat that B&S-- even if would only be considered a 7.5-8.0 record, that's still a long way from 0.8.
Since the site's been a bit more grown up, I dunno...Go-Betweens' Oceans Apart (6.0) springs to mind as being too low.
Score = 0
I agree with B&S - The Boy With the Arab Strap
Then I think in a review for a later B&S album with a higher rating (Can't remember which - Fold Your Hands Child, maybe?), they say its not as good or something along those lines as The Boy With the Arab Strap. Confusion.
Score = 0
This is easy: And You Will Know Us By The Trail of Dead - Source Tags and Codes 10.0
Score = -1
Good call on the Longwave record. I love that album.
Score = 0
Lifter Puller - "Fiestas & Fiascos" : 3.2
"Craig Finn has inherited one of the most nasal, obnoxious voices in music...the lyrics are that derivative breed of "Baby slaughtered my grandparents with a hatchet, but she's perfect anyway" type thing that one would expect to hear on an Everclear record."
...and now that singer is in the Hold Steady, and the entire Pitchfork staff is jizzing over them. Hilarious.
Score = 0
Sonic Youth's NYC Ghost and Flowers receiving a 0.0. Not a great album, to be sure, but certainly not Liz Phair self-titled territory.
Not to mention, the reviewer spent the entire review bashing New York city and then self-promoting about how ballsy and monumental it was that he was zeroing a Sonic Youth record. Lamer.
Score = 0
How about the 9.5 they gave that Save Ferris album.
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/21567/Save_Ferris_It_Means_Everything
Score = 0
Annie - Anniemal 8.8
Score = 0
You're kidding. Save Ferris = 9.5 and B&S BWTAS = 0.8?
Ugh.
Score = 0
Clem Snide - Your Favorite Music = 2.1
Bright Eyes - Letting Off The Happiness = 6.8
Weezer - Pinkerton = 7.5
R.E.M. - Reveal = 5.0
The Microphones - The Glow pt.2 = 9.2
Score = 0
Belle & Sebastian. 0.8 for Boy with the Arab Strap?
Ridiculous.
That being said, I read it every day and agree with their reviews more than anyone else of equal or greater prominence and I am glad good records like You Forgot It In People got heard because of them.
Many of my favorite records I probably would never had heard had it not been for that site so I forgive their trangressions. Mainly, I know which writers I trust, and which ones I think have issues and I judge accordingly.
Score = 0
a 0.8 would be like a guy just yelling the same words over and over again with no music for every song.
Score = 0
Daft Punk - Discovery 6.4
With all the pitchfork staff going best moment over Coachella and kicking themselves for missing such a legendary performance, you would think Ryan Schreiber could add a few more points to one of the most enjoyable and technologically stunning pop album of our generation. And plus Daft Punk should just get a 10.0 as a band for how ridiuclous cool they look in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZeRqcTO_do
Score = 0
Mogwai - Mr. Beast 6.8 - the reviewer had obviously never listened to any of Mogwai's eps. I would have given it an 8 something.
Score = 0
wrongest taste of any p-fork staffer: sam "5.7" ubl.
also
de-loused in the comatorium - 4.9. really?
Score = 0
They are way too generous with the >1.0 ratings sometimes. I mean, yeah that Weezer album was a big disappointment, but 0.4? I think maybe a 2.5 would be more appropriate. And yeah, Travis.
Score = 0
I agree with everyone else about the low grade for one one B&S's great 90's albums. I also thought giving the Beatle's Capitol Albums, Vol. 2 a 7.5 was pretty harsh. I mean, I understand not wanting to lionize them, but... come on.
Score = 0
Not sure what the wrongest ever is, but I find they're a little harsh on Beck lately.
Score = 0
What about petty much every Pedro the Lion album?
Score = 0
I don't get their "Best New Music" ratings anymore, either. Before, you'd just expect anything above an 8.0 to be on the list, but now it seems an album can get an 8.5 and not even be put on the "Best New Music", or even "Recommended" for that matter.
Score = 0
you guys got my worst two already: that Clem and Nada Surf were crimes against humanity.
On the other hand, 10.0 for BSS and the 9.5 for the Wrens are simply deserved.
Score = 0
you guys got my worst two already: that Clem and Nada Surf were crimes against humanity.
On the other hand, 10.0 for BSS and the 9.5 for the Wrens are simply deserved.
Score = 0
you guys got my worst two already: that Clem and Nada Surf were crimes against humanity.
On the other hand, 10.0 for BSS and the 9.5 for the Wrens are simply deserved.
Score = 0
you guys got my worst two already: that Clem and Nada Surf were crimes against humanity.
On the other hand, 10.0 for BSS and the 9.5 for the Wrens are simply deserved.
Score = 0
I thought they were a little harsh on "A Ghost is Born" (6.6). And I think they are WAY too generous with The Mountain Goats. I'm sorry, I just don't get it.
Someone else already pointed out the first thing that came to my mind: their mediocre (or worse) treatment of Lifter Puller at the time, but now they wet themselves over the Hold Steady and, within those reviews, talk about how legendary Lifter Puller was.
Score = 0
You guys realize that PF uses a bunch of different writers, right? And people come and go? So reviews of different bands/albums over the course of years can't be expected to agree...
Score = 0
Chaz,
Of course we know they have a variety of writers, but when looking at an artist like Pedro the Lion, the influence of Ryan becomes clear.
Score = 0
That is a good point though, Chaz.
Score = 0
This is why number ratings are silly.
Score = 0
I was always irked by their glib, been-there-done-that, "indie rock bores me" review of Ted Leo's Shake the Sheets. Me, being the sheep I was (am), decided to not seek the album out after the review, only to discover months later that it might arguably be his best album (either that one or Tyranny of Distance...which P4K praised, but panned the albums best song, "Timorous Me.").
Score = 0
Actually, I think this is why number ratings are fun. Inspires lots of conversation about a meaningless number.
Score = 0
the two Atari Teenage Riot reviews combine for my worst-of.
On the Burn, Berlin, Burn review Schreiber says they're great, fresh, and exciting and gives them an 8.1...
Then in his review of 60 Second Wipeout, he explains why Burn, Berlin, Burn never caught on because its been cliched, stale, and boring and gives them a 3.6.
Score = 0
earlier poster was dead on: de-loused in the comatorium - excellent album.
Score = 0
All they did on their review of Guero was compare it to his earlier albums especially Odelay and that's lame. As for BWTAS by B&S I believe they said something like "This album should be used to batton down the crap music hatch" how is this good critical writing?
Score = 0
Trail of Dead: Worlds Apart - 4.0
One of the best pure rock albums in the past decade, at least.
Score = 0
Ryan Adams: 'Gold' up to 'Love is Hell Part II'
Score = 0
"how is this good critical writing?"
It's not. It was 1998. It might as well have been published on a completely different website to the one that existed in 99-01/02 or so and the one from 02/03-today.
Score = 0
the one that upset me the most recently was Anathallo's Floating World... it got a 3.2 or something ridiculous, it is at least in the 7.0 range
Score = 0
Ben Folds Five - The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner: 3.3
The White Stripes - Elephant: 6.9
Score = 0
you guys got nothin'
i have the hands down winner
the flaiming lips - zaireeka 0.0
Score = 0
you guys got nothin'
i have the hands down winner
the flaming lips - zaireeka 0.0
Score = 0
everyone keeps writing about how criminally low the review was for B&S "boy with the arab strap". i love B&S, and would be critical had the review been written today, but at the time Pitchfork was clearly a different, shoddier website that didn't have the acclaim or following it does now. while this review came only two years after, it at least resembled a current pitchfork review, and tops my list of criminally underrated - daft punk's "discovery" (6.4). pitchfork apparently realized their mistake as well and made it one of their top records of the first half of the 00's (i think).
Score = 0
everyone keeps writing about how criminally low the review was for B&S "boy with the arab strap". i love B&S, and would be critical had the review been written today, but at the time Pitchfork was clearly a different, shoddier website that didn't have the acclaim or following it does now. while this review came only two years after, it at least resembled a current pitchfork review, and tops my list of criminally underrated - daft punk's "discovery" (6.4). pitchfork apparently realized their mistake as well and made it one of their top records of the first half of the 00's (i think).
Score = 0
everyone keeps writing about how criminally low the review was for B&S "boy with the arab strap". i love B&S, and would be critical had the review been written today, but at the time Pitchfork was clearly a different, shoddier website that didn't have the acclaim or following it does now. while this review came only two years after, it at least resembled a current pitchfork review, and tops my list of criminally underrated - daft punk's "discovery" (6.4). pitchfork apparently realized their mistake as well and made it one of their top records of the first half of the 00's (i think).
Score = 0
everyone keeps writing about how criminally low the review was for B&S "boy with the arab strap". i love B&S, and would be critical had the review been written today, but at the time Pitchfork was clearly a different, shoddier website that didn't have the acclaim or following it does now. while this review came only two years after, it at least resembled a current pitchfork review, and tops my list of criminally underrated - daft punk's "discovery" (6.4). pitchfork apparently realized their mistake as well and made it one of their top records of the first half of the 00's (i think).
Score = 0
everyone keeps writing about how criminally low the review was for B&S "boy with the arab strap". i love B&S, and would be critical had the review been written today, but at the time Pitchfork was clearly a different, shoddier website that didn't have the acclaim or following it does now. while this review came only two years after, it at least resembled a current pitchfork review, and tops my list of criminally underrated - daft punk's "discovery" (6.4). pitchfork apparently realized their mistake as well and made it one of their top records of the first half of the 00's (i think).
Score = 0
everyone keeps writing about how criminally low the review was for B&S "boy with the arab strap". i love B&S, and would be critical had the review been written today, but at the time Pitchfork was clearly a different, shoddier website that didn't have the acclaim or following it does now. while this review came only two years after, it at least resembled a current pitchfork review, and tops my list of criminally underrated - daft punk's "discovery" (6.4). pitchfork apparently realized their mistake as well and made it one of their top records of the first half of the 00's (i think).
Score = 0
Ummm...at the risk of being pelted by stereogum community...Coldplay's first two albums. Elbow's leaders of the free world, Nada Surf, practically every album ever.
Score = 0
10.0 for Music Has The Right To Children.
Maybe 7.5 or 8.0, but not 10.0.
Score = 0
I'd much rather read reviews where the rating is extreme, high or low, than a series of 3/5 or 5/10 reviews. Pitchfork trashing an album can be a great, if infuriating, read.
Score = 0
I don't like how harsh they are on Kings of Leon. Sure, they aren't that crazy original. In today's scene though, they feel very fresh. They're just good old fashioned rock.
I don't think they have a dirivate.
Score = 0
Forgot one. Sound Team's "Movie Monster" - 3.7. Not the most original album, but far from terrible. I just don't understand why they would criticize a band that harshly for having obvious influences, since, you know, about 95% of indie bands have obvious influences.
Score = 0
Sinatra's "Songs for Swingin' Lovers" only merited a 3.8 on Pitchfork. Come on, that's ridiculous, particularly when they gave Torme's "In a Soulfoul Mood" a 9.2.
Score = 0
For me their most irritating review was for the Fiery Furnaces EP, not so much because of the number (a bit high at 8.9 but not unreasonable), but because of its opening lines: "If you don't like Blueberry Boat, I don't like you. It's no longer a matter of taste, other than the fact that I have good taste, whereas you, Fiery Furnaces-hater, do not."
I know it's probably tongue-in-cheek, but it was grating. In fact, I don't know if I've ever been able to read one of their reviews all the way through without gnashing my teeth.
Score = 0
every joan of arc album gets shot down tremendously
Score = 0
Dandy Warhols: Odditorium or Warlords of Mars: 1.2. Guh?
Score = 0
This year I was most confounded by the Sound Team review...just seemed like they were trying really hard to stick it to Capitol or something. Great album.
I guess Liz Phair can feel good about herself because she got a 0.0 and nobody feels it was undeserved :)
Score = 0
...and I didn't see it at the time, but the Dandy's "Welcome to the Monkey House" only rates a 3.3. No love there.
Score = 0
lifter puller: fiestas and fiascos....they hate everything they ended up loving about the hold steady
Score = 0
Everyone who posted should read this!
http://www.coolfer.com/blog/archives/2005/09/stick_a_fork_in.php
xo
Score = 0
Everyone who posted should read this!
http://www.coolfer.com/blog/archives/2005/09/stick_a_fork_in.php
xo
Score = 0
"how is this good critical writing?"
"It's not. It was 1998. It might as well have been published on a completely different website to the one that existed in 99-01/02 or so and the one from 02/03-today."
Yea, you're certainly right they're alot better writers now and I read it everyday. I was just talking about that particular article not pitchfork as a whole.
Score = 0
That Pet Sounds 7.5 review is a joke. It doesn't stack up to dark side of the moon? WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Score = 0
all the reviews people have pointed out are glaring. i always thought ryan's 6.8 review of modest mouse's first album was pretty stupid. i'd put the album in the 9 range, but it's at least an 8-something.
"The only problem with this record is that it's impossible to get all the way through it because it's over 70 minutes long [...] There are few bands who can pull that off and honestly, Modest Mouse is not one of 'em."
wrong answer.
Score = 0
Well, to be fair, I've never made it through the entirety of that first Modest Mouse album...
Oh well.
You guys are right about a good number of the Ryan Adams and Dandy Warhols reviews. Good records with ratings far too low.
Score = 0
My wrongest pick is almost my most favorite review on Pitchfork: Ryan's review of Har Mar Superstar's You Can Feel Me. Wrongest because even though the article ends in Schreiber just beating the keyboard in frustration, it still gets a 2.0. Favorite because it's FUCKING HILARIOUS.
Gems from the review:
"The country's no-brow simpletons lap this shit up like a last meal. It'll sell for the same reasons The Man Show's lasted four seasons and Spencer Gifts can't keep inflatable tits and farting monkeys in stock. What are we, nine?"
"Weighting this thing against other novelty records-- where a 10.0 might be, say, Spike Jones' Nutcracker Suite-- is a total loss; You Can Feel Me couldn't even battle 30 seconds of "They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha Ha". "
"Yeah, Tillmann, it's because you're fucking white. Jesus! Can you even believe the arrogance of this kid? Is he an asshole or something? Sorry, champ, but Usher wouldn't package promotional copies of his albums with gross-out glossies of his fat ass in thriftstore Underoos. Usher wouldn't play up his rank beastliness by neglecting his personal grooming habits before photo shoots. Usher wouldn't sport a cop-show 'stache and a rat-tail mullet. I can't even believe that needs to be explained!! "Because I'm white?" How do you even sleep after making a comment like that?! DUDE YOU HAVE A SONG ABOUT THE FUCKING ELEPHANT WALK!!!"
Score = 0
Giving Uffie one star
Score = 0
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/16859/The_Dandy_Warhols_Welcome_To_The_Monkey_House
Dude basically gave the record a 3.3 because his girlfriend thought Courtney Taylor was hot. Jealousy is not very rock and roll.
Score = 0
What about Cold War Kids' "Hospital Beds" getting slammed with a one and a half star rating? http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/track_reviews/37783/Cold_War_Kids_Hospital_Beds#37783
Score = 0
What about Cold War Kids' "Hospital Beds" getting slammed with a one and a half star rating? http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/page/track_reviews/37783/Cold_War_Kids_Hospital_Beds#37783
Score = 0
i disagree with y'all's picks way more than i disagree with the fork's. some of you have really bad taste in music, but who cares.
Score = 1
Listen guys, if you need to read a review on Pitchfork to form an opinion of something, then you suck. If you need someone to tell you how to think, then fuckin jump off a building 'cause you're fuckin useless. Why don't you all start websites of your own. Jesus.
Score = 2
Is it wrong that I stumbled across Broken Social Scene the "old-fashioned way?" Siting in a college dorm room watching Subterannean or whatever the hell it is called on MTV2. Cause=time came on and the imagery plus the music kept me glued to my couch. I immediately ran out and bought You Forgot it in People and was pleasantly surprised. [This would happen again after my roommate and I catch the Secret Machine's Nowhere Again video and rush out and buy their stellar debut album.] With all that being said I still can't get into the self titled follow up. Maybe I need to give it another spin.
Score = 0
Gotta agree with Mr. Schreiber, here.
Quit your bitching. Pitchfork is a very useful source for information regarding independent music, and everyone reading THIS checks it everyday. They do their job very nicely in that respect.
Furthermore, music reviewers everywhere are always expressing their tastes and opinions based on personal criteria. So someone at Pitchfork didn't like a Nada Surf record? Whatever. That's one person's opinion (hopefully bolstered by some ability to discern good and bad qualities about songwriting/composition, musicianship, production and intention, etc. . .). One person. Not an entire abstract entity called "Pitchfork." There are no universally quantifiable criteria for taste and interests. They are mostly personal, or occasionally cultural positions.
I know what my tastes are, and no amount of strangers heralding Tapes 'n Tapes or Sunset Rubdown, for example, is going to make me think that they are any less boring. And that is just me.
What about you people? What are your tastes? Really, think about it. If you cannot tell yourself, then fucking develop some ability to discern what it is that you like, or be banished to a hell of taking other people's opinions about arbitrary subjects too seriously.
Shameful that it is necessary to explain these principles to some of you people.
Score = 0
Wow, that was intense.
I reckon Andrew WK's I Get Wet's 0.6 was way harsh, even if I do understand the premise of the review.
That record was over-hyped by NME beyond reason but hey, "I love NYC", "She is Beautiful" and "Party Hard" are ludicrously fun.
I've seen plenty of review I've disagreed with, but I'm always interested when they give something i've never heard a good rating.
Score = 0
Tool - 1.9 for Lateralus (i think its one of the best albums of the first half of the decade)
And i agree about Coldplay's first 2 albums, 5.5 (Parachutes) and 5.3 (Rush of Blood) being low. Love 'em or hate 'em, they are fine albums in my opinion.
They are pretty hard on the Chili Peppers too, altho PFM won't open so I can't quote numbers anymore.
I also agree with the way too high 10.0 for Source Tags and Codes
Score = 0
"Listen guys, if you need to read a review on Pitchfork to form an opinion of something, then you suck. If you need someone to tell you how to think, then fuckin jump off a building 'cause you're fuckin useless. Why don't you all start websites of your own. Jesus."
Ummm, I don't think we need to read a review to form an opinion, OR tell us how to think. I think we're just pointing out inconsistencies in the site, and maybe getting into a debate about the merits of certain albums. Sorry we made you so mad. Here, have a cookie...
Score = 0
R. Schreiber, Wesley: Learn to have fun?
Score = 0
I think Wolf Parade's 9.2 was a little too high. Good album but not THAT good.
Score = 0
Um, that's not actually Ryan Schreiber posting up there.
Score = 0
Agree with the Nada Surf comments...
how about Daft Punk "Discovery" getting in the 6's (too lazy to look it up)... one of the best albums of the 2000's so far.
Also, every Stereolab album is way underscored, and Sunset Rubdown, CYHSY, Tapes n' Tapes all overrated.
Where they got it right: The Knife and Junior Boys.
Score = 0
I agree that zaireeka - 0.0 is by far the worst Pitchfork review ever. The kid gave it that rating because he was too poor or didn't have enough friends to play it correctly. (aka. four cd players)
I do believe that someone re-review and gave it a 8-10 score, but I can't seem to find it.
But I most thank Pitchfork a billion times over for finding me music that I would have never ever heard about. So thank you Pitchfork.
Score = 0
Yes it is. That guy up there is totally not Scott Poopenhoff. Scott actually has a sense of humour.
Score = 0
I give the Pitchfork website a 3.5 just for the server being down so frequently.
Score = 0
About eight albums a year come out that are worth more than 250 words of review copy--not because the other albums suck but because most albums speak just fine by themselves (or suck on their own terms) and aren't up to interpretation or being pegged to a trend or a movement. And because most albums are just about average in everything but intention.
But Pitchfork insists otherwise, and so we get thousands upon thousands of rambling, imprecise words, a significant percentage of which have never been uttered outside the Roget's offices, let alone employed in actual discourse. You could get more insight reading a transcript of the noises Robert Christgau would make while being sodomized by Greil Marcus. Especially if the transcript named what they were listening to.
And does anyone really go home at night, uncap a beer, order a pizza, crank the amp and put in...the Books?
Score = 0
What about Elliott Smith's From A Basement on the Hill? Or Josh Rouse's Under Cold Blue Stars? I could go on and on and on...but who cares.
Also Ryan, do you sincerely believe what you are typing? If you don't believe that your staff is way too fucking into themselves and are aware of the taste making power that they wield...you need to jump off a building, sir. The very fact is that you people get off on telling hipsters what is good and what isn't, and nothing more.
Score = 0
Or Scott or whoever.
Score = 0
Whether you agree on the rating or not, this is some funny shit....
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/19591/Louis_XIV_The_Best_Little_Secrets_Are_Kept
Score = 0
Well, I hate the Dandys and the Mars Volta, so good for Pitchfork. The rating I saw that I thought was off was the 5.3 they gave to Eureka by Jim O'Rourke.
Score = 0
both kings of leon records (4.2 and 4.9). they seem to hate them on image alone. i love both records, especially when drinking.
Score = 0
Rapture "Echoes" [9.0]
I bought it on their recommendation and haven't listened to it more than twice. It was even their favorite album of 2003--there's no f***ing way. I can think of about 10 albums from that year that are deserve that crown ("Elephant", "O", "Transatlanticism").
Death Cab for Cutie "Plans" [6.5]
It's not *that* bad. It's as if they deducted a few points before listening to it just because they signed to a major label. Meh.
Score = -1
Oh, and the Tool "Lateralus" review was absurd (supposedly written by a high school kid) but hilarious. You have to love the sentence:
"Then at the end there's this part where Danny Carey hits every drum he has."
Score = 0
maybe i just dont get the arcade fire, but 9.7 is a little high
Score = 0
I give pitchfork's new unreadable cleartype font a 0.8.
Score = 1
I got it. Ultimate Fakebook's This will Be Laughing week. It's not a bad review because the album is good, the album is terrible. It's a bad review because it never speaks about the music all it does is insult the bands hometown Lawrence, Kansas which is also my hometown. We have a great music scene and we have gained a reputation for being one of the most important scenes in the midwest. The reviewer says "I know nothing about the town, but that won't stop me from making fun of it." he says there is a population of 8 people or something and just makes it out to be a tiny backwoods redneck town. We're anything but and it just pissed me off. At least Wayne Coyne loves us.
Score = 0
sure they're talented and learned. but they take themselves way too seriously.
Score = 0
Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year...
Score = 0
Has anyone else noticed they give out a shitload of 7.6s and 8.7s?
Score = 0