Fork you! Pitchfork

Don’t read this review; it’s a waste of time.

As anybody who has ever written music reviews knows, there is always a thought lingering in the back of your mind questioning the point of writing an extensive review. Readers most likely don’t read them word for word, instead skipping around to the parts they’re interested in, like what label the band is on, where the band’s from, and the rating given by the reviewer.

Thus, the pointlessness of the elongated Oxford English columns that are Pitchfork reviews. Frankly no one cares that you used the words “bombast” or “indolent” to describe that band; we just think you are a pretentious prick with a thesaurus.

For my good and bad reviews of Pitchfork’s good and bad reviews, I am going to rate them on a scale of .00000236573494 to 468, a highly technical scale where 468 means that the reviewer did such a miraculous job at reviewing that all other reviewers should avert their eyes when in the presence of the almighty reviewer, otherwise they will be turned to stone instantaneously.

One word reviews

Because we are just that concise.

ï “What Happens in Vegas Ö” ñ Double-homicide
ï Mates of State “Re-arrange us” ñ Super-cute
ï 2008 presidential election process ñ End
ï Scarlett Johansson “Anywhere I Lay My Head” ñ Chesty
ï Lemonade Icee after a long bike ride to the Burger King in the quarry on May 22nd at 3:45 p.m. ñ Refreshing
ï Mesa Pizza’s buffalo chicken pizza ñ Rock ‘n’ roll
ï Mountain Dew’s slurry of new jewel-toned flavors ñ Future-drink-mixers
ï Having contacts and hay fever ñ Unfortunate
ï $7.00 bottle of Kamchatka Vodka ñ Bargain?
ï A neighborhood that sounds a lot like “sewer” ñ Seward

At the other end of the spectrum, a review of .00236573 means that the reviewer did such a horrible job of reviewing that halfway through reading it you will run to the bathroom and try to scrub your eyes out with toilet brushes.

Let’s get reviewing.

Jason Josephes is a standout talent among the Pitchfork reviewing elite. He offers a great example of a proper witty review with a slamming of Kiss’ “Unmasked” Album, giving it a .08 on the Pitchfork scale.

Josephes writes three small paragraphs in the form of a letter kindly asking Kiss why they ever wanted to take their masks off. He does a good job of illustrating bad qualities honestly and originally, but also finds himself asking deeper questions like: “As a fan growing up, I never owned this album. I didn’t know how bad it was and, sadly, I wish I could have remained in those gorgeous shadows for the rest of my life.” A&E gives this review a 253.

Next, we have a review by Mark Richardson, who hands out 10’s like they grow on trees. Richardson

decided that Neutral Milk Hotel’s “In the Aeroplane over the Sea” deserved the perfect score. Marky-Mark Richardson, there are three reasons why this is not the case.

1. They aren’t Bruce Springsteen, and everyone knows that “The Boss” has a monopoly on 10’s, and there just aren’t enough to go around.

2. Nobody cares that some band named Neutral Milk Hotel released one great album that only a few people “truly appreciated” and received a rating of 10. As the old proverb goes: if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? Now we have a new proverb: if a band that nobody knows gets a Pitchfork rating of 10, does anybody care?

3. An actual quote from Richardson describing the album speaks for itself. “Obsessed as it is with the textures of the flesh and the physical self as an emotional antenna, listening to Aeroplane sometimes seems to involve more than just your ears.”

A&E gives Richardson’s review a rating of .00001356749 for cheeseballness.

As pointed out before, Bruce Springsteen dominates the number 10, and – would you believe it – the very same Richardson agrees, giving The Boss’ album “Born to Run: the 30th Anniversary Edition” a rating of 10. It sounds like Richardson is the government rebate check of 10’s; everyone gets one. But this time the reviewer makes the right decision.

Without even reading the Springsteen review, A&E deemed it exemplary and deserving of a 467 rating, not quite perfect, because the only review that could ever get a perfect score would be a review that Bruce Springsteen wrote for himself in which he gave himself a Pitchfork score of 11.

Finally, Ray Suzuki’s review of Jet’s album “Shine On” didn’t even give a score, or even a written review. Apparently, the album was so bad that it warranted only a YouTube video of a Monkey peeing in its mouth.

A&E gives Suzuki a 10 for being better than .00236573, but not quite good enough to earn a 468.