SOUND TEAM, PITCHFORK REVIEW

I give Pitchfork 1.2/10

2. Pitchfork writers don't write as well as they think they do.

Everyone who's ever taken a writing class should know that using more words and choosing more obscure ones doesn't make you a better writer. So why do Pitchfork's reviewers seem to make a point of doing these things?

To seem better than they actually are! The more obscure the words, the longer the sentences, the more specialized the grammar, the better they, and people who value writing for these things, think they are.

Why you shouldn't take Pitchfork seriously:

1. Pitchfork's rating system is arbitrary:

0.0 to 10.0? That means there are 100 places they can choose from when picking a rating. Who the has the ability to tell the difference between a 3.5 and a 4.0, never mind a 0.1 difference? Reviewing CDs isn't rocket science, it's not even long division. Clearly, they pick a 3.4 rather than a 3.5 to fake some sort of refinement of taste.

Pitchfork is about as impressive as indie music. Those who review it are as overblown about what they're doing as those that play it. Look, Pitchfork, we're talking pop music here, let's not get silly. The album was great, no one thought a guitar and drums would reach heights like Beethoven in the first place - and nobody thought internet blogging was going to produce Kafka-like work either, so I should cut Pitchfag a break too.

If i hadn't heard of you guys first and read the pitchfork review I can see how it might have tinted my feelings towards you the first time I heard the album. People have to take reviews with a pinch of salt, be your own reviewer.

Devasted you guys have broke up
Any chance of a reunion?

Somehow I doubt you would've made a video response to a positive pitchfork review.