Switchblade Comb

(note: the following post is purely the opinion of RichmanVA and does not necessarily represent the views of Switchblade Comb as a whole. Enjoy.)

Pitchfork recently reviewed the new Beatles reissues and the results are, quite frankly, mind boggling. Now before we get into the “ratings” they gave these albums, I need you to keep 2 things in mind:

1. I have no idea what Pitchfork’s number grading system is based on and I really don’t care.

2. I fucking hate The Beatles. I’m not saying that to be cool, or subversive, or punk rock, I just don’t like them. I can appreciate the influence they have had on popular music and I quite enjoy John Lennon’s solo work but I just find The Beatles to be, for the most part, boring.

Now, taking those two factors into account, can someone please explain to me in what fucking bizarro universe a “music” website can give Source Tags and Codes by …And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead a perfect 10 while at the same time scoring 4 Beatles albums lower than that?

I’ve heard that Trail of the Dead record and it sucks. I haven’t heard all of the Beatles albums but I’m pretty sure they should, if nothing more than for historical reasons, be rated higher than that.

Now I’m not saying those Beatles albums should get a higher score than all current albums. I can think of lots of great albums made in the last 30 years that are better than any of those Beatles records. The Clash’s London Calling and Yankee Hotel Foxtrot by Wilco are two examples off the top of my head. To Pitchfork’s credit they did give “the best” Beatles perfect tens but I just find it utterly preposterous that such a popular and well respected (whatever that means) website thinks that horse shit like that Trail of the Dead record deserved a perfect 10. To quote Jack Black in High Fidelity: “How can someone with no interest in music own a record store (or in this case write for a website)?”

And that, my friends, is reason 1,356 why Pitchfork is the worst music website on the face of the planet.