So, what is the worst music review ever then?

i have a hard tiem remembering what "muckraking" even means

still don't know what makes the walkmen so obviously, uh, sucky

They record boring albums.

ok thanks i understand now

The actual closing line from the Pitchfork review:

Far from trailblazing, Passover nevertheless implies that the Black Angels like to blaze until they see trails.

I made fun of the Walkmen because they, uh, suck. Not that hard to figure out.

I could make up better zings with a dick in my mouth.

great thread so far

I could make up better zings with a dick in my mouth.

― Shannon Whirry & the Bad Brains, Monday, March 9, 2009 12:20 AM

like that one!

Geeze, This is what I keep for sleeping in all weeked.

I find the Rolling Stone Grace Jones review boneheaded and offensive because it's unfairly dismissive of the album for the sake being too-clever-by-half, and it does so with more than a whiff of homo/disco-phobia.

As for the Autobahn review, the editor should have cut everything after the first graph until the last line. The album as its subject matter analogy is clever enough (and as a reviewer’s self-indulgent conceit, it’s certainly handled more deftly than the Grace Jones review), but the last line of the review is all we need to get it.

Yeah, I copied both of those from the Rolling Stone Cover-to-Cover dvd set. Although it looks now as if the links are broken.

I think James Wisdom's reviews are awesome.

It all comes back around:

https://defector.com/a-notorious-pitchfork-reviewer-was-my-biggest-musical-influence

There’s a 2005 I Love Music messageboard post titled “So, what is the worst music review ever then?” One poster, Brian Whitman, believed he had an answer....

(Mr. Wisdom, who posted last on this thread, is interviewed for the story and there's more besides.)

so long...

not like "goodbye". so long as in "wow that thing is long".

i don't know a lot of the non-ilx pitchfork people. i thought brent d. was funny. most of it seemed pretty samey though. 1996 they started? sheesh. i had no idea.

was pitchfork making money before conde nast took them over? why don't all these online places just stay independent? i don't get it. they want to get "BIGGER"? is that the thing? so stupid. owning your own thing is where its at. it never ends well when rich people get involved.

my understanding is that conde nast offered them money

God, that Sleater-Kinney review is abysmal— All Hands on the Bad One is an excellent record.