Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Proof that Pitchfork.Com has its head up its own arse.
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13436-magical-mystery-tour/
6 Beatles albums get 10 out of 10.
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt Peppers
Magical Mystery Tour
White Album
Abbey Road
"Its flipside, "Baby You're a Rich Man", is less successful, ...It's the one lesser moment on an otherwise massively rewarding compilation."
How a 10 out of 10 album can have a "lesser moment" is beyond me.
Then they go and pretend that their approach is that the music is the most important thing to consider when reviewing albums. Ha ha.
"...but whether it's an album, a collection of separate pieces, or whatnot matters little when the music itself is so incredible."
"But the backstory of The Beatles, while fascinating, is inessential to the album's appeal." (methinks it is the merely the backstory that elevates these review scores to 10 out of 10)
"And even Ringo Starr writes a decent song, a country & western number with weirdly thick and heavy production ("Don't Pass Me By"). " (a 10 out of 10 album has a merely decent song?!?)
"Here, (the White Album) they fail, and pretty often, too. But by allowing for that, they somehow achieve more. " but surely not a perfect 10 out of 10?
"The work in question is large and sprawling, overflowing with ideas but also with indulgences, and filled with a hugely variable array of material, some of which might sound great one day and silly the next."
They seem to get higher marks just because they are the Beatles.
How can any fuckin eejit reviewer give an album 10 out of ten when it features self-indulgences, a decent song, or a variable (quality) array of material that fails pretty often?