like I’ve said many times pitchfork is a great resource
The only time I think they get out of their depth is with jazz.
I think when it comes to classic jazz records they shouldn’t assign a numerical score to them
Like I’ll know the significance of a record and they’ll be like 8.6 or 9.3 like it’s a new release
It’s reductive and not helpful to put a record that still holds up 40 - 60 years later on that continuum when time and history have already spoken for it.
https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums...onk-palo-alto/
This is a new issue but it’s Monk from 68.
Gets a 9.1 ok
https://www.google.com/amp/s/pitchfo...d-fantasy/amp/
Kanye gets a 10
So I mean they’re going to attach a numerical value to this
Kanye never made anything better than Monk in 68. If I had those guys in a room and I called them out on this they’d know damn well their position was indefensible.
If they really think there’s a .9 shortcoming in Monk’s performance that night they should do themselves a favor and leave the rating off and just write about the recording. You don’t judge Monk like you do Beach House or whatever. Monk’s place in the pantheon of greats is already determined. They need to stick to helping us sort out new music and make discriminating choices to focus our listening time. But don’t try to tell me you’re giving Monk an A minus. Bitch, you don’t get to grade Monk.