You can still read the reviews on Pitchfork but to see the score, you have to become a paid subscriber. This raises an interesting question: does a score add or detract from a written review? I spent 15 years reviewing albums for a publication that didn’t use any kind of scoring method, and i can remember the days when the NME didn’t score reviews but Sounds did with its star ratings (out of a possible total of 5). Can’t remember whether Melody Maker did or not. Now it’s pretty much standard across all reviews.
However, I do think scoring tends to devalue the actual written critique and becomes a kind of over-simplified shorthand. Plus, in my experience, most releases are neither excellent nor terrible but sort of alright (if you like that kind of thing). Around the 3-star grade, or a 6 or 7 out of 10. But when we see an average score, we don’t feel especially inspired to read further, unless the review relates to an artist we’re already invested or interested in.
So, I think Pitchfork’s done me a favour. Now I’ll read the review and judge the album on the writing, not the score.
What do » Continue Reading.


