“I figured Rolling Stone would give it a sub par rating. But who cares, I haven’t been influenced by a review by them in…well…ever… they come across as very dated and irrelevant.”

Funny, that’s exactly how I feel about Pitchfork.

Wait now. Justin V. has a point. Poorly worded, but a point. They have no criteria. These aren’t singles. Why?s ‘Fatalist Palmistry’ is not a single. ‘The Hollows’ was a single. ‘Song of the Sad Assasin’ was a single. ‘A Sky for shoeing Horses Under’ had a video. If they’re just picking the 100 best songs of the entire year from the LITERALLY MILLIONS of songs released on every single album that dropped between January 1st and December 15th 2008 that’s completely absurd. All these lists are subjective, but a Top 50 albums list at least has some guidelines we can all imagine and follow.

How in god’s name were these songs picked?

Not by genre, not by popularity, not by sales, hype or exposure … So it’s a list of 100 songs the 15 people who write for Pitchfork liked this year? All jumbled up with no rhyme or reason?

Big deal. Any surviving record store could do the same thing by polling their employees. Any college radio station probably has a better list. Who are the Pitchfork writers that I should give a shit?

These lists only make sense when you can back them up with data. Otherwise it’sjust a bunch of people you wouldn’t give the time of day to in a bar telling a bunch of sheeplike kids they can’t decide for themselves.

Port O’Brien’s ‘I Woke Up Today’ was a pretty awesome song. The album sucked, but that song was awesome. Does anyone agree, disagree or care? Would you change your mind if I told you I’m the editor of Cokemachineglow? How about Pitchfork?