How in the fuck did pitchfork ever warrant giving this a 9.5. It's a mediocre at best album that was made by a band that would go on to be great. It would be like giving Pablo Honey a 9 just because Radiohead would go onto make some good albums. Is there something I'm missing?
>>64714122
a brain
>>64714195
/thread
>>64714122
Why yes. Yes there is. There is something you're totally missing, OP. But don't worry. You can make up for it by bragging to all the plebs and contrarians that you posted dubs on the first try. Mind you, this will not help you gain understanding and knowledge of why this is a great album, but it's better than nothing.
LOL Go listen to every other rock album that came out that year and you will know why the Beatles 1st LP is so awesome.
>>64714195
>>64714223
>>64714317
>>64714496
it is actually trash though
>>64714510
nah
>>64714567
It's a boring trite poprock album and I've been known to defend poprock albums when they're actually interesting, but the Beatles before a hard day's night should be of interest or relevance to nobody
>>64714510
This, listen to tornadoes.
>>64714122
>How in the fuck did pitchfork ever warrant giving this a 9.5.
That's what I always thought. Pitchfork just had to be Pitchfork and couldn't admit that it's a perfect album so they docked off a few tenths of a point for no reason.
>>64714510
>>64714600
Just because you're a pleb doesn't mean anyone will ever agree with you
>>64714122
no Beatles album is deserving of higher than an 8
>>64714122
>Is there something I'm missing?
Yes, you don't understand popular music.
>>64714122
You're missing the part where pitchfork is shit and isn't about music.
ITT: dago pedophiles
>p4k
>not bashing a group of white kids who "borrowed" black music and became extremely successful off it
Kinda surprised desu
>>64716728
Remember what happened when they bashed this?
>>64716986
that album is objectively trash
