Still Illing: Paul's Boutique not given proper hip-hop/pop culture stress tests by quasi-regulatory Pitchfork Media

This is your Pitchfork ombudsman again giving Pitchfork a big 3.9 for its most recent top review.
While much of the nation was celebrating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the King Shit music cops over at Pitchforkmedia.com were quick to rush away from the punch bowl and back to their True North of misleading and saddling the hapless indie-rock public with another albatross. Why are you so angry Mr. Focci you might ask? Yet another rubber stamp 10.0 Triple AAA rating for the 20th anniversary reissue of the Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique, I reply.
The rating itself is not so much the problem as the tortuous snaking genre references which contribute little to the more important debate of how rap musicians could improve upon Paul's Boutique, by y'know, bringing it into the 1990's stylistically.
Even Pope Benedict is on the record paying lip service to this album, so what else can be added here?
The reviewer, (billed as the suspiciously pseudonymous sounding Nate Patrin) actually admits on relying on Wikipedia references to identify the manifold samples throughout the work, hiding behind another mega-bucks corporation to obfuscate his refusal to tackle the main issue that Americans care about: how the hell do we fix Paul's Boutique and has this album been exposed to extensive enough cultural stress tests to guarantee I won't be laughed at for mentioning it as a cultural watershed?
Also why haven't Adam Yauch, Mike D, and Ad Rock supplied a full list of samples here, so the indie public could determine whether those samples represent a sufficient breadth and depth of pop culture to merit revisiting? I could conjecture, but one thing is certain: We don't see any indication Patrin sought out answers in his role as self-appointed guardian of the hipster-corporate trough.
Mr. Patrin, if you were put on the hot seat by an independent agency about this, would you be able to say your Pitchfork editors had touted the concept of "best practices" at any point? Perhaps even a reminder to bring your full vigorous attention to the evaluation of PB would be of great assistance if an independent and newly established authority should want to see your notes for this review? Just questions meant to guide you in the future.
In a separate point I want to address the tortuous abuse of the rhetorical device of litany on view here, which puts paid to the myth that two people are working on the same sentence at the same time over there:
"There's dozens of clever touches and big ambitious ideas:... a sparingly-used Alice Cooper guitar riff adding a mockingly pseudo-badass counter to the whimsical Gene Harris-based soul jazz backbone of "What Comes Around".
There is also the defacto canonization of the production duo the Dust Brothers, without proper acknowledgment of the role of unofficial Dust Brother Matt Dike, the actual bridge between a young Adam Yauch and King and Simpson. Perhaps future generations might care to have some historical perspective on that issue.
You would think that Pitchfork would not be so eager to repeat the mistakes of their forefathers who didn't ask hard questions about Paul's Boutique from the outset. What impact will this have on the future of rap? Is there a link between this and the late 1990's rap-rock revolution that created Limp Bizkit and Korn? Can the "indie-rock" labor force afford a new copy of Paul's Boutique as well as that Primus reissue which will inevitably rate a 9.0?
As if there wasn't enough trouble: the latest google metric reports have shown a disturbing three feet high and falling slippage in Pitchfork's page rankings for the term "Marni Stern." Maybe the office midget forgot to get that copy to the webmaster, or perhaps they were to busy celebrating their fool-hardy and altogether unexamined endorsement of Paul's Boutique.
Perhaps most disturbingly, we see another example of Pitchfork's gold-class double standards at work in their omission of any mention of the Dust Brothers' legal posturing to force the Chemical Brothers to change their name.
Perhaps having two bands with the same name is too radical a concept, but I think that given Pitchfork's rough treatment of some other artists with a history of litigiousness, perhaps a separate codice about the lawsuit appended to the Paul's Boutique review would have been warranted.
Instead we see them rushing forward with the full on anointment of the Dust Brothers partnership as some paragon of creative and humanistic equity, full on grey smoke coming out of the chimney.

Pitchfork 101

It looks like Pitchfork has posted some news, including a bit on Coldplay's ongoing recordings with Eno. They are still ignoring the reissue of the Bee Gees' 1969 double album Odessa for some involuted Machiavellian reason I can't fathom. Come on guys, 7.8, 7.8.

If most Americans took a closer look at Pitchfork and the faux indie-rock travesties they perpetuate on unwitting consumers they would recoil in horror. Somebody should create an indie-rock spell and fact checker over there too.

Indicative of the anemic level of criticism being purveyed is the latest review of Morrissey's latest album Years of Refusal in which the reviewer resorts to comparing the "savagery" of Morrissey to former triumphs such as "Speedway" on Vauxhall and I.
In government as in Pitchfork, this type of cloudy nebulous comparison tells record buyers nothing if they don't know "Speedway." Perhaps this younger generation would be better served with a fuller description of Morrissey's "arsenal" of instruments, and the general sound of the record.
Please Pitchfork: After eight years in the wilderness indie-America is waiting for more consumer-minded record reviews, not an 8-point rubber stamp. Roll the margins inward, and start at the beginning.