Pitchfork gave Jet's Shine On a 0.0. The 'review' was a video of a chimpanzee.

Let's do the math. A standard album review at a publication like Pitchfork runs between 400 and 800 words. Word count of this review: zero. Sentences: zero. Adjectives: zero. Metaphors involving 'angular guitars': zero. Effort expended on a band's months of recording, mixing, and mastering: zero. The math aint mathing.

The review is a video embed. That's it. Pitchfork's founder Ryan Schreiber decided that Jet's sophomore album warranted exactly one media element — a clip of a chimpanzee drinking its own urine — and then awarded it a 0.0. A score so precise it suggests calculation, attached to a 'review' that suggests the calculator was thrown out the window and replaced with a Yahtzee cup.

Here's where the numbers get interesting. Pitchfork's rating scale runs to two decimal places. That's 1,001 possible scores between 0.0 and 10.0. Schreiber picked the exact floor of the scale, which mathematically asserts that this album is precisely as bad as any album could possibly be. Not Metal Machine Music bad. Not Lulu bad. Not 'we recorded this in a parking lot during a hurricane' bad. The floor. The actual mathematical floor. To make that claim with zero written justification is statistically equivalent to a referee blowing the whistle without watching the game and awarding a forfeit on aesthetic grounds.

The review has been online for nearly twenty years. It gets cited as 'iconic' by people who have clearly never written a music review. What it actually is: the moment a publication discovered you can substitute a punchline for a critique and pull more pageviews than a real critic generates in a year. That's not criticism. That's content arbitrage with a primate.

The math says: 0.0 / 0 words = undefined. The score I'm giving this review is the only number that fits.