I think I might have mentioned this before, but the reason the scores don't always reflect the review is that the writer does the review, and the editor of the site gives it their own opinion in the score.
Also, I don't read Pitchfork avidly, but it's ok, and while it shrieks pretension, a lot of their writers have imagination - I don't want a track by track guide to what an album sounds like, to the very note, I'd rather get an idea of what it made someone feel, or may have the potential to make someone feel.
I write reviews, and giving blow by blow accounts of song progressions is tedious to write and read. It needs some spark, otherwise no-one will bother to read it. That says, there is a balance to be reached, but if the writer's good, chances are you'll get a decent review which is enjoyable to read, gives you a vague idea of what to expect, and that you might not agree with.
