Red Mosquito

theplatypus wrote:True story: my allergy to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs means that if I took an alka seltzer, I could die

Kaius wrote:Life is precious.

tragabigzanda wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Top 10 maybe?
Hello Morning
Close Captioned
The Kill
Place/Position
Do You Like Me?
Latest Disgrace
Recap Modotti
Nightshop
Break
Life & Limb

I'd maybe bump Life & Limb for Epic Problem

Kevin Davis wrote:I actually think their lack of a comments section is a credit to them. They used to have a "reader mail" section back in the day; to me that is more akin to the kind of thing you're talking about with the Washington Post, etc. I wish all online publications would do away with comments sections. They're almost uniformly awful.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:I actually think their lack of a comments section is a credit to them. They used to have a "reader mail" section back in the day; to me that is more akin to the kind of thing you're talking about with the Washington Post, etc. I wish all online publications would do away with comments sections. They're almost uniformly awful.

I think the stance works if the writing is uniquely good -- the defunct Grantland is a good example. Even Vulture, whose writers I find to be talented and insightful (more often than not) allows comments. But Pitchfork's writers read like a bunch of Gawker castaways, so in that instance I think the stance is ridiculous.

tragabigzanda wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:I actually think their lack of a comments section is a credit to them. They used to have a "reader mail" section back in the day; to me that is more akin to the kind of thing you're talking about with the Washington Post, etc. I wish all online publications would do away with comments sections. They're almost uniformly awful.

I think the stance works if the writing is uniquely good -- the defunct Grantland is a good example. Even Vulture, whose writers I find to be talented and insightful (more often than not) allows comments. But Pitchfork's writers read like a bunch of Gawker castaways, so in that instance I think the stance is ridiculous.

I'm sorry, why? Can you elaborate?

Because they're largely (though not completely) a bunch of early-to-mid twenty somethings who write as though they understand music with a certain authority. They fetishize certain trends because of their overt intellectualism or rarity, and they turn their nose up at acts because of their mainstream popularity (PJ being one example). I held similar views on music in my 20s. But now I can appreciate an AC/DC or Fleetwood Mac every bit as much as a Floating Points or Kendrick Lamar. And I suppose everyone comes to those sorts of realizations at their own pace. But Pitchfork doesn't allow the space to have those discussions. They tend to position music in terms of "cool" and "not cool." Which is just an idiotic way of viewing the world, IMO.