Thursday, September 29, 2005

I'm all clairvoyant and shit

How smart am I? Well, today I was searching around Primer looking for an old story that really should never be retold because it's pretty gross. Any, I'm poking around an old lounge thread, searching for comments by and about me, because that's all that's important. Anyway, I run across this little nugget:
scotto (post #87): Pitchfork gave the London Calling reissue a 10.0, which was the first I saw of that.

Me (post #93): OK Computer and Kid A got 10.0s. I would gather that, depending on the reviewer, if they were to re-review "In the Aeroplane over the Sea" by Neutral Milk Hotel, it would get a 10 as well.
Well lo and frickin' behold. Time to start playing the lottery. Only, I need to buy tickets for the one that will be held a year from now.

Oh yeah, Angels won, couple of homers, lots of runs for the good guys, Bart gets number 21. It's weird not to care about the outcome all that much, isn't it? This must be what it's like for Royals fans, but for the whole year.

9 comments:

Pinko Punko said...

ugh. that makes me sick. You should see all the crap they give 10s too.

Although, Brother Seitz does get a right on there!

I love how the primer threads get all surreal at times, though- what was the date on that?

Pinko Punko said...

I'd give you double props if it had been older than Oct 04, still prop-worthy

Seitz said...

Well, that was a lounge thread, so it was supposed to be surreal. That was back when I still posted in the lounge.

Actually, I was looking for the herpetic stoma story.

jedmunds said...

I hate pitchfork I cant navigate that place anymore. But if anything deserves a 10.0 in the last 10 years, it;s that album

teh l4m3 said...

In 8 years you know those wannabe trendwhores will be rating Stone Roses' "Second Coming" a 10. Dumb twats.

Seitz said...

I worship at the altar of John Squire, and even I wouldn't give Second Coming a 10. Now, the first album, I'd only give it a 10 because they wouldn't let me go any higher.

teh l4m3 said...

Fair enough. To each his own. I can see why SR rates highly, even tho' they don't in my book...

And where do we think Pitchfork will stand on the Strokes versus the Walkmen in 8 years? In 20 years, will my friend Alan be "rediscovered" a la Nick Drake?

Miss Cleo, where are you when we need you???

Pinko Punko said...

I agree with Teh. My feeling is some albums are personally awesome, but not 10s, and some you don't necessarily love but can feel that they are amazing, and possibly 10s. I can't explain it. But their ratings and their words never match. So what's the point. Dropping a 10 on that album after the fact is like them saying "THIS IS IMPORTANT" and it's just douchey. Also, shitting on another band because they were more popular than your private fave band is not an argument, and I hate it when they do that. They are just so dumb. In their Electric Version revue, they crap on the Dan Bejar songs. I hate them this week. I kn

Seitz said...

My irrational infatuation with the first Stone Roses album is no secret. I think it's the greatest collection of recorded material produced by man.

I put PF in the third wave of strokes reviewers. There the first wave (They're the saviors of R&R!!). The second wave (They're rip-offs, and we're too cool to listen to bands that just sound like VU). Then there was the third wave (We're way cooler than the second wave. We're so fucking cool, we LIKE bands that rip-off VU!). But they've pretty much given good reviews to both the Walkmen and the Strokes, right? Eh, I like 'em both, so whatever.

I don't want to rip on PF too much, though. The've gotten me to listen to some good music.