Archive for the 'TMQ Finger Scrolling Practice' Category

Pitchforke Cobaggery Watch 2014 Top 30

It is sad to realize that my anticipation when listening to terrible tracks of how pained UC would be when he eventually would listen and be forced to describe is pain in hilarious words, and thinking about what he would say when reading terrible, terrible prose regaling in these same tracks, was really what made Pitchfork Cobaggery Watch enjoyable. Anyhow, I just breezed through the top 30 this year for THROWBACK THURSDAY.

30. A. G. Cook “Beautiful”
Pinko Punko says: Chipmunk Speak N’ Spell Stacey Q. Andrew Ryce almost begs for forgiveness having to polish this sort of turd. It’s an OK gimmick sort of for a dance track, but I sort of wonder why it is worthy of any comment at all.

29. Spoon “Do You”
Pinko Punko says: Spoon have been so good for so long, a new ultra polished and evolved perfectly constructed record from them doesn’t seem to demand the attention it deserves. The new one is better than the last one and I can’t wedge my schedule to listen to it much, but it is typically excellent. I like “New York Kiss” for a Spoon track with non-Spoon sounds.

28. Grouper “Holding”
Pinko Punko says: Super beautiful hushed vocals over spare, repetitive piano. It is a different universe from the usual list filler. I’m sort of surprised that this sort of song would be considered- where is the shiny gimmick so attractive to the internet?

Continue reading ‘Pitchforke Cobaggery Watch 2014 Top 30’


PCW 2011

I need to be honest, this feature is less fun for probably two reasons, one UC doesn’t make me laugh nonstop anymore, though I know he would if he could, but also that the music this last year seemed just so boring. The inexplicable and the terrible have been replaced by the sadly predictable. Minimally, if we are gonna stay in this game, we should at least bring back this feature– where the mean record store clerk gives an internal monologue for your purchases. The best part is we could all hammer our favorite albums

The 2011 Track List at Pitchfork



We previously sprung the rest of the Top Tracks of 2010 as placed on a Ritz cracker by Pitchfork back in surprisingly April. The list was here, but maybe it is so old it might 404?????

2010 Numbers 20-1


Pitchfork listo here. Our previous 100-81 here. 80-61 here. 60-41 here. 40-21 here. Somebody should graph our output over the year. Diminishing returns? I think not. UC delivers! Suck it, All Music Guide!

2009 Numbers 20-1


It is done.

Previous here and in links.

2008 Numbers 20-1


Here, here, here, here, here.


Here, here, here, here.

2011 JUST IN TIME FOR 2012! And here. we. go.

100. Thundercat “For Love (I Come Your Friend)”
PP says: The intro on this is very free-form Spinal Tap jazz odyssey. Now I am wondering if this is a Destroyer-level joke/awesome ironic/serious take on something, but now I feel like it is cool kid irony reversal, make something so uncool that you can reverse direction on a dime and declare it cool when nobody is looking, guaranteeing that you will lead the charge. My feelings on this: jazz fusion is either great forever, or mostly never, but it is one or the other, and if you can’t explain it without using the context “no, this is cool now because it isn’t cool” then it is probably just a noodly wank. Novelty mixtape trashbin material, but inoffensive.


fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 4

The sheepish look on a particular shorebird at, with this post, disturbing the tranquillity of those who thought this particular brouhaha had subsided a month ago caused one of our editors to suggest filing it under “fish vs ovine”, but said editor was, to easily imaginable effect, threatened with being locked in the room with the ombudscrew.

Perhaps this post will function as a kind of outreach to the zombie community.

Either that or when the cart heralded by “Bring out your dead!” arrives, it will simply be bundled on to it, protestations that it is, in point of fact, not well characterized as “dead” notwithstanding — though whether that is because those protestations are ignored, or are, as it turns out, never made, is probably not within my purview.

Prior installments: part 1, part 2, Part 3.

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 4’

fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 3

I’m sure these Acme Jet-propelled Skates will work this time.

Prior installments: part 1, part 2.

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 3’

fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 2

When I put up the previous post in this mishegas, I left a comment at fish’s saying:

I’m afraid I’ve ended up engaging in disproportionate response again.

It has been suggested to me that this should be my tag line. Sadly, I can find no argument against that.

Below the fold, find “epic ploveriness” or “an amazing cure for insomnia” or “a tragic misuse of space where there should be moose jokes and Goobie pics” or “an evil ploy by sink lettuce” or whatever it is the kids are calling it these days (now with annoying Wittgensteinian numbering system!).

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative, part 2’

fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative

A week ago, fish posted an excerpt from an SEK LGM post lambasting the film Avatar for having a racist narrative logic, along with a critique of SEK’s argument. The burden of fish’s argument, being of a sort to cause strange colors in shorebirds, led to an exchange of comments (which starts here) and eventually to the slab o’ text making up the main part of this post.

[In 3D where available]

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird, sort of: Use and abuse of narrative’

Les pantaloons des serieusement serieux

First off I am a giant hypocrite for reading the Mickey Cobag Kaus JournoList-leaked and edited thread, talking about it here, and not linking that a-hole for publishing it. Only discovered from following this (thank you Thers). My comments here are going to obliquely relate to an ongoing discussion here at 3B about the function of The Daily Howler and our current understanding of a “liberal media elite.” They really only tangentially have to do with our previous exhortations on some related matters, as featured in this thread at Whiskey Fire, most likely lauded as “Wow… half the comments here are nearly as annoying as Somerby himself” by the delightful bh.

They are going to be extensive, and possibly many-threaded. I apologize for the excessive and suffocating seriouspants- in fact they may chafe. However, I might rip Althouse at the end. 1)Amending: Althouse rip will be in comments if I have the energy.

Continue reading ‘Les pantaloons des serieusement serieux’

References   [ + ]

1. Amending: Althouse rip will be in comments if I have the energy.

Anthrax Omnimoose

Discussing some more anthrax stuff, where I continue to find Glennzilla a little bit off the rails. I’m bothered because I think he is usually so good. For example, Glenn’s update from a post today on the emerging government case against Dr. Ivins as the anthrax perpetrator:

UPDATE III: Long-time anthrax expert Dr. Meryl Nass (Curriculum Vitae here) uses crystal clear rationality to point out just some of the glaring flaws in what the FBI presented today. The fact that the FBI is plainly unable to place him near Princeton, New Jersey on either of the two dates on which the letters were sent — and, worse, the fact that the FBI included several facts which cut against such a finding — is, as Dr. Nass points out, by itself an enormous omission:

Put up or shut up: this is the most critical evidence in this case. If Ivins cannot be placed in New Jersey on those dates, he is not the attacker, or he did not act alone.

I highly recommend that her analysis be read in its entirety, particularly by any journalists who are preparing to opine on what took place today.

Since the quote above that Glenn pulled concerning the case is neither damning nor even an actual requirement for a hypothetical prosecution, I really found the statement completely hyperbolic. So I took a look at Dr. Nass’s post in its entirety. My take is that Glenn is rightly skeptical in principle, but his skepticism here has a whiff of defense counselishness and not necessarily a commitment to asking whether there is plausibility to the government claims. Here is Dr. Nass’s post, with my responses interweaved. At the bottom of the page is a selection from an affadavit outlining aspect of the government case that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax mailer.

Continue reading ‘Anthrax Omnimoose’

Brooks Babble

Neuroscience. Religion. David Brooks.

No, it’s not a pitch for David Cronenberg’s next movie, but rather a peculiar trinity visited upon the world by the New York Times when they accepted for publication Brooks’s column entitled “The Neural Buddhists” (h/t fish).

Brooks takes a fairly banal notion — that neuroscience can tell us something about how “spiritual” experiences arise in the brain — hitches it to a manifestly skewed conception of materialism, outfits the resulting contraption with a variety of misleading factoids, and, having mapped a route largely based on right-wing narratives, sets off at a breakneck gallop. The level of wreckage is fairly predictable.

Continue reading ‘Brooks Babble’

fish vs shorebird file — part “It’s all the mammals’ fault”

What follows is a response to fish’s contribution to the previous episode of fish vs shorebird file. As it turns out, it also functions as a response to Mandos’s most recent comments on that thread.


While the arguments and the words I use to describe the situation often sound like this is a secret cabal of 5 guys with cigars sitting in a smokey room making all the big decisions, this is not what I am trying to describe (I am sure my lazy language and argumentation is at the heart of this).

I’m not entirely happy with my own language on this topic either. There is an element of the Chomskyesque argument that can sound like conspiracy theory — sort of. It’s not, but I haven’t yet found quite the right conceptual approach to talk about it. I suppose in pointing it out in those terms, I’ve been hoping the resulting discussion might clarify things. Either that or I just get too entranced by my own rhetoric.

The next section is a really nitpicky reading of the rest of your description. There’s not much in it that I disagree with in a broad sense. Perhaps, my tweezing at it will reveal something about my approach.

Continue reading ‘fish vs shorebird file — part “It’s all the mammals’ fault”’