____twoism

Mexicola wrote:

SamuraiDrifter wrote:

Cyclosa wrote:Not surprised, TH was mediocre and dull

People are entitled to their opinions, and my opinion is that your opinion is awful.

Bit rude.

I didn’t say Cyclosa was awful, just their opinion. And when someone calls one of my favorite albums, an almost-universally praised one at that, “mediocre and dull,” am I supposed to love it?

I’m friends with many people whose opinions I consider awful.

Telling someone their opinion is awful is rude. If you need to be told that I'd suggest keeping your comments for your aforementioned friends.

I think this may be a slight cultural misunderstanding. In the US, "awful" might not carry the same weight that it does in the UK. Some phrases are used to the extent that they lose meaning, and that is vastly different between different English speaking countries. Awful, I would imagine, could just be used as a synonym of bad, without much additional context in the US.

In the UK we reserve the description of awful for serial killers etc. I do understand that you wanted to say that his opinion was one you disagree with and that it may even be a "bad opinion", but for the sake of dealing with a board with a lot of brits on it, are you able to revoke your description of it as being an awful one?

If an American wishes to correct me on this, they are welcome to, though. Is "awful" as awful in the states?

It's my opinion that devoting so much of the thread to semantics is awful

I was grasping at straws in an attempt to mediate.

I don't care about whatever disagreement Mexicola and SD have, it doesn't belong in this thread. Take it to the PMs, guys.

Your interpretation of the board rules are awful, just awful

Anyway, quite right. A minor detour is permissable, but this is somewhat of a hike through the woods southwest of the topic.

What was mentioned about Pitchfork retroactively altering their rating of MHTRTC is insincere and indicative of trash journalism. Real journalists accept their mistakes. Real journalists also have mustaches and you can map the decline in quality journalism to the decline in mustaches without any deviation.

I accept that some of you may say that correlation isn't causation, but the facts are in and global dejournalizing is real. It is settled science and 99% of Scientists agree* that lack of mustaches in media is the leading cause. Mind your personal hairprint.

*99% of a group of 700 scientists from various fields of media and hair sciences. Originally a group of 4000, but we removed all contradict... um... irrelevant opinions.

Valotonin wrote:Your interpretation of the board rules are awful, just awful

Anyway, quite right. A minor detour is permissable, but this is somewhat of a hike through the woods southwest of the topic.

What was mentioned about Pitchfork retroactively altering their rating of MHTRTC is insincere and indicative of trash journalism. Real journalists accept their mistakes. Real journalists also have mustaches and you can map the decline in quality journalism to the decline in mustaches without any deviation.

I accept that some of you may say that correlation isn't causation, but the facts are in and global dejournalizing is real. It is settled science and 99% of Scientists agree* that lack of mustaches in media is the leading cause. Mind your personal hairprint.

*99% of a group of 700 scientists from various fields of media and hair sciences. Originally a group of 4000, but we removed all contradict... um... irrelevant opinions.

You are right about the word “awful” in the US. We here usually don’t take words themselves as being things that really bother us unless it is specifically directed at you. Some four letter words invoke how you describe what “awful” means to you and a certain female derogatory word is probably the worst of them all. “Personal” intent behind the words is what most often causes us to become quick to emotions... some words here have less meaning

Pitchfork changed their rating????

^ Yes. See Josh's post on the previous page.

Valotonin wrote:^ Yes. See Josh's post on the previous page.

Ah yeah I didn’t catch that before... that is lame... I still agree with their new review though haha that album is nuts!!!!

I can think of several albums I like better than TH in that time span that aren't on the list either. But still, it is meaningless. Sometimes I read Pitchfork's lists and scan through clips of bands I haven't heard before. Maybe 1 out of 100 turns out to be something that I like enough to buy the album.

As for revising history, I'm not surprised. Rolling Stone has done it too, probably most others. It doesn't make it right, it just shows that critical opinions are not authoritative.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/musi ... ned-101316

Their review of TH is still positive. "layers, after layers, after layers and no cheesy melodies from the past"

It's like Onions!

arvy wrote:Their review of TH is still positive. "layers, after layers, after layers and no cheesy melodies from the past"

It's like Onions!

Oh yeah, I see that - 8.3 out of 10! Can't remember if I've read this review before.

https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/18 ... s-harvest/

It's also like onions because it makes me cry! Not really, lol.

LOL @ it having a score that high, then not appearing on the list. Ah, Pitchfork. They've changed a lot in the last half decade or so. However, if there's one Boards of Canada album I wouldn't place on a list that was influential to the decade it was released in, it'd be this one, though. It's wonderful, but it's marketing campaign was more influential than the album.

Death Grips not in the top 10, at least for me, is a disgrace in itself, but having Waka Flocka Flame ahead of them is sacrilege!

subset wrote:Death Grips not in the top 10, at least for me, is a disgrace in itself, but having Waka Flocka Flame ahead of them is sacrilege!

Unrelated, but hello, fellow Bulgarian

It's surprising that people still take music sites like Pitchfork seriously, I don't think there is a way to objectively "rate" an album and put it on a "best of the decade" list. It all comes down to personal taste.

...at least those are my two cents on the matter.

I don't believe any individual or even group of individuals could possibly have enough of an understanding of the decade's music to have authority on something so vast. There have probably been hundreds of thousands of albums released in the past decade. Nobody can even pretend to know what the 100 best ones are because there simply isn't enough time in the human lifespan to keep up with it.