<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Post-Rockist Picks for 2008: Scotter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/</link>
	<description>can you believe we&#039;re still posting?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:02:12 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: david</title>
		<link>http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/comment-page-1/#comment-59373</link>
		<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:28:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/#comment-59373</guid>
		<description>Nice list(s) - a lot of good stuff on there. 
Just had to mention that your Walkmen write-up summed up my history with them exactly. To a T. Saw them live about 5 yrs ago (I was there for the openers) and left halfway through. I was stunned - it was the worst show I had seen! I wrote Walkmen off and forgot about them, until every album came out and got great reviews and I was like....whah? Them? 
Watching pitchforkTV last summer and &quot;In the New Year&quot; came on. No title, nothing. Had not idea who it was but I instantly loved it. I was shocked to learn it was the Walkmen. I love this new record. Only their debut really captures the same spirit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice list(s) &#8211; a lot of good stuff on there.<br />
Just had to mention that your Walkmen write-up summed up my history with them exactly. To a T. Saw them live about 5 yrs ago (I was there for the openers) and left halfway through. I was stunned &#8211; it was the worst show I had seen! I wrote Walkmen off and forgot about them, until every album came out and got great reviews and I was like&#8230;.whah? Them?<br />
Watching pitchforkTV last summer and &#8220;In the New Year&#8221; came on. No title, nothing. Had not idea who it was but I instantly loved it. I was shocked to learn it was the Walkmen. I love this new record. Only their debut really captures the same spirit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scotter</title>
		<link>http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/comment-page-1/#comment-57830</link>
		<dc:creator>Scotter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/#comment-57830</guid>
		<description>Yes! The typo-trap! 

Regarding the Beck album, I really like it because with &lt;em&gt;Guero&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;The Information&lt;/em&gt; I think he was trying too hard to top his former work. &lt;em&gt;Modern Guilt&lt;/em&gt; seems like an album  for him, as if he were writing without the pressure of his back catalog to haunt him. There are, of course, lots of other things obviously haunting Beck, based on the subject matter of the album. As for his Scientologist leanings, I didn&#039;t really hear it in this album, but that doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s not there. 

And yes, I jog, but not lately. Guilty.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes! The typo-trap! </p>
<p>Regarding the Beck album, I really like it because with <em>Guero</em> and <em>The Information</em> I think he was trying too hard to top his former work. <em>Modern Guilt</em> seems like an album  for him, as if he were writing without the pressure of his back catalog to haunt him. There are, of course, lots of other things obviously haunting Beck, based on the subject matter of the album. As for his Scientologist leanings, I didn&#8217;t really hear it in this album, but that doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s not there. </p>
<p>And yes, I jog, but not lately. Guilty.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fancy Dan</title>
		<link>http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/comment-page-1/#comment-57779</link>
		<dc:creator>Fancy Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/#comment-57779</guid>
		<description>Nice list Scotter! Glad to hear what goes well with jogging and getting older.  

I must say that Modern Guilt was pretty decent, but I worry that Beck has lost his touch since he admitted to being a scientologist.  Now I feel like I can&#039;t relate to his music anymore whatsoever. Maybe it&#039;s because I don&#039;t trust him since I keep thinking about his connection to the Jeremy Blake/Theresa Duncan suicides. What happened to the Beck I knew and loved?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice list Scotter! Glad to hear what goes well with jogging and getting older.  </p>
<p>I must say that Modern Guilt was pretty decent, but I worry that Beck has lost his touch since he admitted to being a scientologist.  Now I feel like I can&#8217;t relate to his music anymore whatsoever. Maybe it&#8217;s because I don&#8217;t trust him since I keep thinking about his connection to the Jeremy Blake/Theresa Duncan suicides. What happened to the Beck I knew and loved?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Todd</title>
		<link>http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/comment-page-1/#comment-57777</link>
		<dc:creator>Todd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/#comment-57777</guid>
		<description>You jog? I had no idea. Good for you. I have to say I&#039;ve been pretty underwhelmed by the last few Beck records, but I think you&#039;ve convinced me to give Modern Guilt a chance.

RE: the typo - quite frankly, I&#039;m just surprised that anyone aside from the two of us actually pays attention to our constantly changing sub-head. That&#039;s cool.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You jog? I had no idea. Good for you. I have to say I&#8217;ve been pretty underwhelmed by the last few Beck records, but I think you&#8217;ve convinced me to give Modern Guilt a chance.</p>
<p>RE: the typo &#8211; quite frankly, I&#8217;m just surprised that anyone aside from the two of us actually pays attention to our constantly changing sub-head. That&#8217;s cool.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scotter</title>
		<link>http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/comment-page-1/#comment-57687</link>
		<dc:creator>Scotter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:18:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/#comment-57687</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the compliment, Hannah. 

And the &quot;typo&quot;? Well, I might say that it&#039;s an ironic reference meant to look mistake-y, but that would give it away as an ironic reference, right? And if it was intended as an ironic reference, then that leaves the problem that comes with all ironic references (even ones meant to look mistake-y): that they come off as mistake-y, and not as ironic references.  

So I&#039;ve decided to go for the middle ground and have changed the tagline appropriately.

Thanks a million for reading along and enjoy the music!

Scotter</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the compliment, Hannah. </p>
<p>And the &#8220;typo&#8221;? Well, I might say that it&#8217;s an ironic reference meant to look mistake-y, but that would give it away as an ironic reference, right? And if it was intended as an ironic reference, then that leaves the problem that comes with all ironic references (even ones meant to look mistake-y): that they come off as mistake-y, and not as ironic references.  </p>
<p>So I&#8217;ve decided to go for the middle ground and have changed the tagline appropriately.</p>
<p>Thanks a million for reading along and enjoy the music!</p>
<p>Scotter</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hannah</title>
		<link>http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/comment-page-1/#comment-57683</link>
		<dc:creator>Hannah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 23:39:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.post-rockist.com/2008/12/26/post-rockist-picks-for-2008-scotter/#comment-57683</guid>
		<description>Hey guys,

Thanks for the music! Will definitely be reading along.

Big kudos as well for quoting Lebowski in your tagline... though as a writer, the fact that it has the wrong spelling of &quot;your&quot; sort of kills me. It should be &quot;your&quot;, the possessive for someone, as it&#039;s their opinion, rather than &quot;you&#039;re&quot;, which means &quot;you are&quot;. Lebowski was definitely saying &quot;your opinion&quot;, not &quot;you&#039;re [you are] opinion&quot;. I just mention it as I think it takes away from the clever reference; the site seems far too cool for such a silly stumble. 

Then again, maybe I&#039;m just missing some sort of ironic reference, and if so, ignore all this and rock on. It does kind of seem accidental mistake-y though. 

Hannah</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey guys,</p>
<p>Thanks for the music! Will definitely be reading along.</p>
<p>Big kudos as well for quoting Lebowski in your tagline&#8230; though as a writer, the fact that it has the wrong spelling of &#8220;your&#8221; sort of kills me. It should be &#8220;your&#8221;, the possessive for someone, as it&#8217;s their opinion, rather than &#8220;you&#8217;re&#8221;, which means &#8220;you are&#8221;. Lebowski was definitely saying &#8220;your opinion&#8221;, not &#8220;you&#8217;re [you are] opinion&#8221;. I just mention it as I think it takes away from the clever reference; the site seems far too cool for such a silly stumble. </p>
<p>Then again, maybe I&#8217;m just missing some sort of ironic reference, and if so, ignore all this and rock on. It does kind of seem accidental mistake-y though. </p>
<p>Hannah</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
