>at the time of this discussion here I had like 300,000 subscribers and now I have a million and your boy is easily the most popular relevant music critic walking the planet. I'm not bragging, I'm just stating facts, just letting you know. you guys can catch up with us over here in 2017 at any point, we're not gonna stop you
is he right, Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
Based on his viewership, yes.
anthony plz
The criteria for being listed under the "professional reviews" on album pages is very hazy and inconsistent. Sometimes you get stuff from these niche magazines that didn't run for very long but became kind of these artifactual things that entered the canon of Reputable Opinion. Because they're out of print, yet often cited, they don't get taken down because they seem unexceptionable. On the other hand, larger publications like Rolling Stone which have a variety of writers who all have different criteria and skewed perspectives on "ratings" are included without prejudice.
To not be listed on something so arbitrary is basically an honor, but if you're Anthony Fantano you're probably a bit salty about it because those are potential clicks/views. I will say however that his ratings would stick out like a sore thumb on Wikipedia pages. Like you're looking at a list of 8 or 9 that are all stars, numbers, or grades, and then what do you see? "Strong 9?" Or would it be curtailed to "9+?" The whole thing is kind of stupid.
>is he right, Sup Forums?
you'd be delusional to say he's wrong
>I will say however that his ratings would stick out like a sore thumb on Wikipedia pages. Like you're looking at a list of 8 or 9 that are all stars, numbers, or grades, and then what do you see? "Strong 9?" Or would it be curtailed to "9+?" The whole thing is kind of stupid.
No, all his scores are numerical. He may add strong, decent etc. to the rating but in the descriptions of all his videos he has the score simply out of 10. for examples, pic related is 9/10.
name a more famous music reviewer than fantano
Regardless, it highlights how nebulous the system is. Having Fantano's rating, Christgau's, Rolling Stone's, AllMusic's, and 5 others all together just confuses the reader's frame of reference unless they already have a nuanced understanding of each of the writers' quirks (provided there are no ratings from places with several staff writers). 5/10 from some places is basically invective, but to others it merely means average.
>Having Fantano's rating, Christgau's, Rolling Stone's, AllMusic's, and 5 others all together just confuses the reader's frame of reference unless they already have a nuanced understanding of each of the writers' quirks (provided there are no ratings from places with several staff writers). 5/10 from some places is basically invective, but to others it merely means average.
Yeah, that's why there's a written section that explains all of that, you doofus.
scaruffi maybe?
That's oversimplifying it. I'm assuming you're saying that the reviews themselves expound the ratings, but that's not how it generally measures up. If you're lucky, reviewers have a separate (and hopefully easy to find) area that explains the standards for ratings. But when you watch or read individual reviews, ratings tend to seem added as postscript.
I assume that there are reviewers who take extra care to see that the outline of the review describes the eventual rating. Fantano is not one of them. His ratings, ostensibly, are separate entities based on a holistic feeling after he's digested and worked out his opinion. And that's fine—ratings are feeling-based and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you're looking for a quick run-down of public opinion, the rating sidebar provides you with no insight unless your understanding of the world is horrendously binary.
yes, I respect him a lot
kanye reviewed the chronic
if he didn't have the power of youtube nobody would be looking for his reviews
nothing about his reviews are particularly insightful or eloquent. they all basically boil down to "I like this" or "I don't like this". his reviews are drastically bare bones and contain very little substance or deep thought
>nothing about his reviews are particularly insightful or eloquent. they all basically boil down to "I like this" or "I don't like this". his reviews are drastically bare bones and contain very little substance or deep thought
but christgaus reviews are featured tho
You're not wrong, Fantano, you're just an asshole
Fantano will never be as perspicuous as Christgau. He might be less petulant, which is a plus, but Christgau will occasionally nail something that's tough to articulate or even pick up on to begin with. Fantano, at best, will elucidate some basic truths and have the picture straight enough, but specifics aren't his thing, and those are what set excellent reviews apart from the noise.
without citing anything or giving any examples that's some hot thesaurus vomit you've got there
Would it really help if I did, though? Christgau has thousands of capsule reviews and Fantano has untold hours of tape. A few citations wouldn't make an accurate representation of either critic, if you were even familiar with whatever albums I cherry-picked.
I only ask that people think about whether or not Fantano's thoughts—with reasonable regularity—cause you to rethink anything, give language to something you couldn't express, or even just present an interesting tangential point.
>your boy is easily the most popular relevant music critic walking the planet.
lmao
>Robert Thomas Christgau[2] (/ˈkrJstɡaʊ/; born April 18, 1942) is an American essayist and music journalist. One of the earliest professional rock critics, he spent 37 years as the chief music critic and senior editor for The Village Voice, during which time he created and oversaw the annual Pazz & Jop poll. He has also covered popular music for Esquire, Creem, Newsday, Playboy, Rolling Stone, Billboard, NPR, Blender, and MSN Music, and is a visiting arts teacher at New York University.[3] He has described himself as the "Dean of American Rock Critics".[4][5]
>The Needle Drop is a blog/vlog synonymous with creator Anthony Fantano /fænˈtænoʊ/ (born October 28, 1985), self-described as "the Internet's Busiest Music Nerd".[2] Fantano examines "rock, pop, electronic, metal, hip hop and experimental music" via video and audio reviews. The blog started in the fall of 2007, with video reviews beginning in February 2009.
hmmmmmmmmm
>this fag is our generations christgau
damn
right. when he gave my favorite album a bomb symbol it really made me think. now I see music 100% differently all thanks to him. thanks christgau!
if he didnt have the power of print and publishing nobody would be looking for reviews of lester bangs
t. ersatz shit pro
I covered that by allowing that he can be petulant.
Pewdiepie is an even bigger sensation. Does it really matter? he was just one of the first dudes with a zany personality and entry-level editing skills to have enough of an irrational level of confidence in the fact that he thinks his are mor important than others and decided to upload to youtube. Good for him I guess. It was bound to happen to someone, right?
>he might be less petulant, which is a plus
Most definitely
a million people do not know scarrufi, im betting my life on it
a million more don't know fantano
the difference between anthony fantano and pewdiepie is that anthony fantano is aseducated as any of the music reviewer peers of "more legitimate" media formats, and has taken almost 10 years to amass this level of recognition. and pewdiepie is a dude who was in the right place at the right time with lets plays being new and interesting to the new generation audience of 10-17yr olds and blew up very quickly because he did shout at scary games
Couldn't really care less about Fantano or his presence on Wikipedia, but there are some absolute nutcases who mod/admin at Wikipedia. The system they've got going is absolute fucking garbage. They will remove or add things at the whim of some asshole with a chip on his or her shoulder.
I've had experience with this in that my university class created Wikipedia articles for up-and-coming local artists of some notoriety. Within days they were all, every single one, removed by a single moderator who had taken it upon himself to do so. This is, all in all, a relatively harmless case. But there are cases of political censorship, bias, straight PR/promotion for bands, etc. It boggles my mind that the cultural and informational center of the modern world is run in such an inefficient and frankly stupid manner.
Wikipedia lives and dies by Aspies, and I mean that literally, not just bandying around the idea of autism. Obsessive, minutae-oriented retards are useful for compiling data but then they can't make remotely competent value judgments.
educated? he just listens to a bunch of music, like you, I, and many other people here I would assume. He advertises himself as a music nerd, because that's what he is (not saying it's a bad thing) but pewdiepie was just a video game playing nerd. Both were in the right place, right time, and had those basic editing tools and zany personalities I mentioned. There's not a huge disparity between either really. Is he relevant? absolutely, he has a ton of followers,does he have a brilliant mind and a knowledge of music that towers over all others in his "field"? No. Not really. He's just another dude that likes music that got a little lucky. good for him. I bet you know almost as much as he does and even more than he does with respect to certain genres/artists. You could have been in his shoes too.
he went to university for broadcasting and journalism at wesleyan, he is formally educated, he also is a musician, the internets busiest music nerd is a catchphrase, and being a music nerd doesnt mean youre just a music nerd.
it doesn't show
perspicuous was the merriam webster word of the day two days ago! I bet that's where you got it, but you didn't even use it right. I think you were looking for 'perspicacious' to fit in that sentence. good job faggot! no one thinks you're smart.
because you dont agree with his reviews or because he doesnt know how to talk without filler words like "um, y'know" all the time? i just want to know where the line draws
I didn't and I wasn't.
Here's the thing - I don't think Christgau is really any more knowledgeable than Fantano when it comes to music. Christgau has the advantage of having experienced a lot of older music contemporaneously. But I guarantee you Fantano is more relevant to forming public opinion on modern music and more knowledgeable about it than Christgau was in the last decades of his career.
Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly care for Fantano or his reviews. I find that I disagree on most subjective evaluations of the music he reviews, but the actual objective/sonic descriptors he uses are generally on point, showing that he has at least some understanding of music theory, production, etc. if through sheer exposure and nothing else, more so than the average Youtube reviewer (the bar is admittedly low here).
I guess the question is what the point of writing these Wikipedia articles is. Is it to provide a general snapshot of public opinion on an album? That is something that is only truly possible in retrospect in my opinion. But, at any rate, Fantano's videos have hundreds of thousands of people watching them. And hundreds of thousands of idiots decide whether to buy/listen to albums based on what he says. I've talked to them in real life (not hundreds of thousands of them, of course). That is undeniable impact on forming public perception of an album.
He doesn't say anything that implies first-hand experience making music, his scripts need editing (badly), and his production quality only really speaks to having decent gear and basic editing abilities.
No.
well i know when i review music i like to remind everyone that i have so many years experience playing however many instruments every review.
his scriptwriting is whatever, he edits it down from all the filler words i know he uses all the time, hes gotta carve out the gems where he can. his production is fine for what he does, would you rather he have a big news desk and a moving background like a news anchor? for having to review every notable release in his sphere of music that he works within, its quite good that he even bothers to setup in the same room with the green square, on the nice camera, and bother adding title cards and some edits. its music reviews en masse and on demand, no one would watch him if he was in a fancy fake set, its not genuine
Adding to this, I've never read a Christgau review that implied first-hand experience making music either. I'm not disagreeing with you about Fantano, but I'm saying that the biggest difference between the two is that Christgau has the Village Voice/MSN as a platform, a presumably more established and trustworthy platform than self-published Youtube videos. But the content of their reviews is generally on the same level, in my opinion. Christgau seems smarter but that's only because his reviews are sentences long. Try reading some of his longer ones - he really exposes himself as a bit of a hack in those.
My point being that music criticism is by and large a joke that people have decided to take seriously. The only reason institutions like Rolling Stone are "respected" is because they have a wide audience, nothing more. Fantano has reached a wide enough audience now that I'd say his cultural presence in the moment warrants some recognition.
It's not that I want to hear about his music, I just never hear him say anything that makes me think, "This is more of an insider point that you'd only pick up in the music process."
And no, I don't expect him to have more extravagant production, my point is just that; he has the education for it but it's not a relevant point for what he ultimately ended up doing.
strange how many people on Sup Forums have an actual obsession with this guy, he definitely controls their opinions and is really a big influence on people here
It was pointless to bring to bring up their education/musical ability to begin with, what matters is the reviews' content.
the only reason anyone respects any older critic is because no one here really sees the internet as "respectable media" the tv and print publishers set it in early that everything online is amateur and not as good as the good old fashioned media. in the 90s back when people used the internet as a website for their portfolio of work out of college and for chatrooms to sperg about the simpsons they werent wrong, shit changed in 20 years
the internet and by extension youtube ARE the standard of media now, and people dont respect youtube for whatever reason, maybe its because its a place that has idiots burning their nut hair off next to professionals of all types, but its standard and to disavow anthony based entirely on the fact that he posts reviews on youtube as opposed to the washington post or rolling stone is as petty as giving a fuck about reviews in general
if you spin it that inspiring dissent is being influential, sure
what would be a relevant point? he is doing what he went to school for, is that not the point? the goal?
not anything to do with his opinions, just him in general. people here want to see his face everyday and only listen to music he likes because it's him. literal obsession
Fucking LOL @ the video with Fantano having an attention whoring tantrum """"muh relevance!""" if Pewdiepie where to start albums tomorrow should his shit be added to wikipedia? ALSO:
>Giving a single fuck about having your shit in wikipedia.
LoL that's why he gets for """""""being a profesionall youtuber""""""" LMAO!
i haven't seen funposting this bad since before i left Sup Forums
Ahahaha
You tried really hard to convince us how eloquent you are, huh?
I just looked at his main channel
he has reviewed all of these meme albums that people post nonstop on this board, and they are his favorite albums
now it all makes sense
now you learn
scaruffi is a Sup Forums meme
Dont hurt him Anthony come away!
lmao this. Wikipedia is seriously an encyclopedia for and by literal autistic manchildren. The same way someone would be OCD about having their room clean and ordered the way they want it, Wikipedia users are with Wikipedia. They create all these ridiculous rules that are cultivated by their awful behavior and personalities. They also get into fights and act like children. I'm so glad I quit editing on that site a week after I gave it a try. There was this one user who was named Ken or something who was a turboautist.
yeah but each of you probably own 100 accounts only to troll Antfony alone
>Fantano's subscriber count is 1.037 million
>population of the Earth is 7.347 billion
Which means that a total of 0.014% of the entire world knows who Fantano is, that's more than you can say for any music critic in history really
that's only counting the people who follow him closely (subscribers)
if you include people who watch a video once in a while, or people who have only ever seen one video once, that number is probably 5-10 times higher
>that's only counting the people who follow him closely
only like 1/5 of subscribers watch the videos desu
Wolfgang Voigt - 2/10
Ed Sheehan - 4/10
Youtubers aren't relevant, lol. Daily reminder that he once admitted he liked Slipknot so no one should take his opinion seriously.
What kind of stuff would you be expecting to hear for the first point though?
If hundreds of thousands of people listen to this guy every day, and he is taken seriously by labels who send him promos, what stops him being relevant?
and considering only english speakers could understand him and there 1.5 billion english speakers in the world the numbers much different
You are wrong. Almost everyone in the Western society uses YouTube regularly.
next.
I thought that too when I first saw that video, but I mean, that guy has obviously worked really hard for a long time to get where he is, and this is the only braggadocio I've seen from him. I think he's earned it, at least a little.
The content of his reviews. You can only get so far with surface level criticism and overly relying on ridiculous descriptors like "twittering hi-hats" and "rattling bass" to describe pieces of music. His popularity exists merely because he caters to the lowest common denominator.
that guy is retarded but you're also retarded
there are two levels of youtube here
1. youtube as a platform to share basic memeshit (cat videos, music videos, people getting kicked in the dick type stuff, etc.)
2. youtube as a platform to produce and share more nuanced/niche content (internet shows, vlogs, channels dedicated to reviewing things and so on)
the average person with internet access might regularly dip into tier 1 youtube but it's only what one might describe as internet denizens who use tier 2 consistently.
this is irrelevant
Sup Forums helped to create the most popular music reviewer of all time, forever changing the music landscape.
Sup Forums stronk bois
he is the most relevant music reviewer, i'd argue he is more well-known than Christgau and Scruffy.
>i'd argue
there is nothing to argue about
name 1 academic publication or critical journal that mentions fantano
it's official, fantano is the pewdiepie of music reviews
that doesnt have to do with popularity. more academic texts mention stockhausen than the beatles
That's a lie you absolute faggot
Scaruffi is the best.
>Polymath
>Ivy league professor
>Poet
>Has been posting since 1985
>has pulished books on history of music genres
>refrigerator expert
Christgau shouldn't even be listed on Wikipedia as a reputable critic desu
literally no one knows or gives a single fuck about a fucking contrarian hack like scaruffi except for a bunch of gullible 17 year olds on an anime imageboard
Do people in their 40s know who Fartano is?
Probably not.
>if he didn't have the means to be famous he wouldn't be famous
no shit sherlock
>probably not
More like definitely not
FUN FACT:
Sup Forums often goes out of its way to disagree with Fantano purely to sound like free-thinkers.
I go out of my way to disagree with him because his name sounds faggy
He's popular because his reviews are shallow and made more for entertainment than analysis. It makes it easier for the majority of rap fans to understand.
>if Pewdiepie where to start albums tomorrow should his shit be added to wikipedia
you do realize plenty of internet albums are on wikipedia right?
you do realize STARBOMB is on wikipedia, you do realize NSP is one wikipedia right? Just, fucking stop m8. Just fucking sotp.
not bad for a bunch of nihilistic, autistic and depressed feelsy fucks.
He sounds super salty and not very humble in this vid, but he's mostly right.
Okay, who posted this? You were very rude. Apologize immediately
He's right tho
This
Yeah, they probably don't know about any important bands from the last 15 years either. Not sure what your point is.
Anyone can upload videos on youtube. Why does this cunt have such a big ego?
No, he really isn't. You don't have to agree with it just because it's negative towards Fantano. Most of the shit in that comment doesn't even have anything to do with what Fanatno was whining about in the video.
>Anyone can learn to play the guitar.
>So why does Van Halen?