Korn's debut album is better than anything by

Korn's debut album is better than anything by

>Bjork
>Modest Mouse
>Mountain Goats
>Godspeed you Black Emporer
>U2
>The Avalanches
>Porcupine Tree
>The Beatles
>Tame Impala
Is he correct to think this?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=CTof1qKMbNU
youtube.com/watch?v=7GO5W6FRZPM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I don't know why anyone takes this guy seriously

...

Scaruffi values image more than music

It's great that Scaruffi gets Sup Forums so angry

Obviously you shit plebs

no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes

that's correct. what you talking about?

Reminder that no one hated the Beatles until he wrote his piece. It is the same situation as the Star Wars prequels and the Plinkett reviews.

I'm literally in tears because of this man. How does he get away with this shit? I can't even look at his picture without wanting to hurl the computer monitor across the room.

Apart from Bjork...yeah that's probably correct.

korn and beatles arent even same genre faggot

Bijork is the worst artist in that list exept for Lame Impala

if this post gets dubs he's right

Literally nothing wrong with this

He actually values innovation more than anything.

>8/10

Korn was more innovative than the artists in that whole list (except for Beatles in terms of influence). They pratically pioneered nu metal and influenced every metal bands in late 90s and 2000s.

Scaruffi values a lot influence and/or innovation. Thats why

>8/10

>U2 are better than Modest Mouse

>pioneered nu metal
No Faith no More and Helmet did

>Implying they aren't

Is there anything he likes that isn't dadrock, buttmetal or circuscore

>pioneered nu metal
this is a good thing?

>FNM
>Helmet
>nu metal

What the fuck are you talking about?

only one he's wrong about is Bjork

Who cares about you think? Innovation and influence are one of the few objective things in music

FNM is alternative metal with some influence of funk metal. Helmet is alternative metal with hardcore influence. none of them theres nothing to do with nu metal

No
These

Because he has academic formation, therefore his opinions are objective and true, right?

Is this a bait? Scaruffi has education in Neuroscience and AI. Not music theory. Ever wonder why he mentions neurosis in every review when it's usually not even relevant. And, although I think a lot of his high rated albums are great, I think he's rated a lot of great albums mediocre ratings because he cares mostly about avante garde and highly orchestrated work. As if rock is just classical or poetry. Nothing in between.

A lot of people hated the Star Wars prequels actually. But he pointed out everything fundamentally wrong to enforce that opinion higher. I could name a lot of people that I know that hated the Beatles when they were around too.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=CTof1qKMbNU
>0:43-0:52
What did he mean by this?

Korn is better than Tame Impala and U2.

Since I Left You -
The results of their recombinant art (particularly Frontier Psychiatrist, A Different Feeling, Radio) were both hilarious and illuminating, as if shedding new light on the values of an entire civilization by deconstructing and decontextualizing its fundamental attributes.

F#A#Infinity - Emotions were hard to find inside the shapeless jelly, dark textures and sudden mood swings

These are positive reviews and good criticism. You autists are just getting unnecessarily hung up on number scores, which don't mean anything

>They pratically pioneered nu meta
You say it as if was a good thing.

these are both good though

not great though

>Album is shit.
>But it's innovating so it's good.
WEW

>values innovation
>doesn't like the Beatles

Pls explain in words that aren't the scaruffi Beatles copypasta

Their music sucks despite their innovation.

simple mersey-beat.
no innovation intended

>Beatles
>innovative

How?

Plebs who argue against Scruffy's will should just get the fuck out.

>according to Scaruffi these two albums are in the same level as pic related
Jesus fucking Christ.

Beatles are very influential, but not very innovative.

Take The Beatles, Bjork, and Tame Impala off the list and it's not even that outlandish of an opinion.

>implying that album is good

Tame Impala are shite

>according to Scaruffi this album is on the same level as these
Jesus Fucking Christ

Hahahaha lmao fuck scaruffi

>Yanqui U.X.O had no dramatic content.

Well it doesn't.

If something's innovative but shit, it might get a 7, if the musicians are competent. Korn's s/t is not shit. It's a legitimately good album that also pioneered a style.

THE FACT THAT SO MANY

I know this is bait, but Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life, Helter Skelter and Norwegian Wood are just a handful of examples of enormously innovative songs. Regardless of whether you like those songs or not, you would have to be mentally ill to deny their innovation.

What did they innovate?

>The bad news is that the essence of Korn is nowhere to be found. They used to begin songs with riffs that were mythological tales in themselves: behind each riff there was a shared system of signs. Now those riffs sound like business cards.
What did he mean by this?

He means they sold out.

Tomorrow Never Knows is the biggest step forward in recording techniques made by any song, for its time. The multi tracks, tape loops and psychedelic production on the drums and vocals have have profound impact. It is one of the first psychedelic songs ever written.

Strawberry Fields Forever is innovative for similar reasons, as well the reverse instrumentation used and the extremely unusual time patterns and key changes.

A Day in the Life really needs no description; its avant garde compostion, layered structure and orchestral accompaniment is hugely famous.

Helter Skelter was most likely the creation of heavy metal. The Kinks made You Really Got Me, and The Who made I Can See For Miles, and while both are important steps, neither can be described as heavy metal in my opinion. Helter Skelter incorporated almost everything we associate with the genre today. Screamed vocals, manic percussion, wild and out of tune bass and guitar, and of course extreme volume. Go listen to the isolated bass track on YouTube, it's so filthy and clunky, but brilliant.

Norwegian Wood saw the first use of the sitar in a Western song and was an instrumental part of psychedelia, if not the birth of it.

Strawberry Fields Forever - Change of key in the middle of the song, tape experimentation, instrumentation
Tomorrow Never Knows - Proto Droney
Helter Skelter - Proto Metal/punk
Norwegian Wood - Unusual instrumentation
A Day In The Life - Tape experimentation, progressive

This user beat me to it, and wasn't lazy, so there ya go.

Yes
Korn isn't a bad band m8

>comparing two bands of different genres
How to criticize music:
1. What is the album trying to do?
2. Does it accomplish that goal?
3. Do you personally enjoy what it is trying to do?
If Yes is your answer to 2 and 3, it is a good album.
If No for either or both 2 or 3, it is a bad album.

youtube.com/watch?v=7GO5W6FRZPM

have a listen to 24:35 - 27:10

Everything you mentioned here was done previously by John Fahey, the Velvet Underground, Jimi Hendrix, Monks, The Kinks, Duane Eddy, The Byrds, Zappa, Dylan,

Also La Monte Young

Elaborate.

yeah but the Beatles popularized it and used those techniques in regular pop/rock songs
Thus bringing it into the consciousness of pop/rock fans who didn't listen to the VU and Zappa (like 98% of Americans at that point)

so they didn't actually innovate anything and just watered down more popular underground concepts for mass consumption

glad we got that settled

But that is not innovation. We're talking innovation here.

Please just look the names up, man. But basically psych rock was the byrds, metal was jimi, john fahey used indian musical techniques, tape experimentation, avant garde composition was done by zappa/la monte young/dylan etc.

It's a whole thing but they did not invent those techniques.

Not agreeing with him, but the 'U think X is better than Y, ur opinion is invalid' shit is really disingenuous and obnoxious. Scoring a sleazy teen sex comedy higher than something like Blade Runner isn't necessarily about saying it's better, but that it's more successful in achieving what it set out to do. Scores are about contextual application.

i'm happy because you're happy.

/thread

Give me songs that preceed those by Beatles, that did the same things.

Would Sup Forums like Periphery if he gave one of their albums 7/10?

>so they didn't actually innovate anything and just watered down more popular underground concepts for mass consumption
It's innovative to use those concepts in pop songs
Also using the term "watering down" dismisses their accomplishments. They're extraordinarily influential because of the fact they used advanced production techniques in pop music, and the VU and Zappa probably wouldn't be as well know today if it weren't for the Beatles making their ideas safer for public consumption.
The history of popular music without the Beatles would be vastly different. I seriously don't know how you can dismiss the influence of the world's best selling music group of all time while holding up other artists as better because they're "underground". I even prefer early Beatles but I'm not retarded.

See this is Scaruffi's point. People don't know these artists' work. People ignore them because the Beatles were massively popular. Look up these artist's early albums. Look at the dates. Look at the actual history of rock music.

if i had some kind of cosmic omnipotence i would give bullshit albums 10s from pitchfork/scaruffi/melonhead just to see what happens on Sup Forums

>9/10
>9/10
>9/10

but Frontier Psychiatrist is their worst song in their discography. Yes, worse than Frankie Sinatra.

Sup Forums would praise it and say it's Sup Forumscore
See: MPP

You're not actually giving me a lead. what should i look for?

frontier psychiatrist was the first avalanches song i ever heard and it completely put me off of them

Not him and I'm actually arguing against him but look up Freak Out! and the Velvet Underground & Nico

>waaah the evil italian man is insulting my Sup Forumscore taste again waaaah!

he knows more about music than you could learn in three lifetimes, pleb.

when will this opinion stop

>I even prefer early Beatles but I'm not retarded

>I even prefer early Beatles


>but I'm not retarded

Assuming we're limiting ourselves to assessing his popular music criticism, there are plenty of reasons.

As far as existing attempts to record the history of rock music, catalog its most pivotal recordings and most impactful creative voices, and to evaluate its relationship to broader human culture, interpreting rock music and derivative forms as encompassing a standalone tradition of musical expression rather than placing it in a lesser valued or corrupted role unworthy of the same academic scrutiny as other forms, his History of Rock Music is the best attempt so far. Period. There is no disputing this.

As he writes in the foreward, "This is not a history of the charts", and many of you fail to take in the scope of what that means and why it is significant. He is the first writer to make a sustained case for rock music's elevated status as a mode of _artistic_ expression rather than a mode of _commercial_ enterprise. Remember how belligerent you plebeians get when I refer to art music forms vs. popular/commercial music forms? Scaruffi is the only prominent writer arguing on your side.

By eschewing a focus on popular success or popularly successful musicians for their own sake, his volume becomes not just a history of the "scene", but a serious history of (what he posits to be) an emergent art form, and his role as historian becomes that of tracing emergent musical and conceptual ideas as they first appeared within rock music, whether they directly impacted the mainstream approaches that year or three decades later.

This is iconoclastic by definition, as it runs contrary to the intent of any comparable text, but through his rigorous explanations he demonstrates beyond question that he is no mere contrarian.

Whether or not you agree with all his conclusions or find flaws in his methodology (I've noted my fair share), his text's importance in this regard cannot be diminished. Only a fool would attempt to dispute this.

>it's completely okay to fuck kids and have child brides, trust me i'm a neuroscientist

>Jimi created heavy metal
>Dylan experimented so he must be avant
>The Beatles were not the very first people on earth to use Indian sounds so they played no role in pioneering its use in psych rock

What are you even on about, m8? The Beatles made extremely innovative songs (find me a single song preceding The Beatles that sounds ANYTHING LIKE Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Helter Skelter, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Eleanor Rigby, Love You To, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, etc.)

But that's not even the only point here. The other is that as well as pioneering all of the above, they were also the first to do any of it to an extremely high standard. Their albums from Rubber Soul onwards are widely considered to be among the finest works of art ever created within the music industry, by casuals and critics alike, whereas The Byrds or Zappa cannot say the same. Not that I dislike those acts, but as someone previously said ITT, they have The Beatles to thank for mastering all of these experimental sounds so god damn well that they entered the mainstream and became multi-million selling genres.

In my opinion The Beatles are the most influential and innovative band of all time, but even if you disagree with that statement, you surely cannot deny that they were at the very least, innovative.

LOL YEAH HES A MASTER TROLL ARTIST XD JUST LIKE MILO AND GAVIN

he's the music defender bro

>Foxy Lady
1967
>Helter Skelter
1968

Jimi pioneered metal. Link Wray was also very influential.

>FOXY LADY
>metal

Memes aside, Scaruffi wasn't advocating for pedophilia. He was saying that allowing gay marriage would be a slippery slope to child brides. So Scaruffi hates gay people, I guess.

>The Beatles were not the very first people on earth to use Indian sounds
They weren't first. That's my entire point, thank you.

I think I meant to put Dylan elsewhere but he was undoutably experimental and innovative in the early 60s, arguably starting psych rock with Mr. Tamborine man, which the Byrds later covered

oy ur shite mate

It pioneered it. Helter Skelter is, if anything, punk, which was already being pioneered by Monks and the Velvet Underground, among others.

Is he the Armond White of music?

>Dylan was more experimental than the Beatles
wew

Where did I say that?