I have NOT seen a single person actually refute this copy-pasta. So please Sup Forums, go ahead and tell me why he's wrong.
>The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
I have NOT seen a single person actually refute this copy-pasta. So please Sup Forums...
Other urls found in this thread:
factorysunburst.wordpress.com
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
he touch child
Talking about music is like dancing about architecture.
>thinking and arguing so much about who's the "greatest of all time" and making absurd comparisons and even writing serious walls of text about that
totally pathetic idiot
He makes no argument as to why they are not the best. His whole argument is that The Beatles are only considered the best because they are the most successful. He assumes this to be the reason without providing any evidence for it.
This doesn't refute his argument at all
What even is his argument?
Don't tell me what to do.
not an argument
>I have NOT seen a single person actually refute this copy-pasta. So please Sup Forums, go ahead and tell me why he's wrong.
lurk moar fgt, people refute it all the time
I'm and I actually think mine is an argument against his bullshit. Because, think of it, why should a critic feel that strong need to give ratings and to determine who are the GOATs? Why can't he just write about what he likes? He must be an insecure person (I mean, inside) or maybe he's just an asshole. Damn, you are a critic, talk about music, albums, history, whatever the fuck you want, but don't devastate our balls and patience with dumb rankings, ratings, comparisons that are clearly full of anger, moreover
Can't refute an argument that has lots of baseless claims and facts sourced from out of his own ass.
Yes it does, it shows his argument is based on nothing at all
There are hundreds of books, scholarly and otherwise that point to the importance and greatness of the Beatles and some italian pedo's blog post doesn't negate that
he's barking up the wrong tree
obviously The Beatles happened to be there during the big move to more studio and album oriented music making and were very influential in bringing this change about
even looking at Scaruffi's own lists it's clear that very important changes in pop and rock music were happening during that time and I don't think it's unwarranted at all to give The Beatles credit from riding that wave and popularizing a lot of new ideas - the biggest being their move from a popular live band to a practically only studio-based one
I agree
>some italian pedo
Also, sad that he's Italian. Here in Italy it's full of great and much more serious music critics, but you don't know them just because they write in Italian (much better than Scaruffi, believe me) or because they don't have a huge 90s website. It's sad. I'm happy Scaruffi don't want to be Italian and got the American cityzenship
>lots of people like the best selling music group of all time therefore they must be the greatest
sheep detected
learn to form your own opinions
its just an opinion
His argument relies on assumptions without evidence. He assumes The Beatles are only liked by rock critics because of their success. He does not present evidence to back this claim. He assumes that Rock critics do not know of music of the past or not as popular as The Beatles. He does not present evidence to back this claim. He also presents no reasons as to why The Beatles should not be considered the greatest rock group of all time. He's also wrong for saying the Beatles didn't sell more than anyone else when they have sold more units than any other individual artist.
The problem is his arguments are totally obvious and formulaic
he's not wrong
see
this. this and nothing more needs to be added
>he is, rather, intellectually inadequate to be a music critic. Nothing else I have read on his site convinces me that he has the intellectual tools that the job requires
Truest words ever
all these posts are right
i'm not saying he's right but there are two or three more paragraphs where he express his arguments (and all of them are discussed in this article )
>an italian pedophile dislikes the greatest selling band of all time so they must be bad