Heavy metal

>Heavy metal

"Millions of people love Black Sabbath and Metallica, but I always just thought they were big jokes. I don't know where exactly Metallica got their inspiration from, but if it came from me, then I know I totally fucked up."

>Led Zeppelin

"Jimmy Page is an alright guitarist and I enjoy some of his stuff, but it always feels so empty, like there's something missing from it."

>The Who

"If you want to torture me, then lock me in a room with Roger Daltrey singing. Pete Townshend is a nice fellow, but he overthinks everything way too much."

>The Beatles

"I always thought Sgt. Pepper was nothing but a load of mishmash."

>Bob Dylan

"Bob Dylan is a nasty little man. One time he said to me 'You know, I could write Satisfaction, but you couldn't write Desolation Row.' And I said 'You right. I couldn't write Desolation Row.'"

>The Bee Gees

"What's the deal with those guys? They seem to live in a fantasy world. Every interview of theirs, they do nothing but talk about how many suits they own. It really is for children, isn't it?"

Other urls found in this thread:

scaruffi.com/vol3/bowie.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Oasis

"Totally immature. Grow up a bit and come back."

>Elton John

"He's a nasty little man. All he does is write songs about dead blondes."

>David Bowie

"It's poses, all fucking poses that have nothing to do with the music, and he knows it too."

>Prince

"An overrated midget. Prince has to find out what it means to be a prince. That's the trouble with conferring a title on yourself before you've proved it. His attitude when he opened for us was insulting to our audience. You don't try to knock off the headline like that when you're playing a Stones crowd. He's a prince who thinks he’s a king already. Good luck to him."

>The Sex Pistols

"There's more to it than just saying 'shit' or practicing spitting by using a mirror."

>Guns'N'Roses

"I admire their guts, but there's too much posing in that band. They have one guy who looks like [Ronnie Wood] and another who looks like [Jimmy Page]. Too much copycat and posing for me."

>Hip-hop

"Rappers--so many words, so little said."

>Grateful Dead

"The Grateful Dead are where everybody got it wrong. Too much noodling about for hours. Boring. Sorry, Jerry."

>Credence Clearwater Revival

"When I first heard them, I was really knocked out, but I became bored with them quickly. Too simple, too basic for me."

What does he have to say about the Stones?

He's right. Although,

>The Stones
Looneys trying to play mediocre blues (and failing).

It's fun to see someone put the "legends" back in their place.

He isn't wrong you know.

Lmao, this nigga hot trash anyways
D R O P P E D

>The only good music came from ME! WAAAAAAH

The legacy of the rolling stones is a purely aethetic one, particularly flimsy too. Ask a random twentysomething on the street what the stones did for music or culture. "Uh....mick fucked alot and danced weird. The lips are big. Paint it black was on guitar hero 2. They're old."

They've already died out.

This man is 100% right. He just needs to say the same sort of shit about the Rolling Stones.

Something like:
>"Mate, I don't know what to tell you. In theory they should be good but then when I actually pull up their records and listen to them, what a load of rubbish."

its funny cause back in the day Mick Jagger secretly paid bail for Sid Vicious when he was in jail

"The Rolling Stones were a bunch of coddled momma's boys who all went to college and then moved to London to live in squalour and gain cred. Not that I didn't like some of their songs, but they could never touch the Beatles for melody, wit, humour, songwriting, or presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger's dancing. The Beatles, they were gear."

The Rolling Stones were probably the most impressive set of talents to come together in Britain before the Soft Machine: decadent vocalist Mick Jagger (who distorted soul crooning and turned it into an animal instinct), rhythm guitarist Keith Richards (who took Chuck Berry's riffs into a new dimension of fractured harmony), multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones (who penned their baroque and psychedelic arrangements), and the phenomenal, funky rhythm section of bassist Bill Wyman and drummer Charlie Watts. Steeped in the blues, the Rolling Stones redefined the rock performer, the rock concert and the rock song. They turned on the degree of vulgarity and provocation to levels that made Chuck Berry look silly. Arguably the greatest rock and roll band of all times, the Rolling Stones revolutionized each of the classical instruments of rock music: the drums incorporated the lascivious tom-tom of tribal folk, the martial pace of military bands and the sophisticated swing of jazz; the guitar amplified the raw and ringing style of Chuck Berry; the bass invented a depraved sound, the singing turned the sensual crooning of soul music in an animal howl, half sleazy lust and half call to arms; and the arragements of keyboards, flutes and exotic instruments completely misinterpreted the intentions of the cultures from which they were borrowed. The revolution carried out by the Rolling Stones was thorough and radical.

Scaruffi on Rolling Stones

>David Bowie
>"It's poses, all fucking poses that have nothing to do with the music, and he knows it too."

You sure this wasn't actually a Scaruffi quote?

Scaruffi on Bowie pt 1:
>David Bowie turned marketing into the essence of his art. All great phenomena of popular music, from Elvis Presley to the Beatles, had been, first and foremost, marketing phenomena (just like Coca Cola and Barbie before them); however, Bowie turned that into an art of its own. With Bowie the science of marketing becomes art; art and marketing become one. There were intellectuals who had proclaimed this theory in rebellious terms. Bowie was, in many ways, the heir, no matter how perverted, of Andy Warhol's pop art and of the underground culture of the 1960s. He adopted some of the most blaspheme issues and turned them upside down to make them precisely what they had been designed to fight: a commodity.
>Bowie was a protagonist of his times, although a poor musician: to say that Bowie is a musician is like saying that Nero was a harp player (a fact that is technically true, but misleading). Bowie embodies the quintessence of artificial art, raises futulity to paradigm, focuses on the phenomenon rather than the content, makes irrelevant the relevant, and, thus, is the epitome of everything that went wrong with rock music.

That's a great essay about Chuck Berry.

Who HASN'T Keef utterly buried?

Scaruffi on Bowie pt 2:
>Each element of his art is the emblem of a true artistic movement; however, the ensemble of those emblems constitutes no more than a puzzle, no matter how intriguing, of symbols, a roll of incoherent images projected against the wall at twice the speed, a dictionary of terms rather than a poem, and, in the best of hypotheses, a documentary of the cultural fads of his era.
>Reading the chronicles of his times, it is clear that what caused sensation was the show, not the music. The show that Bowie set up was undoubtedly in sync with the avantgarde, as it fused theater, mime, cinema, visual art, literature and music. However, Bowie merely recycled what had been going on for years in the British underground, in particular what had been popularized by the psychedelic bands of 1967. And he turned it into a commodity: whichever way you look at his oeuvre, this is the real merit of it.

Keef is older than him and he's still breathing. Who's laughing now?

>eyeliner

>artificial art
>implying there is such a thing
Scaruffi is such a hack.

>>artificial art
>>implying there is such a thing
>Scaruffi is such a hack.
You're so dumb I lack words. You should read about Andy Warhol.

>artist is more intricate and complex than me
poser! mish mash! overthinks too much!

>artist is more essential and straightforward than me
too simple! too basic! totally immature! children music!

how the fuck is keith richards still alive?

Evidently he's made of tougher stuff than Lemmy.

Warhol's work is no more artificial than any other form of art.
Fetishistic worship of the "genuine" is delusion.

Bowie's intentionally fake blue eyed soul is no less art than what you'd call genuine soul.

You focus too much on the meaning of words rather than their usage.
English isn't Scaruffi's first language.
By "artificial art", Scaruffi is obviously talking about the art mishmash with marketing and commodity that he explains right before.
It's kinda odd you'd take that literally when all art is, by definition, artificial. It'd just be a redundancy to say such a thing that way.

>The Rolling Stones were a bunch of coddled momma's boys
>praises le Fab Four
L M A O

literally sold his soul to the devil. I'm not kidding.

that doesn't make sense. he's supposed to be dead then.

The Beatles started out playing proto-punk rock in rowdy biker clubs in Liverpool where if the crowd didn't like your performance, they'd rush the stage and beat the shit out of you. Lemmy was there as a teenager and saw that early incarnation of the Beatles performing. He knew they were real and Jagger wasn't.

he sold his soul for an everlasting body and mind

>The Beatles started out playing proto-punk rock

hmmmm

lol dylan owned him

>The Beatles started out playing proto-punk rock
wew

>"If you want to torture me, then lock me in a room with Roger Daltrey singing. Pete Townshend is a nice fellow, but he overthinks everything way too much."


>STILL being this mad about the Rock N Roll Circus

Stones always were the worst band out of the big 3

Why do dadrock fags always suck the Stones' cocks when The Who were always, always better?

I cannot stop laughing at this post

>proto-punk rock

lad...

>proto-punk

LMAOing @ ur life m8

What an uptight pretentious asshole. I don't disagree with all he's saying, but he's badmouthing a lot of artists way more talented than he's ever been and mainly for petty reasons. Not to mention most of the criticism he's putting out is shallow and plain meaningless.

>"Pete Townshend is a nice fellow, but he overthinks everything way too much."
What is that supposed to mean? That he takes his work seriously? Aren't you supposed to do that?

Holy shit, will this faggot die not knowing he's a fucking hack?

The Stones were more normalfag and they had a lot more hit singles.

.you do realize that they came from the not-so-great parts of Liverpool right? Ringo hung out with fucking gangs before he started playing with the Beatles

rory storm and the hurricanes wasn't a gang lol.

they were all from pretty affluent areas of Liverpool, and went to art school...

>Ringo hung out with fucking gangs
Is this a joke? lol They went to fucking college and wrote songs about ladida girls. If they were actually proto-punk they would've had at least one song about one slightly rebellious thing, no?

"The Rolling Stones aren't a rock band, they're a corporation."

Are you retarded? His point is that the Stones are pretending to be something they are not, you dumb nigger. Learn some reading comprehension before writing a stupid post like this and making a fool of yourself.

The Beatles are one of my favorite bands, I prefer them to the Stones, and I'm still lolling at your post

>The Beatles started out playing proto-punk rock in rowdy biker clubs

By criticising them for being exactly the same thing the Beatles were.

How the fuck is this hard to grasp? What a moron

Wait, didn't he plug margarine on a TV commercial?

Damn you're stupid

>"no u"
Great job and great post, would read again

I think he's saying the Beatles never really pretended to be coarse, rowdy rebels. Sure, old people didn't like them, but the Stones definitely had a more edgy and rebellious image.

wat, nah seriously growing up Ringo and George were poor as fuck, Paul's family was working class, and Lennon was from the "most affluent" area and he is the only one out of all of them to go to art school/any sort of college. In the huge Beatles Anthology book Ringo talks about literally having to side with gangs growing up or else you'd get fucking stabbed. Liverpool was literally a fucking poor port city with mostly blue collar working class residents

proto punk existed, the retard saying the beatles were playing is wrong though

Nice dubs

NASTY LITTLE MAN

>Liverpool was literally a fucking poor port city with mostly blue collar working class residents

>was
>past tense

And 55 years later, absolutely not a jot has changed.

Paul was at art school and his family was middle class.

blood transfusions

Except Paul actually had some dope.

lol just making a point for all the people saying the Beatles grew up in affluent families

Scientific studies _have_ proven that giving older individuals blood taken from a young donor can have a rejuvenating effect,

i don't care if the stones haven't had a decent album since the carter administration, everything that comes out of the man's mouth is gold.

The new blues covers album wasn't half bad.

But hellbefine dude talked about how the rolling stones all went to college and whatnot, thus what stands out to him is not that they were fake or whatever but that they were fake WHILST BEING coddled momma's boys, which is what the Beatles were.
I mean I can get you don't like a band for being fake but you can't really dismiss that band for another when the other has exactly the same thing going on.

>puts on creedence
>hey, that's an amazing groove
>yeah, they have a good groove alright
>...
>why don't they play something else?

wow, Lemmy's repping Beatles, the hell.

He went to the Liverpool Institute which was pretty much equivalent to going to a charter high school and dropped out before finishing.

...

what did this guy think of blackstar or Low?

Go read it on his website: scaruffi.com/vol3/bowie.html

His review of Blackstar was posted before. He craps on that album mightily.

I mean, Scaruffi, he has one raging Bowie hateboner.

Besides the hilarious "proto-punk" thing, I can't believe some one would actually think a poor american boy would go all the way to england to go to a bar, watch an early incarnation of the beatles, and remember that forever

Lemmy wasn't American

Lemmy was British though.

no offense, but can you explain how early Beatles is proto-punk? I can vaguely assume that they were pub-rock (?), possibly you might equate these two terms, I don't know.

yes he was SHUT UP DELETE THIS

as much as i love lem, i have no idea how he's gonna say that the stones were somehow disingenuous compared to the beatles

the stones fled to france from britbong to evade the government, that's the whole "exile" bit

you've got all kinds of drug stories surrounding keef, and there was that one assistant or some shit he had that he flashed a fuckin gun on

>Lemmy
>a poor american boy

DELETE REEEEE

How can you be saying yes he was to both?

EMBRACE THE FAILURE

i'm deleting myself

NOOOO, LIVE THROUGH SHAME.

>This is trivial "music" that any amateur could make, except that most amateurs would be ashamed to release it.

>Bowie died of cancer in january 2016.
>4/10
goddamn.

He basically just interprets Blackstar as following from his previous album, which he didn't like either.
In fact, he doesn't like Bowie much at all.

Atleast he's honest

I agree with you on that.

Satan, but don't worry, hell be fine.

Fun thing is every single one of those musicians are better than the stones, except rappers

>poor american boy
It's only January 1st and I've already read the funniest thing I'll read all year