DISCUSS NEW SCARUFFI

>Thankfully, Radiohead abandoned the beats for A Moon Shaped Pool (XL, 2016), their least machine-based album yet, a veritable return to humanity. If the driving minimalist repetition of Burn the Witch sounds like an amateurish impersonation of Michael Nyman augmented with melancholy new-age piano, a couple of the songs display real genius like it rarely happened on their pretentious albums: the creative collage of The Numbers blends distorted Indian-esque music with snippets of orchestral music, massive organ drones and ghostly lysergic chanting; the elaborate ethereal pastiche Daydreaming blends more minimalist repetition with drones and sound effects that are almost musique concrete; Present Tense grafts flamenco-ish guitar and falsetto scat into a Caribbean beat; and Ful Stop sets an electronic threnody to Neu-esque motorik rhythm. Half of the album is wasted in minor detours, such as the somber and spare litany Desert Island Disk and the languid r&b over syncopated digital beat Identikit, but this could be their best album since Amnesiac.

scaruffi.com/cdreview/new.html

6/10 for AMSP, 6.5 for Divers.

Other urls found in this thread:

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Yorke killed himself in january 2017

At least christgau is funny and self-aware scaruffi just pisses me off even when I agree with him

>but this could be their best album since Amnesiac.
Is this why Sup Forums has a hard-on for Amnesiac? because Scruffy said so?

this
no it's because it's a good album

why do people pay attention to this dude? his taste in music is shit

Pleb

Blackstar

"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."

Drone

>no it's because it's a good album
How did you convince yourself of this?

Projecting. I don't base my taste off of Scaruffi I just accept that my taste is bad when it deviates from his.

suck his dick some more you sheep

I couldn't stop giggling when I first read this

A literal autist who lost his touch with modern music

because I think it sounds good

Why?

as usual scaruffi is spot-on

notice how the detractors can never challenge any of the points he makes

the music is pleasant to my ears

>points

I think the word you're looking for is "opinions"

How so?

when I listen to the album I get a sense of satisfaction

What instrument does he play again?

You can make points to defend or argue against an opinion baka.

Surprisingly generous

I actually agree it's their best since Amnesiac

Because you know Scruffy approved

Not an argument.

semantics,
you used points because it has a connotation of objectivity and authority to dickride your favorite autist's (((opinion)))

I concur. Post- Amnesiac goes like this for me:
AMSP
King of Limbs
In Rainbows
I Might be Wrong
2+2=5
HTTT

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

well, this is just completely incorrect.

not hard to refute what he is saying because it's an opinion and objectivity doesn't exist

>2+2=5
You mean Com Lag EP? I would definitely not rank it above HttT

Not even the user who originally said that but it's cute how you're changing the argument to something unrelated since you can't contest the scruff

You can use music theory to defend or argue against an opinion baka.

is that your point? you think I'm a Scaruffi drone?
Scaruffi is a meme and I genuinely think Amnesiac is a great album

Well you can't seem to explain why, so clearly yes, you are a drone.

>you like this album Scaruffi likes so you're clearly a drone
you're retarded

no dumbo I'm emphasizing how he tries to mask an opinion as fact.
there is nothing to refute, it's just the conclusion of some old italian autist. if you want to follow his opinions instead of forming your own go right ahead

I don't really like either, to be honest. I think Com Lag has some great tracks but nothing really stands out, whereas HTTT has exactly one great track, a few very good tracks and a lot of average to poor tracks.

>Well you can't seem to explain why
If I had reading comprehension like you, I'd just mimic some quirky Italian's taste as well

>you can't sound "human" if you use synths and drum machines

Who do we blame for this meme? Kraftwerk? The Human League?

what do you want me to say? you want me to write a full review of amnesiac just to please your autistic ass and prove I'm not a Scaruffi drone? you seem so far up your ass

Everyone ITT needs to die

If you can't prove it, it's not true.

Sorry Scruffy drone

lmao ok kid

The closer music moves to perfection, the farther it moves away from humanity.

>subjective things should never be the topic of discussion and I should never be challenged on my opinions
Thats you rn

Why is Sup Forums so obsessed with music critics and pretend their opinions matter?

then why are some autechre songs some of the most emotionally charged music I've ever heard

yes that's me
it's a waste of brainpower
people will just believe what they want to believe anyway

your anus

Because you are a broken and emotionless person

>not hard to refute what he is saying because it's an opinion and objectivity doesn't exist

wow a fedora meme you sure showed him
what a retard for claiming it's a fool'd errand to try and find objectivity in something inherently subjective

>le art is subjective meme
kill yourself

>claims to rate and review music from a historical perspective
>writes reviews within a year of an album's release

How isn't it?

how is it?

>says scaruffi's points can't be refuted
>scaruffi's point is refuted

and now you can't refute my refuting of scaruffi's point, so you resort to fedora memes

lol

You made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it's objective

Hello my name is Mr. Iffuracs and I come from a place far away.

Boy, The Radioheads sure stink, huh?

literal retards

If you're not trolling you are retarded to the point of sub-humanity

>discussing music?!

i didn't make the initial claim, see this: >objectivity doesn't exist

read a book nigger

>i didn't make the initial claim
Been nice talking to you

Are you are literal retard with no concept of context?

Objectivity does not exist in art because there are no objective truths or parameters that define universal norms of quality

He didn't mean that objectivity doesn't exist period

there's no point trying to argue with someone stupid enough to believe that you can objectively discuss the quality of music

this

Kek you were honest. Thanks for the laugh mate

> David Bowie Blackstar (RCA) songwriter 4/10
> Julia Holter Have You in My Wilderness (Domino) songwriter 6/10
> Future Islands Singles (4AD) synth-pop 4/10
> Ariel Pink Pom Pom (4AD) songwriter 5/10

here

have still yet to see anyone address the points that scaruffi made in this review. or any review

that's why i love him. he enrages plebs to the point that they can't think straight

Because our perceptions of music are based on emotions and belief systems, which are subjective.

How can a man be so alpha

everyone has a different taste
no taste is the same as another
of two tastes one is better than the other
a taste that is better than every other taste exists

music is subjective, but one of those subjective tastes is the best, thus making music objective
even if it's hard if not impossible to know which one is it, you know it exists

does italian cock taste the same as negro dick?
with the shared genes and all

explain how art ISN'T subjective

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
Only about one-third of academic philosophers (the people who dedicate their lives to studying these ideas) believe that aesthetic value is subjective, so maybe you should quit pretending you know shit about anything

gold medal winner in the paralympics of mental gymnastics

>Objectivity does not exist in art because there are no objective truths or parameters that define universal norms of quality
how do you know they don't exist?

bye

nice arguments

>argumentum ad auctoritatem

Stop man, you're embarrassing yourself

>have still yet to see anyone address the points that scaruffi made in this review
Well let's see:
>their least machine-based album yet
This is incorrect because there are a number of loop-based songs on this album, as compared to others (Pablo honey) which have no loop based material. Thus Scruffy is wrong here
>The Numbers blends distorted Indian-esque music
There are no ragas contained in the song, so Scruffy is wrong here
>Daydreaming blends more minimalist repetition with drones and sound effects that are almost musique concrete
Vocal manipulations on this song can't really compare to musique conrete, as they are not juxtaposed found recordings.

This is excluding his *subjective* opinions with no merit behind it, such as
>amateurish impersonation of Michael Nyman
>Half of the album is wasted in minor detours
Again, this is coming from someone who claimed Radiohead claimed to be avant-garde, which was a direct lie.

>one third disagrees

exactly, it's subjective

if it wasn't subjective, it wouldn't be POSSIBLE for them to disagree

stop thinking you're smart because you googled some academic shit

read this nice argument

nice try, but it's impossible to argue with them
these retards don't even know basic philosophy, they are still stuck in their nihilism/relativism phase

Because they aren't provable.
This isn't math you brainlet.

[citation needed]

>of two tastes one is better than the other
How do you know if one is better than the other?

good point

>if it wasn't subjective, it wouldn't be POSSIBLE for them to disagree
ahahahahahahahah
how can you be so retarded

>a taste that is better than every other taste exists

okay, how do you its better?

You are a pretentious retard who tries to apply basic logic you learend in you philosophy 101 class to music while forgetting the most elementary truth of philosophy: it's in essence subjective

What did Scaruffi mean by this?

>misapplying le rhetorical fallacies
nice reddit techniques dude

If two-thirds of the authorities who are actually qualified to speak about this issue disagree with your premise, then it's safe to say that you're on pretty fucking shaky ground when you assert, flat-out, that art is subjective

People that have different amounts of knowledge on subjects will come to different conclusions. Before I took a modern physics course I thought that classical mechanics were adequate to explain the entire universe, does that mean that the laws of nature are subjective?

>they aren't provable.
how do you know this?
>calling me brainlet

it's not relevant, i just wanted to prove a "best taste" exists, even if we can't know it

>i just wanted to prove a "best taste" exists
It didn't work because "better" is a subjective value in itself

Try again?

Not him but you are really really dumb my friend. Objective truths aren't debatable. You are trying to elevate philosophy to the level of math and science

explain how I'm wrong, smarty-pants

art isn't math or science

you can definitely prove that 2+2=1, so if someone says 2+2=1,000, they are objectively wrong because it is fact that can be proven.

same with science shit like, idk, the earth isn't flat. someone can SAY its flat but they wil be objectively wrong because the earth's roundness is objectively proven.

but what is objectively proven about art? how can you prove someone wrong about their opinion in music? seriously, give me an example.

>People that have different amounts of knowledge on subjects will come to different conclusions

yeah again that's called subjectivity.

again see above, if something is objective it should be possible to prove it to people with any amount of knowledge.

knowing more about art =/= having better opinions about art

>you can definitely prove that 2+2=1

kek meant 4 obviously

i don't know which one is it, but i know it exists
have you even read the last line?

everything is in essence subjective, should we stop reasoning about everything because it is subjective?

>Before I took a modern physics course I thought that classical mechanics were adequate to explain the entire universe, does that mean that the laws of nature are subjective?
Knowledgeable physicists don't even agree with eachother. Reminder that Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity contradict each other

>authorities who are actually qualified to speak
wow nice spook man.

>adequate to explain the entire universe

How could you think that when we can't even grasp the complexity of the human mind.
No they are objective, just not fully fleshed out. The foundation (the principle) is there. If you really studied science you wouldn't be making such retarded assumptions