Is he right about the Beatles?

Is he right about the Beatles?

Why does he think the beatles suck I feel they are pretty good

Wait a minute, theres something up with this picture

Because maymays

>Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles
This is wrong.

I think Scaruffi hates the Beatles pre-1965. He's right about that. The Beatles were ass before they started taking drugs.

>implying they didn't take during their first tour of Europe and get hooked on it.

>He's right about that
How so?

Accomplished musicologists have praised their early work as well as their late. is Scruffy an accomplished musicologist?

nah i love the beatles they make excellent pop music

They were taking drugs in Hamberg in 1960. They would take amphetamines to stay awake and play several sets every night

all critics are parasites that need to be gassed in zyklon ben garrison

...

Much of his Beatles essay is just flat-out not factual.

DELET THIS

this

Many of the artists he praises were very much "guilty" of the same "problems" he accuses The Beatles of. It's just bizarre.

He just makes stuff up to support his own bias without doing much of any basic research.
For instance, he talks of Pete Townshend of the Who as being a better songwriter in the sense that he must've known that he was better, when Townshend himself has always talked about his love for the Beatles (particularly sgt pepper) and their influence.

Another one is Bob Dylan. Historically, Dylan's back story and persona was created to craft "wandering mistral" image to market, and he very heavily borrowed from various folk standards that bordered on plagiarism. Scruffy is quick to call out The Beatles' image and influence, but excuse it if it's Dylan. It's a double standard.

inform yourself about scruffy before posting that

zzzz
wake me up when you come up with a substantial reply against his essay

See

>multiple substantial replies to a stupid essay by an autistic Italian
>lol ur all wrong
stop posting

>multiple substantial replies
no, the only slightly substantial one is

>slightly

he has much better insight about why david bowie was actually shit
his explanation of why the beatles are shit doesn't even line up with the good scores he justifiably gave their best albums

>he has much better insight about why david bowie was actually shit
Not really. Scruffy doesn't seem to understand what performance art is.

he does, but he also understands that Bowie's performances cannot redeem his painfully mediocre music, much less justify the reputation of his records

What's mediocre about it?

Please use music theory to illustrate your point.

>his explanation of why the beatles are shit
this is where most people get it wrong: he doesn't hate them, he just thinks they're overrated and that is a fucking fact

>that is a fucking fact
no, that's an opinion
plus he denies the influence and innovation that the Beatles had which is just plain ignorance

>Please use music theory
Kek, do you want me to list the chords he used or what?
His music is derivative and safe and uninteresting

>derivative
Most music is
>safe and uninteresting
Sounds like you need to listen to more music.

That they have some of the top songs of the 60s? Maybe

>Most music is
Most music doesn't have the reputation Bowie has

>Sounds like you need to listen to more music.
The fact that I've listened to plenty of music makes me dislike him even more. People who don't listen to that many artists usually worship David Bowie

You can't really use music theory to tell if a song is bad or not when they follow it.

>Most music doesn't have the reputation Bowie has
Well wouldn't it be reasonable that he gained a positive reputation by making good music?
>The fact that I've listened to plenty of music makes me dislike him even more
Not really. There's so much more worse music in existence than David Bowie. Again, you just need to listen to more music .
You can certainly chart it out and illustrate to poor voice leading.

Why do you keep pointing out there's plenty of shitty music out there? We all know that. Still there's enough good music worth ten lifetimes of listening. David Bowie just didn't make the cut, I'm sorry

>Why do you keep pointing out there's plenty of shitty music out there?
Because if you think Bowie is shitty, it's because you are not putting it into perspective.
>David Bowie just didn't make the cut, I'm sorry
See

>His music is derivative and safe and uninteresting

>derivative
Of what?
>safe
How so?
>uninteresting
What's uninteresting about it?

Classic Sup Forums - instead or conceed a point, slowly drag the argument into the realm of the nature of aesthetics, what does it mean to be "good" etc.

just kys if you think the beetles or bowie are good or "good"

source?