Why is he the only critic that matters?

Why is he the only critic that matters?

Other urls found in this thread:

scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html#usa1108c
web.archive.org/web/20081112084009/http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because he's too autistic to fall for trends.

because all the other ones are utter shit

Only one I know of with, at the very least, interesting and unique opinions plus an above average knowledge of rock music culture and history.

because he knows the fact that

>he doesn't follow trends and isn't afraid to voice his own opinion
>a-autism
weak minded fool

Sheer volume probably. Is there any other critic with as large of a back catalog of music reviews? Genuinely curious.

>rock critic
>laughable opinions and writings about classical and jazz
>mattering
think again

I'm not saying all people who don't follow trends are autistic, I'm saying scruffy is a legit autist to the point where he spends his time making a list of all of his friends on his website, writing conspiratorial political and social articles, and shilling his book on Silicon Valley, and this trait make it easier for him to buck trends.

So what you're saying is that no rock critics matter whatsoever?

this literally means nothing

He's said in an interview that he has horrible memory and that his website is somewhat of an extension of his memory.
Maybe he makes a list like that to remember who his friends are :)

>Basing your opinions on critics.

ay lmao

Because he want to marry 12-year old girls

>thinking that the only reason to read music criticism is to take someone else's opinion

Good music criticism should make you think. Whether you agree or disagree with the critic isn't really important, because a good critic will make you think about WHY you agree or disagree.

> muh, rock isn't art, jazz and classical are art
> muh, I never give a 10 to rock albums
> shitty jazz and classical critic
This guy is just as bad as any other.

He isn't. Pic related is.

literally who?

>"Why cant I marry a 12 year old?"

What did he mean by this

He posted a pic of ToddInTheShadows. Very entertaining YouTube channel regarding music. He basically only reviews one-hit wonders and pop music in general. But he's nowhere near as credible as Scaruffi.

Thanks for explaining it better than I could my dude.

>critics
>ever mattering
good meme

Is Scaruffi really a pedophile that wouldn't mind to marry a 12 y/o? Can someone confirm this with evidence?

Actually, he doesn't matter at all.

(not true, by the way)

>THE FACT THAT
Now we are allowed to ignore the Beatles on this board

I discovered many great bands thanks to mr Dandruffi, but overall his opinions SUCK.

the exact quote is "why is it illegal to marry a 12-year old?".
Read his article here:
scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html#usa1108c
("Why i voted against "gay" marriage")
He makes a few good points.

>music critic
>mattering

lol, it's funny when they scramble to justify their existence when someone questions the worth of art critics.

didn't scaruffi say something along the lines that the art critic was worth more than the artist itself? mega lelz

"the critic is the real artist"
i used to think he was wrong about that

:^)

no it was originally "why can't i marry a twelve-year old?" but he changed it

web.archive.org/web/20081112084009/http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html

>He makes a few good points
Could some of those be?
>Why is marriage limited to two people? >why can't i marry six women at the same time?
>why can't you have marriage between two men and three women?
>Polygamy has been pervasive in ancient times, and it is among most mammal species. It is perfectly legal to be a single mother or single father, but it is not legal to have a marriage among three people. >Abraham, considered a prophet by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, had three wives (Sarah, Hagar and Keturah): was he a criminal? The Bible is full of cases of polygamy and never refers to them as amoral. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, had five wives.
Because the behavior of ancient, primitive people is what we should strive to in modern times. Mohammad also consummated his marriage to an underage girl when she was 9. The Bible is also full of cases of homophobia, hostility towards children, hostility towards women and genocide.

This sounds so illogical that I'm wondering if he's actually being serious or being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.

why is he referring to religious texts? he doesn't seem like one to be religious

That's what made me question his sincerity. He may be a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.

My nigga.

What is happening my fine basketball American

because he gave your favorite album a 7

rock music still is extremely far from becoming a serious art. why would it need critics?

9*

I fucking hate Scaruffi drones

because he was awesome in M*A*S*H

Why do you hate me? What have I ever done to you? :(
BTW, I'm just a drone when it comes to his taste in all the different artforms. His articles on politics, though enjoyable to read, can be quite silly at times.

Because he's actually a stale rotting cheeto.

He's not.

His thoughts on Bowie alone prove his irrelevance.

fite me

tfw he gave blonde on blonde a 9 and blood on the tracks a 6.5

Cause he only deals in objectivity and doesn't fall for media hype

Oh how long has he been studying music theory?

>Cause he only deals in objectivity
How do you objectively view art?

Fuck off too reddit or stay in the grammy thread.

Ooops you didn't seem to answer the question.

Try again. Or would you like me to post all the SUBJECTIVE judgements Scruffy's made?

b8.

no u

No music needs critics, it needs listeners.

I actually agree with this to an extent

Since music only serves the artist it needs no listeners at all and critics are superfluous

>music only serves the artist
no music should serve the artist who makes it or else it becomes self indulgent. Nobody should get anything out of music.

>or else it becomes self indulgent
So what if it does?

then it is no longer pure art. Nobody should be able to enjoy art. If people enjoy it, then it is merely entertainment. True art is appreciated by nobody.

>then it is no longer pure art.
What's the difference between art and pure art?

art can be tainted by entertainment (one or two people having opinions on it). True art has nobody having any opinions on it because they have not noticed it.

True art is burying an unseen painting that even the painter does not care about in the middle of a field to never be found. If you care about the art that you are burying, then it loses its meaning.

>art can be tainted by entertainment (one or two people having opinions on it)
Incorrect. Opinions are irrelevant. See

no critics matter
listen to what you like

But you yourself are a critic. If you listen to what you like, you are thus admitting your opinion matters

But art becomes irrelevant after meaning is assigned to it, opinionated or not. If somebody has an opinion on it, no matter how irrelevant, it's still an opinion, and that gives the art meaning, which makes it meaningless.

Non Sequitur

No u

We don't do that here