>has decent taste, even if it's not perfect >knows that his taste isn't perfect >can actually articulate why he likes or dislikes an album or song >has listened to more music than most of Sup Forums >knows more about music than most of Sup Forums >has played in a band >is good at his instrument of choice >is actually pretty jacked >could beat up 80% of this board >gets all the patrician black pussy he wants >has one of the three platforms which decides what Sup Forums is going to like >probably has more influence than the other two together >turns the plebe masses into glorious patricians >keeps his memes on another channel and away from his serious music reviews (unlike Sup Forums) >has been acknowledged by Michael Gira himself >lives a fucking awesome life thay is literally the Sup Forums dream >triggers Sup Forums every day just by existing
Why do you hate him so much, Sup Forums? It's because you're jealous, admit it.
His videos are embarrassing compared to real music criticism. Try reading George Bernard Shaw, Peter G. Davis, or Leonard Feather and compare their level of analysis and criticism to Fantano's trivial and shallow descriptions of music (because really, that's all he does- description).
Cameron Walker
Honestly, i tried to read some in depth analysis of music because i take theory classes.
And it's just too boring.
I honestly don't care about rapid key changes or polyrhythmic breaks or chord structures in general, however interesting they may be for some.
In the end of the day, it's about how the music makes you feel, and Fanatano, like it or not, just goes straight to the point. He probably could validate some of his points with music theory, but he chooses not to because half his viewers wouldn't understand it anyway.
That's how i see it at least, i think the way Fantano does his reviews is the one that makes most sense honestly.
Joseph Nguyen
>>has decent taste, even if it's not perfect Gonna stop you right there senpai. There is no such thing as 'perfect taste' unless you mean 'taste that perfectly aligns with my own taste'. Music is the most subjective art.
Caleb Sullivan
t. someone without award for music taste
Zachary Nguyen
>In the end of the day, it's about how the music makes you feel, and Fanatano, like it or not, just goes straight to the point. He probably could validate some of his points with music theory, but he chooses not to because half his viewers wouldn't understand it anyway.
This exactly. And there are other reviewers that stray away from theory and try to cut to the emotional core of what the record is trying to do, but most of them slather their review in layers of pretension and inflated importance. Anthony just says how he feels.
Levi Morales
all he does is describe how the music sounds. it's pretty worthless as criticism
Leo Nguyen
I like him but dont care for him as a critic.
Gavin Anderson
hence why he said the taste isn't perfect. Are you 8?
Elijah Powell
>In the end of the day it's about how the music makes you feel >makes YOU feel
This is exactly why I hate Fantano. I care how the music makes ME feel. Why do I give a shit how it makes him feel?
My subjective opinion of the music is important to me of course, but I don't make the mistake of thinking anybody else cares how I feel about music, because obviously they're probably going to feel something different.
Music criticism should be about revealing the underlying objective aspects of the music that cause you to feel.
Adam Baker
He's implying there is such thing as perfect taste though. Are you 7?
Jacob Kelly
How did he imply that there is such a thing? >has decent taste, even if it's not perfect they're implying that not everyone will agree with his taste, which is always true. Whether or not an objective perfect exists is not implied whatsoever.
Aiden Turner
>I care how the music makes ME feel. Why do I give a shit how it makes him feel?
How exactly is a reviewer supposed to just instill what the album emotes to you without just playing the album? The best any reviewer can do is show the effect the album had on them, explain why the music does that to them, give comparable examples so the audience can associate the sound with something they've likely heard before, and then turn you loose.
The only way to fully know how an album will make YOU feel is to listen to it.
>Music criticism should be about revealing the underlying objective aspects of the music that cause you to feel.
Part of it is, but the problem is that the objective aspects of the music that cause the feeling can be very hard to pinpoint and/or would take a very very long time to fully describe. For example, what makes this good: youtube.com/watch?v=n6P0SitRwy8 And this shit?: youtube.com/watch?v=cJMeTmdfNWk
Objectively they're incredibly similar.
Isaiah Smith
hint: neither one is good
Parker Nguyen
he likes dg a little too much
Camden Brooks
His friendship with Sam Hyde.
Eli Myers
>And it's just too boring. I bet you think "boring" is a legitimate criticism of music too
Henry Hernandez
what instrument does he play
Carter Johnson
>is bald
Isaac Torres
Even when he gives a bad score to something I like, his criticisms are usually valid. The only reviews I thoroughly disagreed with were Foxygen and Star Power and Lana Del Rey's Ultraviolence
David Rivera
Danny Brown xD Kendrick xD Death Grips xD
literally that white guy rapping at karaoke nights on mondays with his ugly gf.
Jeremiah Bailey
He also doesn't get techno at all. Show me a review where he shows an understanding of electronic music that isn't surface level.
Nolan Ross
>thinks people rap kendrick, danny, or DG at karaoke night >has never been to karaoke night >too busy playing MyCareer 2k on rookie
Wyatt Ortiz
kek
Aaron Morgan
Triggered faggot? white people love doing kendrick on karaoke night.
Anthony Sanchez
not the user you replied to but "boring" is a pretty legitimate non-academic criticism of music. I also have a college level music education, but if I want to know if I might like an album, or if it's worth listening to, I talk to my friends or read the reviews of critics I tend to agree with. Fantano fills that role. I don't always agree with him, and he isn't always right, but the same way as if my friend who likes the same jazz as me says he likes a jazz record I might be more inclined to spend time on it, same goes for Fantano or other critics who articulate their opinions well.
Chase Powell
Someone was going to say that no matter what I put up there.
The point is that, in the time it would take to read all the objective things that will make you feel a certain way, you could've just listened to the song and gotten a more clear idea. Not to mention that it's hard to know what to point out from any objective sense since what makes the song great for one person might have no affect on another (therefore not worth mentioning in a review). So yeah, a reviewer could speak the album at you, or they could draw comparisons and explain how it affected them to give you some idea how it might affect you.
But hey, if you think you have some revolutionary way to review music, give it a shot.
Lucas Harris
My problem with Fantano though is that the way his reviews work are mostly about how he feels, which Is cool but most of the time, he shows reasons about why this and that part are good or bad but not that much. I still like him though, I enjoy watching his NOT GOOD vídeos.
Levi Lee
His face is annoying and his videos are 90% "quirky lol" jump cuts Also all music critics are pathetic and live off other people's successes and/or failures because they don't have the creativity to make their own
Jeremiah Thompson
triggered?
not where i'm from anyways. it's more like old school Numba 1 Stunna or A Milli or something that people learned to rap in high school.
Ethan Lewis
So YOU are the one who does Kendrick then. :)
Kayden Evans
>has been acknowledged by Michael Gira himself how/where?
Eli Bell
i think you have an issue logically following a conversation.
why can't it be? sure, I'm not a renowned music critic who gives reviews to the public (and I'm not trying to be one) but it doesn't mean I don't critique music for myself. If I listen to Hospice countless times and still can't have it resonate with me because I get bored, then why try so hard to like it? Finding a reason why its boring to me while also figuring out the aspects of the album I enjoy are all parts of criticism that should be essential. Of course its subjective, but isn't most of music critiques subjective anyway? Especially if a majority of critics agree that an album is boring in their own words, people shouldn't discount "boring" as being a legitimate critique of an album. It should just be backed up by a reason.
Sebastian Cox
? I haven't said anything about fantano. We were talking about karaoke?
Noah Collins
I don't mind Fantano. My main criticism is that he is not very thorough in terms of verdicts. It's a lot like: "There were some very shimmering hi-hats on this track which I didn't like." and then he just drops it there. I just want some more insight into "why" he doesn't like particular things.
It's not a bad criticism... it's just really lazy. Boring is a really encompassing word that takes a lot of aspects, and if you say that something is boring, the reader is none the wiser of what aspects you liked and didn't like. Sure, you can then go into detail by explaining why you think it's boring, but at that point you've already explained things well enough. "Boring" then just becomes a superfluous addon that doesn't achieve anything.
