Hates radiohead

>hates radiohead
>hates aphex twin
>hates beatles
>hates death grips
>hates bowie
>loves fucking trout mask replica and faust
Why do people take him seriously, again?

You already showed why user

Because Sup Forums see's a lot of themselves in a forever alone music elitest Italian pedophile.

Nobody takes him.seriously. Hes a meme

>likes radiohead
>likes aphex twin
>likes beatles
>likes death grips
>likes bowie
>likes neutral milk hotel
why do people take him seriously again?

All of these are completely reasonable to dislike.

I dont know how you can hate beatles

hes probably the kid thats going to shoot up the school

he gave a lot of those artists 7/10s, he doesn't hate them. also tmr and faust are gold

He hasn't given Death Grips anything less than a 5, I don't see how you could think he hates them just because he's not using the pitchfork metric of 8/10 being average.

He also hasn't given anything less than a 5 to Radiohead, but you can say he hates them judging by what he wrote about them.
Also it is retarded to give Radiohead or Death Grips anything less than a 7.

>he clearly gave them a good score, but since he didn't stan for them he must hate them
Great post.

>Also it is retarded to give Radiohead or Death Grips anything less than a 7.
This.

i double that

>you can say he hates them judging by what he wrote about them.
He just says they're overrated

Anything that's not experimental guitar noise will not receive more than 7/10 from the guy. He's obviously biased, as is everyone. He's just another dude, only he seems to be taken seriously cause he's got a degree or something.

I just like his articles for their insanity.

He knows more about music and art than you ever will

>mfw he gave one of my favorite albums a 9/10

He gave my favorite album a 9.5

and it's not even art degree, it's mathematics.

>Government Plates

thought he was a meme for a long time thanks to you niggers. then started listening to a bunch of stuff from his top lists and realized he really is the premier music critic & historian.

i think the best way to approach critics like this is to not listen to their opinions on random releases but to check out their top rated stuff. usually you will find a lot of good in their top rated lists, even if you disagree with a lot of their other opinions

you are the reason why this board sucks.I'm going to bet this:
None of you have heard more than 2 symphonies of his top 10.
you are all a bunch of ignorant fucktads who dont know shit about music as a whole and are only aware of music post-60s,so you think average bands like radiohead,or death grips are something to be looked at because of "muh cultural phenomenon" .
you all idiots claim that scaruffi is an elitist,when in truth you are the elitists,you listen to a couple of hundred records and then claim to have all the knowledge in the world. that's pathetic.

>hates Radiohead
>hates Bowie
>hates Beatles
But they’re actually shit

>Why do people take him seriously, again?
Because he >hates radiohead

Yeah I also find it weird when people don't realize that Scaruffi looks at music from a classical perspective. I don't agree with him on a lot of things but he states his points well enough. Also if you only listen to pop music and nothing else you can still see that Radiohead and DG aren't anything special in every sense of the word. It reminds me of a thread on here from not long ago when some user posted a Stockhausen piece and said it was shit and you can bet all you want that that person only listens to pop music and has little to no knowledge on classical nor contemporary classical music.

He reviews pretty much in an academic way. No matter how well-crafted or meticulous the album might be (e.g Pink Floyd's Dark Side), if it doesn't bring anything new to the table it's almost certain that he'll rate it lower than 7/10 at best. He's more of a historian than a critic, that's why he's the best source to introduce you to new things, the more innovative it is, a greater score it has. It's up to you to decide whether it's good or not.

This does not suffice because Radiohead fans seriously think it reinvent music from sketch every new album

John Lennon was a hippie faggot. And the band was pretentious bullshit in general.

>He gave Electric Ladyland an 8/10
He's a contrarian faggot
Anything less than a 10 for that Album is sacrilege
AYE and Axis deserve at least 9 too

your post is like 3 kinds of fucked up

8/10 is a good score

Keep in mind he gave Are you experienced? is in his top 100 with a score of 8/10

>being this new

you get the point

but, dude.

Who takes him seriously? All he does is provide the words for unimaginative shitposters. Him and Christgau.

>hover hands his wifes
Patrician as fuck.

why doesn't he like deez bands?

I wanna *put* my hand on their ass. youknowwhatImean

Still better than Christgau who only rates albums over 7/10 if they're pop punk artists from NYC.

he liked syro dude

I like Spyro, dude.

scruffgfy

...

i've never read anything he has written and avoid all reviewers of media like him as if they are illnesses, but i agree with all that greentext.

i guess i'd say that he is correct is why.
at least he knows when something is deserving of merit and not in terms of artistic accomplishment.

Who cares about that OP? I'm more scared that this freak claims the critic is the real artist

blscuusuffy

Liking all of those is normal, not fedora-tier.
Being a normie ≠ being fedora.

>Also if you only listen to pop music and nothing else you can still see that Radiohead and DG aren't anything special in every sense of the word.
You "internet experts" are full of shit.

How is giving that an album an 8/10 being contrarian?

His Art and Philosophy Page are laugh out loud bad. Me and my friends used to read those out loud, trying to find the dumbest part and laughing all the way, good times. On the other hand it is also intereasting how in literature section he avoids description and just lists stuff without explaining much. Parts of cinema section also suffer from this.

Gee guys, one would get the idea that the reason music section is most complete is because you can listen to it once ( or not even completely) in background and then write some semi related sentences about that. Hmm, that would also explain why he hears stuff that no one else hears like that time he called stones's blues jam going home a collage in the vein of revolution nine. BUT SURELY THAT CAN'T BE THE CASE

>hates aphex twin
he does? I thought he only considered him mediocre

He considers him the most overrated 90's artist alongside Beck, Radiohead, Pavement etc.

He much prefers Autechre.

Francis Bacon wrote that there are four reasons for ignorance:

1. weak and incapable authority misleads people (in rock music, it's the critics, who are too coward to stand up to the powerful music industry)
2. habits (in rock music, it's what the radios play)
3. the lack of general knowledge (in rock music, the audience has hardly any knowledge of the other arts)
4. false wisdom, i.e. people hide their ignorance by pretending to be knowledgeable

And the fourth one is the worst. That is the one that is prevalent in any art whose audience is mainly very young people. They know mostly what is very publicized and marketed in their environment, but often engage in the game of knowing "more" than other young people. The truth is that they only know their idols, and that's precisely why those are their idols. Even when they grow up, they remain mostly ignorant: as you grow up, you stop listening to the music that was around when you were young. Your knowledge crystallizes. What you knew is what you know and, worse, you begin to truly believe that there was nothing else to be known. I found this phenomenon to be widespread among listeners of rock music.

I was lucky enough to grow up with almost no interest in rock music. Therefore I had no idols. When I began listening to rock music, I did it solely on the basis of what sounded interesting. That accounts for the vast majority of my "controversial" opinions. I just wasn't all that interested in finding out what was or was not popular.

He likes Morphine and Leonard Cohen though.

All of those artists he "hates" have at least one 7/10, and it's usually their best album(s). Also Faust is great.
People who genuinely dislike Scaruffi are dumb p4k plens who think 7/10 is a bad score and get upset when every "classic" or mildly interesting new album doesn't get an 8+/10.

>I was lucky enough to grow up with almost no interest in rock music. Therefore I had no idols.

Reminder that Scaruffi has literally never been wrong

I think Scaruffi tries to value the personality, intent and emotion the most. He's not impressed by technical feats that much (although he acknowledges them). All of his top albums are by people that had strong charisma, were very honest and tried to do something unique.
Frankly, the more I listen to music I think he's quite fair and correct in his assessments

This but unironically

but TMR is amazing and better than anything that has been created by any of those artists

Too fucking low of a score for one of the best albums ever made.

because he is right

>waaaa waaa scaruffi didn't give my favorite pop garbage 10/10 that means he hates them

Reminder a Scaruffi 7 is the equivalent of a p4k 9. All those bands he supposedly "hates" have albums rated 7.

But that's exactly what a Scaruffi 8 means you absolute faggot. There's only a few hundred albums that have that score.

>hates radiohead
>hates aphex twin
>hates death grips
(not true, by the way)

because he's right

it insists upon itsself