What is the most awful opinion each of these fine music reviewers hold?

What is the most awful opinion each of these fine music reviewers hold?

Attached: erzats-shit.png (1335x442, 1.22M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/9UALyoAcQi8
scaruffi.com/jazz/best100.html
rateyourmusic.com/~theneedledrop
twitter.com/AnonBabble

tlop being an 8/10

That they have anything of substance to say.

This

Scaruffi's opinions on Bjork

Fantano's opinions on Kanye

Xgau's opinions on everything

Scaruffi's opinion on music in general
Fantano's overhype of generic shit and leftist "kill all whities" shit
Christgau.

Scaruffi > Fantano > literal fecal matter > Christgau

Scaruffi thinks that Ariel Pink is simply a lo-fi revisitation of "the golden age of the sixties"

yeah mate keep thinking that

Fantano: Childish Gambino as a whole (fuck off, BTI was at least an 8), TMS being the best Death Grips album and endlessly circlejerking it

Scaruffi: he's too focused on being "muh classic rock/folk", a lot of his lower ratings

Christgau: fucking everything

Yeah, fuck all the bland, shitty punk albums that Christgau dickrode in the 70s-80s. How many times can you listen to the same three chord rock over and over? I've listened to punk albums but the utter monotony of the songs always bored me to tears.

>Scaruffi
Anything that's popular and praised. Radiohead, Prince, Bowie, whatever. Especially Bowie. Elvis and the Beatles actually sucks. His taste is godtier aside from that though.

>Fantano
Government Plates. There's probably much more that he's wrong on but I don't really care about the music he usually reviews so idk

>Christgau
Everything. Especially ITCOTCK.

All of them falsely believe Yeezus is mediocre.

all of fantanos

Scaruffi's high rating of Korn
Fantano's low rating of the last Slowdive album
Dunno the last guy

>Government Plates. There's probably much more that he's wrong on but I don't really care about the music he usually reviews so idk

Are you referring to his initial album review (6/10), because he did a short video on albums he has changed his mind on in the past and GP was one.

Totally agree with you on Scaruffi.

Attached: IMPORTANT.png (465x683, 370K)

hes like if steampunk was 60s/today

Scaruffi: N/A
Fantano: All of them
Christgau: All of them

Yeezus is shit.
Late Registration is Kayne's best album you normie faggot.

Christgau seems to have no sense of subtlety which is probably why he likes punk so much. If the message of the song isn't as basic and in-your-face as possible, he can't deal with it.

All of them.

That's not how you spell Graduation.

>Late Registration
>not top 3 most normie Kanye album
>Yeezus
>not bottom 3 most normie Kanye album
What planet are you on bruh?

Attached: Sonic_derp.jpg (400x266, 22K)

>christgau

the thinking man's critic. christgau is himself a genius and it shows in his reviews. fans take him too seriously because they're not smart enough to understand his humor/that music is a matter of opinion.

>fantano

the plebeian's critic. his medium of choice (the vlog) should tell you everything you need to know about his average fan. pretends to be eclectic by occasionally giving an 8 to some latin album but really just knows hip hop.

>scaruffi

the pseud's critic. contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, although some of his more obscure favorites can be good.

Christgau is the worst because he started the entire idea that the reviewer's stream of consciousness could be a valid review or criticism of an album thus leading to the dozens of P4k fags who try to imitate him.

clearly biased towards the music of his youth, ignores a lot of crucial movements of recent years (hip hop most notably)
is a sellout youtuber(tm) faggot
thinks beach house teen dream is "bad poetry" as if poetry is even the draw there

Alright yall, let's get one thing straight

Late Registration (9/10) = Yeezus (9/10), College Dropout (8.5/10) = Graduation (8.5/10) > MBDTF (8/10) > 808s (7.5/10) > TLOP (7/10)

Scaruffi is the worst cause he is literally some unemployed Italian autist. does he even WORK in the industry.
For all the people to be a sheep to, you pick THAT??????????

Scaruffi: Good taste but his rating system is fucked

Melon: Using mellotron is King Crimson worship

Christgau: Ersatz shit

I think he now gives GP a 7/10, at least according to his RYM page

He has RYM account? Link?

I disagree with Fantano on a fundamental level. I can't agree with any of his reviews because they way he arrives at his scoring is always riddled with buzzwords and ambiguities. He is utterly limited to describing the sound. And when he doesnt he appeals to cultural nonsense and band history which I think is a fatal mistake, but he's not the only one who makes it at least. And I hate the phony "this is only my opinion" shtick. You're talking about the album, not about yourself. You can't have it both ways, you're attempting to make objective declarations about music and you can't escape that so don't try.

Yeezus
TLOP
LR
MBDTF
Grad
808s
CD

>unemployed Italian autist
He's a cognitive scientist.

youtu.be/9UALyoAcQi8

>He is utterly limited to describing the sound
What else is there?
>You're talking about the album, not about yourself
But music is supposed to resonate with a listener; any review of the music is thus really about the reviewer and how it resonates or not.

So you are saying he's not an actual musician?

scaruffi is sillicon valley's madman shtu up

>death grips kid doesn't like elvis or the beatles
consider growing up

>christgau

Attached: Music criticism was a mistake.png (1580x467, 111K)

CSN [Atlantic, 1977]

Wait a second, wasn't this a quartet? D+

>Scaruffi
Anything that’s popular

>Fantano
Steven Wilson, Slowdive’s last album, Brockhampton, Lil Pump

>Christgau
Don’t know much about him

>tripfag
post descarted

Neither are Christgau or Fantano

Movie critics don't direct movies either

You don't have to be a musician to review music

CSN were pretty much washed up by 77.

>descarted
???

Attached: rene-descartes-37613-1-402[1].jpg (300x300, 13K)

>christgau
This. Christgau gave Beach Boys Love You an A, so he's okay in my book.

>Anything that's popular and praised.
He's given very positive reviews to artists like Bruce Springsteen who is popular and has universal acclaim

>Neither are Christgau or Fantano
Incorrect
>Movie critics don't direct movies either
That sounds like a problem
If you want to be bad at it...

t. christgau

>any review of the music is thus really about the reviewer and how it resonates or not.
Not that guy but I disagree.
You can review informing what's there and what isn't there. And maybe speculate about the artist's intentions. And still not making a subjective judgement of the work in a facebook like/dislike manner,
I mean a review -at least for me- must be INFORMATIVE. I don't give a fuck about if the critic liked it or not or how was his day when he listened or whatever.

Fantano's review of Carrie & Lowell
I actually like how Scaruffi is one of the few reviewers that actually acknowledges Ramones besides the debut

Sounds like a poor and boring review, doesn't it?

All of Kanye's albums are shit, you normie faggot. You're all plebs with horrible taste in music.

why do you hate well-produced music
bet you don't like abba or the beach boys either

>AC/DC are one of the greatest heavy-metal bands of all times, and one of the most authentic acts of rock'n'roll. They embody the wild, rebellious quintessence of rock music like few other bands before punk-rock. They were the opposite of the intellectual singer-songwriter or the brainy progressive-rock or the decadent glam-rock of the 1970s: they were not the brain and not the heart but the guts of rock and roll. Rolling Stone Magazine gave a "zero" to several of their albums: the greatest compliment ever paid to them.

Attached: unnamed.jpg (325x452, 28K)

if you want literature you might consider /lit/. Joyce wrote better than any music critic.

>Scaruffi
He's the best one of the bunch, but he has two huge problems: a strong bias for the esoteric and no knowledge of music theory (admitted).
He knows when something is original, good or bad 95% of the times but in a few occasions he misinterprets or misses the quality of craft and it shows.

>Fantano
Wide field of knowledge but not as much of an expert as Scaruffi. He is too superficial on everything.

>Christgau
He doesn't even actually listen to music, probably. If something isn't accessible, he automatically thinks it's shit. The opposite of Scaruffi.

i don't like ac/dc but he's historically correct here. what's the problem?

He's not wrong though. I actually saw them back in the 2000s and it was crazy--the other guys were just sitting there in chairs strumming acoustic guitars and Neil Young was up front headbanging and rocking his ass off.

Not an argument.

Anything connected with the 60s was washed up by 1977.

I meant Christgau not Scaruffi lol

Besides calling them metal he's pretty much right.

How are they not metal?

>no knowledge of music theory (admitted)
correct.
And this shows up mostly in his "classical" section of his page.
Fur Elise -e.g.- is a really really REALLY minor piece that no serious classic music critic would take seriously, and yet Scaramango puts it in his best works ever list.

nah senpai
>the high llamas
>camera obscura
>90s-beyond chamber pop (which has its routes in the "baroque pop" fad in the 60s)

you just said that you want an entertaining review in spite of the content matter.

>band members posing on a yacht
>ha ha, get it? yacht rock! XD

Attached: crosby stills and nash--CSN (1977).jpg (1200x1191, 200K)

>you just said that you want an entertaining review
...of music.

Are you tarded?

Coup D'Etat [Capitol, 1982]

Now that they've copped to heavy metal tempos, they could last as long as Judas Priest, although since the HM hordes do demand chops, Wendy O might well be advised to start singing with her nether lips. As it is, she can do neither. Not only can't she sing (ha!), she can't even yell. Inspirational message scratched on the outgroove--"You were not made for this." D-

>hurr durr tarded

informative review with no subjectivity from the critic = boring

you want subjectivity. You want /lit/. You want entertainment. In a music review ok I get it. But you want entertainment. You don't want facts. Don't fool yourself user.

>you want subjectivity. You want /lit/.
You want strawman arguments. You want Sup Forums

>You don't want facts
Quote me where I said that.

>>He is utterly limited to describing the sound
>What else is there?
The issue is that when the untalented describe only the sound, they inevitably revert to ambiguities. The description is always inexact, always falls short. Its like describing a table that you cant see, so you end up attempting to describe it by measuring it against other tables you've already seen, and just hope you're right. An exercise in complete superficiality.

>But music is supposed to resonate with a listener; any review of the music is thus really about the reviewer and how it resonates or not.
This doesnt make any fucking sense, and it never will. Supposed to? Supposed to what? Why? According to fucking who? What is music for? How can you be so presumptuous about something so big? This sort of thinking has given birth to the most toxic, self-obsessed, narcissistic identities we now have to deal with (and fight against within ourselves) every day. Maybe music isn't fucking about you, or the person who made it, or anyone. You're caught up on this bad mix of utilitarianism and identitarianism and its only ever out of complacency.

That's pretty sexist, Bob. And as usual, this review doesn't actually tell you anything about the music.

>D+

Attached: 1498760563507.gif (335x190, 964K)

In Color [Epic, 1977]

Nowadays punk makes it easy to resist hard rock this slickly textured, but these boys don't waste a cut and they show none of the usual flash or myopthia of post-boogie formalism. Now if only they seemed interested in their well-crafted, say-nothing lyrics. B

>they inevitably revert to ambiguities. The description is always inexact, always falls short.
Like what?
>What is music for?
To make an emotional connection to the listener. If you don't know that, I'm not sure why you are here.

>Scaramango
What kind of insult is that? Is that even supposed to be an insult?

>To make an emotional connection to the listener. If you don't know that, I'm not sure why you are here.
Did you not read my damn post? You can't justify that view on anything. No one can, no one ever will, and people still parrot this dogmatic nonsense all the time. "Emotional connection" you're making me reeeee and I really shouldn't expend the energy. Emotional connection to what? Who's the listener? People are different, people feel different. You couldnt even describe an emotion, but Music's entire purpose and being is predicated on a predicate of it? Do you have any idea of the sort of rhetorical maze youre leading yourself into when you spout nonsense like this? You want to love music but you can't even investigate the most simple claims you make about it.

They should all kill themselves, I think id like Scaruffis to be the most painful but however works

>Did you not read my damn post?
I did, and you didn't answer what the point of music is. So I did it for you.

Prove otherwise

>fantano listens to a math rock song
"There is a lot of technique in this guitar, the riffs are so meaty and rattling, I love them".

>scaruffi listens to a jazz song
"The quirky Polynesian-themed drumming that leads the complex, albeit amateurish piece unfortunately shows the complex's compositional immaturity."

>christgau listens to a song in 3/4
"Hahahahah, oh man, these guys are going off... off what do you call it, Carola help me... oh yeah, off tempo... what did the bomb and turkey symbols mean again?"

>complains that the Clash had vapid lyrics
>gave KC & The Sunshine Band Bs and As
>gave the Backstreet Boys an A

You're laying the burden of proof on me to define "the point of music" but I never posited the point of music, I only challenged your "point of music." My claim is that your "point of music" is indefensible, and I argued to that end. Now you're telling me to argue to a different end, but Im not doing that. My point was that you and nearly everyone who talks about it takes the "point of music" for granted, and is far too presumptuous, and makes far too many bold claims without first investigating their foundations which are shaky at best.

Im becoming less surprised that you have no clear conception of music and are completed blinded by dogma on the subject.

This jazz ranking.
>scaruffi.com/jazz/best100.html

hes totally right about 1 tho

>Pretty Good
Dropout, Registration, TLOP
>Okay
808s, Graduation, Yeezus
>Bad
MBDTF

His ratings seem to be based on how much he enjoyed his breakfast that day.

>You're laying the burden of proof on me to define "the point of music" but I never posited the point of music,
Cool.

What do you think the point of music is?

Not sure. Its complicated. But the perspective of the question on which Fantano's reviews rely is faulty to the core. This much I know.

>movie critics don't direct movies
Americans are at it again.

Attached: cahiers2-e1422378458516.jpg (480x332, 51K)

it goes MBDTF > LR > 808s

The rest you can put in whatever order you please

Bad Moon Rising [Homestead, 1985]

They're sure to disagree--what else are they good for--but despite the clanging brutality of their late industrial guitars and the sincerity of their manic (if hackneyed) depression, in the end the music merely serves as a backdrop for their usual sociopathic fantasies and the result isn't ugly or ominous or bombs bursting in the air--it's merely interesting. B-

>Gives one single example

rateyourmusic.com/~theneedledrop

>Not sure. Its complicated
Not really. It's very simple: All music is rooted in emotion, either in artistic influence or communication of emotional ideas.

Feel free to show some examples where this is not true. Do you think music just simply exists without context and it's just background muzak?

Hot Rats [Reprise, 1969]

Doo doo to you, Frank. If I want movie music, I'll listen to Wonderwall. C

>All music is rooted in emotion
Rooted? Biographically? Historically? Aesthetically? You surely understand the critical implications of using a word like that? In a single sentence you've bifurcated this slippery concept we have that we choose to represent by the word "Music." Suddenly, its not singular but plural.

What is a chair? Well, it sits on the floor. It has four legs. By God I'm a chair! What is Music? Well, it's rooted in emotion. The emotion of.. its maker. But also that emotion has to be translated to its listener. But the emotion doesnt have to be the same? Or have the same "roots"? So its like a different emotion that the listener experiences sometimes, but like not if hes not in the mood? So Music, always rooted in emotion, is sometimes not music because the communication of these emotions is not always successful. The existence of music, then, is only always qualified when its emotions are born. Which emotions, im not sure. And neither are you.

>Simple
Yep. Very.

Keep Christ in Christgau

>has below 2000 ratings
>including not only albums, but singles
I didn't know an average RYMer listened to more music he has, holy shit.