Was he right? http://www.scaruffi.com/writers/wallace.html
>>7757306
No. Scaruffi is one of the biggest hacks of our age.
>>7757321
Elaborate, please.
>>7757306
He should stick to music
>>7757324
He talks about shit he doesn't understand or hasn't actually read/listened to/watched. His philosophy section, for example, is just a list of philosophers and descriptions he obviously got from Wikipedia and a few godawful """"critiques"""" of Nietzsche, in which he says that he was a bad writer and didn't understand any of the things he addressed (both extremely incorrect statements).
scaruffi is a huge hack. his knowledge of most things is superficial/dilettante level and all of his academic "credentials" are actually super made up or, at least, with a huge asterisk. he listens/reads things once and draws erroneous conclusions on them and often misses very obvious things, leading to hilarious misinterpretations. his rankings and lists are laughable.
Was he even known at all before 4chan memed him? I think all of his popularity might be because a few of his reviews happen to match popular /mu/ baits
>>7757352
I agree with you, but he's totally right about the Beatles though.
>>7757306
This pedo literally got famous by being a contrarian and people think actually eat it up. I woudn't be surprised if he's a hardcore 4channer, literally shitting on anything that is famous, indirectly being patrician by praising obscure things that no1 fucking understands and wanking to underage girls
>>7757660
No he's not.
t. songwriter of 20 something years.
>>7757485
He's had a following since the 80s
>>7757741
what does t. mean?
sorry
>>7757738
>pedo
What?
>>7757306
I stopped halfway through the first paragraph because it was painfully clear that he didn't understand the book in the slightest.
I don't even think Infinite Jest was the greatest book ever or anything, but that was a goodreads-tier "I'll give Ulysses one star because I couldn't read it" type of review.
>>7757873
regards in finnish
comes from /int/ and spurdo
>>7757886
Name one band that matches The Beatles' musical diversity, quality of production, and influence. Pro tip: you can't. And I doubt you can even read sheet music.
>>7758146
art of noise desu
Perhaps he bites off a bit more than he can chew, but scaruffi is a top-notch rock critic and a pretty thoughtful political analyst too.
>>7758146
>implying quality of production has anything to do with music
>implying beatles are influential
nigga have you heard of some dude name johannes? or maybe ludwig? wolfgang?
>>7757660
Link?
This guy must have an incredible work ethic.
>>7758146
Bob Dylan, especially when considering artists who influenced more than top 40 corporate pop acts
>>7757741
he is
t. songwriters of 40 something years.
>>7758146
>the beatlers
>musical diversity
fucking please
his music predictions are generally correct I find. I am a bit more skeptical about the last 20 years of music that he has rated though.
>>7758146
>band
That's where you fucked up.
>>7758305
That's not what the argument is about, we are talking about musical diversity.
>>7758305
This. There is no way you can dislike something I like.
>>7758305
Boards are not hiveminds.
Some people there dislike the Beatles.
Some people there like the Beatles.
Pull your head out of your ass.
>>7758306
THIS
It's a sign a person doesn't know music when he brings up rock music. Objective music standards have fallen since the 1800s when rock music started becoming popular.
>>7758320
how is rock music any worse than folk music? aka the music most people would have enjoyed and had contact with rather than muh high culture classical
(i do like classical tho)
>>7758305
We're not on /mu/ you retard. I don't even browse that board.
>>7758327
Folk music isn't commoditized.
>>7758340
Actual folk music isn't, indie tinged folk hybrid bands like Mumford and Sons are doing their damnedest to commercialize it though
>>7758363
>indie tinged folk hybrid bands like Mumford and Sons are doing their damnedest to commercialize it though
I said Folk music, now fuck off retard and learn to read.
>>7758380
>Actual folk music isn't
It's not even worth pointing this out to you, but I will anyway, because I feel bad for you.
>>7757873
Jesus fucking christ what ever happened to 'lurk more'?
>>7758389
It's not retard, look up the pre-Classical secular music tradition, not talking about minstrels or troubadours either.
>>7758394
It hasn't made any sense to say since 4chinz stopped being a super seekrit clubhouse in like 2008
>>7758487
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>>7758530
What I mean is that 4chan became a lot more mainstream after the scientology-related WE R LEEGEUUN garbage in 2008.
Lurk more doesn't apply at a point in time when there are several sites devoted to logging and cataloging retarded memes.
>>7758211
>denying the obvious and influential nature of the beatles
>denying production has anything to do with music
>no one gives a fuck about "johannes, ludwig, wolfang"
motherfucker you are dumb. If johannes, ludwig, and wolfgang were as half as influential as the beatles then we would be hearing shit that sounds like them on the radio. We aren't. The shit that stuck is everything that whitey (the beatles) stole from the black man. Jazz, rock, blues, melodic and old afro beat that predates any men. I would definitely say that black music on the whole has left a way larger mark on music than anything any of those 3 hacks did. Like yeah its good, and it influenced "a lot" and shouldn't be written off, but this narrative that those men, and men like them are "so influential" is sad and needs 2 stop.
>>7758767
holy shit go bac kto tumblr LOL
>>7757321
He makes no money off of his site so he is by definition not a hack
>>7757873
You put it in your post to let everyone know yo'ure a retard, like 99% of 4chan memes
>>7758767
This post isn't real but there are absolutely people that believe this LOL
>The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved. In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.
What did he mean by this?
>>7758843
WE WUZ MUZISHUNS AND SHIT
