Real and honest thoughts on Piero Scaruffi.
He's kind of hot
He's an absolute pathological liar. He straight up writes reviews without listening to albums, his lists are all kinds of inconsistent, and he has no published papers in his supposed field of research: computer science.
>>61885437
Talentless hack
I just like his blog because I like lists.
>>61885437
genius
>>61885468
Sorry, cognitive science apparently. Still nothing published.
who gives a shit
>>61885437
Good reviewer that sticks to his principles. People keep forgetting that just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he's a bad critic.
He's good at highlighting lesser known artists. There are a few great bands I wouldn't have known about if I hadn't read his website. I don't actually bother to read his reviews though.
>>61885468
Also inb4 "he's got published books" - all of his books are self-published. No respectable publisher would ever touch his stuff.
>>61885497
He teached cognitive science at Stanford and Harvard.
>>61885503
Sure, but publishing reviews of albums you haven't listened to certainly does. And writing a sentence or two about an album (when he even bothers doing that) only barely constitutes reviewing in the first place. He's a terrible critic.
He completely stole his shtick from Christgau and Armond White
>>61885549
Google that. You find nothing about him and Harvard that he himself didn't write, and the only thing you find about Stanford is that he's a "visiting scholar". Also written by himself, actually, but at least hosted on Stanford's servers :)
He's spot on about Bowie, aside from the fact that marrying his image and music and turning his style into a commodity makes him more impressive as an artist, not less.
>>61885497
I searched him up on my achool's library once and he has like a million papers in the Leonardo Arts & Science journal he blogs about periodically. Is that journal basically self-published too?
>>61885580
You may be right, I indeed can't find anything about it not written by himself. Even if it's true, he would, nevertheless, be a liar, that's out of question. He rated the new Star Wars before any critic watched it and he claims to have read more books than possible for one human being.
>>61885607
I'm not sure, but it's a train-wreck of a mess as far as "peer reviewed" journals go. I really think it's more of a shithouse journal where the people who got rejected from publishing in more reputable journals got rejected go to, at least judging from the one or two papers I've read from it (by scruffles)
>>61885659
>>61885607
Either way, the papers he has written for Leonardo aren't about cognitive science as far as I can tell. I only have access to a few from my school library.
talentless hack, who became relevant only because he asserted himself as relevant not because he is actually relevant.
He's a homophobic pedophile that tries too hard to be contrarian.
>>61885534
This.
>>61885468
don't forget a spy for the chinese
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnH-nF6J-OA
>>61886281
>I've written more than 20 books
"blogged" is not the same as "written books"
Good Critic who doesn't praise albums too easily unlike fantano
Hack who's afraid of dying so he tells himself that the best music is in the past
>>61885437
does he write for some based rock magazine btw? or is he just some """"blogge"""" ?
pretentious fuck but i've discovered some good music due to his lists
I love him. He's pretentious and often incredibly ignorant but goddamn if his website isn't the best place to discover pre-2000s music. Also almost all of his 9s are great, and most of his 8s and 8.5s are good too.
>inb4 I'm a drone
idgaf
I like him
