I read his Beatles article today and it is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. All of his criticisms are basically of the Beatles fan base and not their actual music. He unable to comprehend that a good band could actually manage to gain mainstream popularity. Not to mention a lot of the article is factually wrong. Look at this, he said penny lane never reached the top of the charts when it was #1 in seven countries!? Is he literally autistic?
>>62975242
yes, he is the embodiment of general /mu/ contrarianism
Why did he only give MMT a 6/10 then?
>>62975308
I don't know, his write up of the album is very favorable but his rating is only a 6/10. I gurantee the Bealtes would be his favorite band if they were underground. Scaruffi is a great critic but obviously a huge contrarian
>>62975242
lusty_negro_attitudes.jpg
>picking on a retarded old man that was driven to insanity by loli pussy or lack thereof
>>62975401
He is kinda right about how family friendly the Bealtes are though. Their song revolution is about not being too extreme and not revolting?? Wtf that is some pussy shit nigga.
>>62975417
Weeaboos are a burden on society.
>>62975242
>Scaruffi Pet sounds review
> 7/10
> "blah blah blah it's great it does this and this"
> he keeps on saying good things about it
> "...Pet Sounds is also one of the most overrated albums of all time."
Period.
How can people take this pedo coulrophobic cuck seriously?
>>62975242
>>62975308
Yeah, it's pretty weird, if I recall Scaruffi thinks Penny Lane was the best song of its year.
He could have given MMM a 7 just for that considering he gave WL/WH a 9 just for Sister Ray.
>>62975447
You are the burden of this board you stupid cuck
> Complaining about anime on 4chan
>>62975512
no (you)
Damn
>>62975389
>I gurantee the Bealtes would be his favorite band if they were underground.
yeah that obviously isn't true
>>62975242
I think all critics are hacks.
But I will always consider Scaruffi the one to have the better taste. He is one of the few that are knowledgeable about obscure genres and can generally point you without fail to the best album in an artist's discography.
HOWEVER. Scaruffi's main flaw is that he hates whenever something is popular and sells a lot. He knows deep down that some of these best-selling albums are really good, like Pet Sounds and Bowie's Heroes, but simply because the artists are famous and financially successful he will shit on them endlessly for being 'sellouts' and will brand them 'overrated'.
I will always point friends to scaruffi if they're looking for a decent critic, but my one work of caution is to exercise discretion when reading his pages on mainstream artists.
>>62977666
"Heroes" is his favorite Bowie album
>>62975447
actually helping /mu/ for once
>>62975389
He'd probably love the Bealtes and complain about the Beatles even more, referring to them as Bealtes imitators.
>>62977666
Are you RP'ing Scaruffi?
>>62977666
>Scaruffi's main flaw is that he hates whenever something is popular and sells a lot.
>>62977985
be fair it's hard to write anything negative on that album
>>62978015
Scaruffi only hates bad music, whether it's popular or not. He would not rate the music of Bruce Springsteen or Rolling Stones highly if he was biased against popular music. It just happens to be that most popular music ends up being bad or decent-but-overrated to him.
when you listen to so much music, finding something that you find really mindblowing is borderline impossible. what sounds alien to normal people sounds like another bargain bin cd to a dude who has listened to dozens of thousands of albums.
that's why it looks like he's being "contrarian" when he deems these albums, that are generally considered the best of all times in pop music, overrated.
>>62975242
What's retarded about it??? He actually makes some really great points.
How about you actually refute them instead of just 'the Beatles are the greatest ever shtick'
Scaruffi has a massive amount of free and thought-provoking content on his site.
>>62978378
He obviously doesn't know much about music because he has many incorrect statements in his argument
>>62977666
he gave Heroes a 7.5 and I don't think it deserves more and Pet Sounds is definitely overrated but I prefer it to Heroes at least
>>62978015
same goes for Nevermind, yet he gave Nevermind an 8 and then dropped it to a 7 but gives this an 8 and leaves it there
>>62978458
7.5 is basically a 9/10 for Scaruffi.
When will ppl understand that?
>>62978458
>>62978482
He just has a different scale to what most people expect- he's not overly optimistic/ easily pleased. For an album to be a 10/10 it has to be literally perfect. He's one of the only music critics who seems to understand that
>>62978498
Finally something I can agree with him on.
>>62978498
>>62978526
Wow, somebody hacked his account. Mindblowing.
>>62975242
His Beatles critic is actually on point. He never says they're bad, he literally just points out that they're not the best. I mean think about it, their albums aren't hugely innovative, some of them are pretty average. Plus he scored them relatively well for his site
(not true by the way)
>>62978555
he will never give a 10 obviously, but another 9.5 is possible though unlikely, same goes for another 9
>>62978594
>implying
Scaruffi's sense of humour is 2deep4u
>>62978497
what you meant to say is that a 9/10 from most critics is actually a 7.5
>>62978643
This, he's the thinking man's music critic
>>62978555
>>62978609
People don't understand that his scale is much steeper than other critics. A 7/10 means it is a legitimately good album - in his own words: "7=buy it eventually". Yet everyone gets their panties in a bunch over it because they're so used to seeing perfect scores for their favorite albums.
