RYM is fucking hilarious everyone is desperate to find their own special snowflake taste
it really doesn't make you credible or impressive if you rate Tago Mago low
RYM is full of people who rate music for image, only as they want people to see them, probably less than 5 people on the whole site rated all their music honestly.
not wrong
Sorry somebody rated an album you like low OP. I know this may sound crazy but some people just don't like some canon albums.
>>63346377
I really doubt most people on RYM care that much.
>>63346377
I wouldn't go that far. It's just the most obnoxious people are the loudest. Some of the worst shit I've ever read has been in the form of RYM reviews.
>>63346951
>I really doubt most people on RYM care that much.
Quite the opposite.
>>63346951
>I know this may sound crazy but some people just don't like some canon albums.
then they are by definition bad critics
>>63347020
Well they're probably not trying to be "good critics"
I really don't see why you care so much about this
>>63347071
they are indeed trying to be good critics
they have a RYM general to show off their discernment
>>63346365
the only thing more autistic than rating albums for e-cred is getting mad about people rating albums for e-cred
>>63347088
it doesn't make me mad in itself
what makes me mad is when these people with their special snowflake super unique high ratings shit on my RYM for being too mucore
like it's not my fault I don't have shit taste
>>63347113
maybe you should stop caring what other people think of your taste and just listen to music you like? if you don't like people using their taste for social posturing why the fuck are you using rym
>>63347113
if you're going to act like this and especially call people "special snowflakes" because they listen to music that you don't, then i think you deserve to be shitted on. grow up dumbshit and stop caring
i just use the site to catalog what music i've listened to, my profile is private idc
>>63347113
lol
>>63347153
why the kitty cat
>>63347135
they're special snowflakes because they deliberately avoid acclaimed music
>>63347087
They have an RYM to catalog what they like/dislike, find similar stuff to what they like, and keep up with what other people are liking.
>>63347113
When they shit on you for being too /mu/core they're basically shitting on you for what they perceive as someone coming into a community, observing what's generally agreed on as popular/good, only really giving that a chance, and then claiming that they love music. Fact is, if you've discovered most of your music you like mostly through /mu/ then you're not much different than the average top 40 listener, or r/music browser, or person who looks at they RYM top 1000 and just listens to that and you kind of deserve to be shit on because there's a pretty high chance that there's a lot of stuff this isn't as popular that you would love if you actually tried to find it. If you've gone through other avenues and your tastes just happen to align with the canon (which is entirely possible seeing as they're pretty much universally acclaimed) then you shouldn't be getting mad in the first place and should just ignore them.
>>63346365
>their own special snowflake taste
more like to go along with the taste of some RYM clique
Most people there just use their ratings to signal what group they're a part of
>>63347307
holy shit BTFO
but yeah >>63347113 is the kind of person who listened to Kamasi Washington last year and started talking up how much they loved jazz and is probably the living embodiment of The List Goes On
>>63347307
this guy knows what he's talking about
>>63347298
is there anyone in particular you're talking about here
i think it's a waste of time to care about the popularity or lack thereof of music.
>>63347347
let me sit you down for this cause it might shock you. are you ready? i don't want you getting faint and falling over or being like permanently damaged from what i'm about to tell you. are you listening? okay
sometimes, what you perceive as a "clique" is a group of people who have gravitated towards each other because they have similar tastes. remarkably, clumps of people can recommend albums to each other that are then enjoyed to largely the same extent with minor variations within those circles. just because you're an antisocial /mu/tant who doesn't understand getting music recommendations from something that isn't shaped like a flow chart doesn't mean that other people are so resistant to making friends
>>63347307
yeah but actually I have good taste though
>>63347379
this guy gets it and clearly cares about music instead of arbitrary social nonsense
>>63347381
>says as he posts an anime gif
>>63347298
as someone who gets accused of this a lot, i have actually listened to the vast majority of and rated the vast majority of the RYM Top 500 and have found some of it good and some of it fucking awful. people who complain about people like me, on the other hand, usually have listened to one "RYM-core" album like Good Morning Good Night and immediately start talking about how all onkyo is shit or poseur-core or whatever. this is a purely one-way street. "special snowflake" in more cases than not is a label applied to people who know more about music than you do and that you hate for being more exploratory to justify your own myopic lens and narrow pool of recommendations
>>63347418
Onkyo is cool but if you don't like Kind of Blue you have bad taste and that's just the end of it
>>63347414
what would you have said to him if he didn't post an anime gif
probably nothing insightful but I'm curious
>>63347436
>Kind of Blue
boring, Miles was better when he was the cocaine-fueled Dark Magus.
>>63347436
t b h familia this post got me feelin kinda blue dam
>>63347381
yeah what? yeah you've done 0 exploring so you have no idea if you have good taste but instead rely on an appeal to authority to make it where you can act high and mighty for having listened to the miserable little couple hundred albums you care about?
you fucking people make me sick, calling yourselves connoisseurs, starting youtube review channels, shitting up the RYM charts with your fucking insolence and hivemindedness. you're fucking cretins with no true interest in music. you care more about fashion than any of the people you call "special snowflakes" as evidenced by the fact that you don't explore music on your own for yourself
>>63347507
he was clearly joking you fucking goon
>>63347507
>you've done 0 exploring
>you don't explore music
>>63347379
So you honestly believe that a dozen different accounts with the exact same 5* ratings just happen to have remarkably similar taste
>>63347603
could the same logic not apply to /mu/drones? people with this mentality that you have are simply insecure about your tastes in music.
>>63347633
The same logic does apply to /mu/drones
>>63347648
so you think no two or more people can enjoy the same music, regardless of how much of the same music they enjoy?
>>63347711
>no two or more people can enjoy the same music, regardless of how much of the same music they enjoy
>>63346377
>post yfw half the RYM users dont even realize they have identical drone taste because they want to have special snowflake taste thats still recognizes as "good"
conformance law my good """""""""chums"""""""""
the stuff you guys get worked up about is weird
>>63347762
>they cannot enjoy the same music, regardless of how much of the same music they like
>>63347784
yes, do you believe that or not?
>>63347711
To the point where 80% of your ratings are exactly the same as 20 other people? Unlikely.
Obviously you can show someone an album and they can like it. But some of these accounts on RYM are essentially copy pasted clones of each other
>>63347792
>they cannot like the same music REGARDLESS of them liking the same music
>>63347792
>yes, do you believe that or not?
statists say that this is impossible, you know, because the extreme amount of artists on this universe.
if they like the same stuff there is problably something going on, like payola actring like trump putting a wall that no underground musician can pass
>>63347717
dumb weeaboo
>>63347815
>probably something going on
like them communicating with each other? SAY IT ISN'T SO
>>63347806
yea I know what you mean, as far those almost robotic clone accounts go. it's like there's no humanity in them although I bet if you were to talk to them 1 on 1 they would show it
>>63347807
that's not what I said, I said regardless of *how much* of the same stuff they enjoy
>>63347815
>then there is probably something going on
you're molding reality to fit your paranoia, I hope you realize that.
>>63346365
>>63346377
That's why Sputnikmusic is better
>>63347886
>you're molding reality to fit your paranoia, I hope you realize that.
Call a exttreme amount of different people on a room.
Each person go alone, sit on a chair and you start to show paintings to the guy, an extreme amount and types of paintings, something like 250000.
you number each painting instead of saying the name for the sake of simplicity
there is a pen and people can write what they like (the number), this is also for simplicity as you wont need to remember the numbers.
Do you expect most of those guys to like the same paintings?
>>63348002
no, because that's a completely different scenario than rym
>>63348002
if they are chosen at random, no, but you're leaving out the self-selection process. if i invited one person into a room to look at paintings and he left and described which ones he liked to a bunch of people and pointed them to a second room where they could see the ones he liked, you'd have a line of people who thought his descriptions sounded good and a bunch of people who left out of disinterest in those descriptions. after that line of people goes through, some people would leave unsatisfied. those who remain, four or five, say, and the original guy, would then be an rym "clique" and you would accuse them of conspiracy.
do u really think people would ""listen"" to music ANND rate it as well
>>63348066
>f i invited one person into a room to look at paintings and he left and described which ones he liked to a bunch of people and pointed them to a second room where they could see the ones he liked,
and this is the "there is probably something going on" I was talking about
thanks for giving some example of how what I was talking about happens
>>63348161
but it's not sinister for there to be a person who tastemakes. it's how bigger publications work, too. on RYM you just have more focused and exact tastemaking.
>>63347347
who on earth could you be talking about here, anon
>>63347893
>special snowflake version or special snowflake site
no thanks
>>63348197
>but it's not sinister for there to be a person who tastemakes
the specific case you made is not siniter
but the result is bad for the person
the person is using appeal for populatiry or whateaver the hell that fallacy is called and worse its using for something extremely subjective as music
Who the fuck even hates on Tago Mago anyway? Along with Remain in Light it's probably one of the least hated canon albums. I don't think I've ever seen anyone giving it a low rating on RYM. "Special snowflake" people usually hate on stuff like Beatles and Smiths instead.
>using this kind of sites for social reasons
why
>>63349198
people use even church for social reasons.
>>63349484
"""people"""
In my opinion the only good reviewer is Geldofpunk
>>63350118
*tips euphoria*
>>63350438
hi, why are you so bald?
>>63349484
>even
church has always been and will always be for social reasons
