https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ioVjY5-yds
Anthony called this album a shitshow and said it's just a "novelty record".
I highly disagree. while im not a huge fan of it, this album is NOT A SHITSHOW, and it's not a novelty record.
>I highly disagree
so does everyone. big deal. what's your point? that you care about melon anyway?
It is a novelty record and partly a shitshow
>>63371134
You took both of those points out of context just so you could devalue his opinion. He has a lot of respect for the record but doesn't personally enjoy it. Can we all stop this shitstorm now?
>>63371197
many of the people who love this album say it because they genuinely ENJOY LISTENING to it. it's not just "novelty"
>>63371219
Many of the people who enjoy this album also include basically every post-punk band in the 80s / part of the 90s and some alt rock bands which are kind of influential in themselves.
>>63371219
I believe them but it's still a novelty record regardless of how many people enjoy listening to it
>>63371322
You mean it's a novelty record because Fantano says it is.
>>63371294
>posercore musicians "enjoy" posercore music
Makes sense
>>63371599
Anon
they just listen to what they love
i think people miss what good music criticism (following art criticism, literary criticism, and other Serious Commentary About Serious Things) can actually be because of the way rock journalism has always just been a way to create a tier of "insiders" who got to do the coke the rock stars did while being a hundred pounds heavier and a whole lot uglier in exchange for making it where said bands could afford the coke. occasionally, there's some trashy idiot like Lester Bangs who somehow manages to write fucking poetry, and as you move into the more white collar rock criticism world that we more or less live in now, you still have some standout people with keen insights. the problem is that it's always been based around connecting consumers to a product instead of using specialized knowledge to expand upon an artwork for the benefit of a listener who might find it impenetrable or have a one-dimensional view of it. for all the hype of pop music as this artform we have to respect, the way pop music journalism and criticism is done by the vast majority of people is more a dusty and aged version of contemporary video game journalism - meaningless sensationalism, extremely closed circuits of writers and "artists," and braindead audiences who want to see a number or have a by-the-numbers description of the music instead of something deeper. you see this in the knee-jerk anti-intellectualism of the anti-Tiny Mix Tapes crowd who would rather we let music journalism resemble Fantano procedural gobbeldy gook uselessness rather than being an artform to itself. i'm a bit conservative with my criticism, granted, so when i read about art i like to have it in a more straightforward way than TMT presents it, but at least they're thinking critically about the art they review, even if the way they put forward their thoughts is at times opaque or even pretentious.
>>63371637
i've listened to a lot more classical and jazz music in the past few years, and it's moved me away from ever reading rock journalism. i just can't do it. the knowledge, insight, wit, and general writing caliber of jazz and classical critics eclipses rock critics at virtually every turn. with the exception of maybe Mark Richardson, I can't name a critic working today who's really deepened my appreciation of a piece of pop music or exposed me to something new in a way that was unique to them (meaning, got me excited about what i was going to hear by explaining the historical moment it represented, the deeper meaning it has, etc.). but i can look up a fucking Luigi Nono piece that's kind of opaque to me and get a few random academia.edu articles from grad students whose names lead to nothing on Google, and they have incredibly erudite and accessible analyses of them. despite knowing very little music theory, i am able to grasp what they're saying for the most part, and attention is paid to political and historical contexts as well as more formalist considerations, and even those are always related back to emotional or philosophical dimensions.
tl;dr: even fucking 22 year old musicology students who have to write in an academic idiom have more accessible and interesting analysis of music than paid music journos, who would rather gab on and on about useless fucking horseshit about the music than actually address the music. pop music journalism is 99% pandering garbage that tells you nothing the music itself and a quick glance through a wikipedia page couldn't tell you. pop music criticism should try to be more like TMT seeks to make it, producing novel content with actual depth of analysis instead of the same factoid press release assembly line fuckery that gets a BNM tag slapped on and hundreds of thousands of page views.
>>63371636
>they just listen to what other people tell them to love
ftfy
>>63371636
So what. Pedophiles love diddling kids that doesn't mean their love is right.
>>63371663
Liking TMR confirmed for equivalent to raping kids
>>63371637
>>63371655
total truth
>>63371663
>>63371663
wew lad
>>63371689
That's why it's Scaruffi's favorite album
>>63371655
you can't use tl;dr and then write a comparably long paragraph
>>63371637
>>63371655
What the fuck is this shit
>>63371660
THAT IS NOT TRUE! you just make very false assumptions.
The fact people love something you dislike does not mean they are not genuinely loving it. I really enjoyed Lulu for example, and it's an album most people by far hate.
did Fatmano ever review MPP? I thought it came out once but it's gone now.
>>63371714
>>63371762
Pretty damning when one person finally makes a post of substance based on knowledge and all you retarded teenagers are too stupid to see its value.
God this board fucking sucks.
>>63371826
He reviewed it back in 2009, but all his reviews from that far back were deleted over some copyright shit because he used clips from the songs in his videos. He has MPP on vinyl so he must like it. Why do you need him to tell you he likes it?
>>63371861
There is no substance in those posts, just elitist masturbation.
>>63371896
Because it's my favorite album and I half-hope he can say something interesting or insightful about it. Isn't that why anyone gets into music journalism?
>>63371916
Elitism is what this board needs
>>63371134
He's not wrong tho
>>63371916
He knows what he's talking about unlike 85% of this board. You're all faggot elitists, the difference is that he has the substance and knowledge to back it up.
>>63371805
>taking anyone unironically using "posercore" seriously
>>63371149
>projecting
>>63371215
this
If Scaruffi hadn't given this album a 9.5/10, this album wouldn't be shilled every day. This album's core fault is that it isn't a leisure listen. It's a CHIN-STROKING record. This album forces its weirdness, which is going to put off a lot of listeners.
I would enjoy it if we didn't fight over this not-really-important album every fucking day.
>>63371964
If you don't like it you can leave anytime. /mu/ may be retarded but I actually like the fact that it's not full of humorless self-congratulatory walls of text like >>63371637 >>63371655
>>63372088
You're way too easily impressed. Behind all the "substance" and "knowledge" all he is really saying is that pop music criticism sucks and you should read TMT instead.
>>63372143
It's still way more than the average person here. The majority of this board are posers parroting the meme opinions of /mu/ and certain meme reviewers. It's really vapid bullshit with high school cliqueyness. This board is easily one of the worst on 4chan.
>>63371990
He is completely wrong. Beef-heart did not make this album as a mere joke like what Anthony claims he did
