Fantano > P4K > Scaruffi

Is Limp Bizkit dadrock?

>>65032370
technically speaking

>>65032370
we're almost there

only a couple more years now

>>65032343
So we can call Nirvana dadrock now?

>>65032343
underage detected ?

>>65032446
i was born in 92, mate

>>65032421
yes

>>65032361

are you fucking serious

Scaruffi is a million times better than SJWfork or memetano

>>65032343
I can vouch for this. My dad has new wave and alternative rock radio on all the time.

>>65032838
Scaruffi's intellectual arrogance and college-tier essays are too cringy to take seriously. People only like him because it's edgy to defecate on the Beatles.

>>65032838
increasing order of pretentiousness, see nothing wrong there

>>65032343
My dad was born 58', so I can call the 70s "dad rock"

>dad likes nirvana
>nirvana now dadgrunge

>>65033002
>>65032966

>muh Beatles

holy shit fuck off

Scaruffi has written articles on literally THOUSANDS of artists, he has way better taste than Fantano or P4K, he's not a sellout, nobody pays him to give good reviews, he doesn't have inflated ratings (he's not handing out dozens of 8s and 9s every year), he doesn't only review P4K/Fantano-approved indie shit...there are like a hundred reasons Scaruffi is better than those other two hacks.

>yfw Mac Demarco and Grimes will be Dad rock in 15-20 years

>>65033665
holy shit just think about how fucking uglier will Grimes be

she'll actually become a goblin

>everyone who throws around the term 'dad rock' still lives with their dad

>>65033636
He writes thousands of articles because he's a phony who doesn't listen to or research half of the music and topics he's covering, and reading his material extensively over time reveals more inaccuracies, untruths, questionable interpretations, and biases than I could possibly name in one go. It's painfully obvious he just has a preexisted opinion and writes whatever it takes to pass it off as objective truth, because he's such a clearly pretentious, self-proclaimed philosopher/thinker/artist that he can't be caught dead being simply opinionated. And as cliché as it sounds at this point, his Beatles 'analysis' is a perfect example of this. He makes valid points but smothers any respect for them by trying to act like it's a fact of the universe or that he's being daring by saying any of it. On top of that, as flawed as they are at least Fantano and Pitchfork don't preface a review with completely bullshit, ego-fawning claims of acclaim and accolades.

tl:dr if he didn't have a massive archive of writings he'd be no different than any other pretentious, self-obsessed contrarian on /mu/.

>>65034058
BTW "internet's busiest music nerd" doesn't count because he's pretty much made it an inside joke now

>>65034058

>as flawed as they are at least Fantano and Pitchfork don't preface a review with completely bullshit, ego-fawning claims of acclaim and accolades.

except they do, retard. do you even watch/read any of this shit? Fantano gives a history lesson you could find on wikipedia for every album he reviews. Pitchfork says stuff that's just fucking retarded. at least Scaruffi actually focuses on the actual MUSIC. he can describe music very well, to the point where it makes me think he's played music before or studied theory. I mean just read his review of TMR for example, or any of his jazz articles, he goes in depth on stuff that Fantano and P4K would be clueless about.

>>65035263
How is fantano telling you a brief summary anything close to ego stroking? Shit i don't even like him but if you are gonna make a criticism, make a good one.