ITT: Are you allowed to still enjoy The Beatles after reading his essay?
Are you allowed to still consider their music amazing, and among your favourites?
Or is his essay a proof of their inadequacy as a band?
He's a hack
>>65511323
it convinced me. Scaroof is all-knowing
>>65511323
His favourite album is Trout Mask Replica so his opinion is irrelevant.
He gets objective facts wrong in his "essay" and he thinks melodic popular music somehow became irrelevant because rock music was invented. He's a pretentious fool, and I say this as someone whose favorite albums consisted of most of the shit in his top 10 before I found out about his website.
Scaruffi debunked:
https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/tag/truth/
Enjoy.
I am a huuuuuuuge scaruffi drone, but Abbey Road is still an 8/10
>>65511427
This.
I had a lot of these thoughts reading through the 'essay'. Having just finished a degree and having read hundreds of essays, it really stood out to me how poorly a lot of his points were argued.
>>65511427
>condescending writer who misinterprets Scaruffi's point to the maximum degree
>debunked
pick one
>>65511323
There are too many errors, omissions and misinterpretations in his essay.
Also what instrument does he play again?
>>65511622
OK then here's another one.
http://www.listology.com/jazz99/story/dismissing-piero-scaruffi-views-beatles
He literally does it to look cool. His fucking most influential bands of all time didn't have the Beatles. You know who it had? The Rolling Stones and The Byrds.
>>65511583
The writer doesn't realize that Scaruffi doesn't value technical innovations all that much. And the crux of his whole argument is that The Beatles were not mediocre because they were technically innovative, but that's not Scaruffi's argument at all.
>>65511640
>Listology.com
All Scaruffi is saying is that they're overrated (and they probably were). He even likes some of their releases
>>65511323
His essay is easily refutable.
>>65511650
>The Byrds aren't more influential than The Beatles
W e w
E
W
>>65511681
>What is Listology?
>The short answer to the question above is this: Listology is a repository of movie, book, music, television and other lists.
...Like Scaruffi.com
>>65511743
Why would they?
Anyone have the webpage that analyses Beatles songs and shows the innovation they made to recording/music?
>>65511757
>Why would they
>inb4 sponge posting isn't an arguement
How about read a book or at the very least Wikipedia.
>>65511807
Which book should I read that states The Beatles weren't cited as an influence/inspiration more than The Byrds?
Maybe I should ask Bigfoot of the Loch Ness Monster, they'd know.
>>65511783
http://2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html
>>65511667
I think it's reductive to claim the crux of the argument was that The Beatles were not mediocre because they were technically innovative. He claims " their innovations in musical style and songwriting are too numerous to go into."
And the amount of great artists who have sighted The Beatles as an influence beyond their technical innovation is truly countless.
On top of this, Scaruffi's claim about The Beatles contemporaries was simply false. The Beatles contemporaries had a lot of respect for The Beatles' later years once again, beyond their technical innovations.
But even if I were to grant that all factorysunburst's argument amounts to is 'The Beatles are not mediocre because of technical innovation', well this may not be that much of a problem.
You say 'Scaruffi doesn't value technical innovations all that much', but Scaruffi could just be incorrect in doing this. Scaruffi, in his essay, seems to be invoking or at least implying there is some objective standard of taste to which, in light of this standard, The Beatles are mediocre. I assume from the essay his standard is innovation in songwriting.
What Scaruffi should have done to convince anyone is take The Beatles songs that are considered most innovative in their songwriting, broke them down, and showed exactly why they were not innovative. He assumes this standard is songwriting innovation and not technical innovation but why should we accept this assumption? Why is technical innovation not enough to ascend mediocrity? Why is it less important than songwriting innovation.
And finally, even if we were to grant this too and assume that songwriting innovation was more important than technical innovation, what Scaruffi should have done was dissect the Beatles songs considered most innovative in songwriting (to which there are numerous), and showed exactly why they were not innovative.
>>65511427
This is the same guy that thinks the Velvet Underground's music has no commentary sociopolitical significance and that Dylan is "not a great poet but a mediocre musician". Meanwhile, he complains that Scaruffi's opinions are unsupported by the weight of historical evidence and he ignores one of the only rock musicians (how many more can anybody even name) whose lyrics were critically examined by themselves. He wants to talk about how the Beatles had responsibility in pop music being taken seriously as art and slights BOB FUCKING DYLAN?
anyone got the link to scarooofies essay?
>>65511912
>This is the same guy that thinks the Velvet Underground's music has no commentary sociopolitical significance and that Dylan is "not a great poet but a mediocre musician".
He's not exactly wrong is he.
>>65511912
Pretty funny when Dylan was largely responsibility for the Beatles and the Rolling Stoens trying to up their song-writing game.
>>65511905
Sorry or repeating myself, it's hard to proof-read a bunch of writing in these little 4chan boxes.
It should have read the following: " I assume from the essay his standard is innovation in songwriting.
He assumes this standard is songwriting innovation and not technical innovation but why should we accept this assumption? Why is technical innovation not enough to ascend mediocrity? Why is it less important than songwriting innovation."
>>65511933
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html
>>65511912
>Scaruffi’s earlier crack about how the Beatles removed all traces of ‘black music’ from their music is far more true about the Velvet Underground than it is about the Beatles. Almost alone among great 60s rock bands, the Velvets never, ever swung. They were a white folk-rock band turned up to 10.
How will /mu/ recover from this?
>>65511969
The Beatles did a very poor job at removing traces of black music if they were trying to. Their first 4 albums are pretty fucking black in sound.
>>65511958
>Beatles and the Rolling Stoens trying to up their song-writing game.
They were largely responsible for upping Dylan's arrangement and instrumentation game. Fair play is fair play.
>>65511993
They didn't. They loved black music, toured with black artists and promoted black artists as much as possible. A black man was even going to join the band had they not broken up.
>>65512011
Yeah sorry I was agreeing, that's what I was implying.
Of course they weren't trying to remove traces of black music, it's evident in their first 4 albums. They were playing black music, but they were white so it was far more palatable to a white Euro-American audience, and this was the only sense they were "white washed", in the sense of sales.
Yes, the industry saw an opportunity in a bunch of white kids playing black music, because black people were never going to sell as well in a time where racism was rife.
>>65511951
They weren't writing wartime songs but the unprecedentedly frank way they discussed drug usage and sexuality sure as shit counts for something.
There's no doubt that Scaruffi's site is riddled with historical inaccuracies and omissions. However, I still enjoy reading his thoughts on art because of his brutally honest and comically cynical nature. It's refreshing when compared to the critics who are often too influenced by cultural norms, money, and popularity.
>>65511951
Also if you really think Dylan's lyricism did nothing to advance pop music you're just being a contrarian twat.
>>65511628
/thread x 1000
>>65511969
If he can't hear the influence of black pop music in Lou Reed's songwriting because the Velvet Underground's songs don't have a rhythm like a Bluesbreakers album he's fucking deaf.
>>65512079
>Hard Candy (2008), yet another terrible album, used an impressive cast of producers (Nate "Danja" Hills, Timbaland, Justin Timberlake, Pharrell Williams) to craft predictable and trivial dance numbers such as Four Minutes. About to turn 50, Madonna is turning into one ugly dumb middle-age woman who is still desperate for sex, perhaps because her private life was such a failure.
>>65512082
But it's true-ish. Bob Dylan isn't TOO different from folk music like Woody Guthrie.
>>65511951
Calling Dylan a 'great poet' may have always been somewhat an exaggeration, compared to the actual great poets of the centuries. Maybe Dylan got the closest to the art form of poetry across the spectrum of music, but in reality, lyrics are not that close to poetry. Good poetry is almost always far more dense, even compared to Dylan.
But calling him a mediocre musician is absurdly out of line with decades of critical thought on music. Scaruffi seems to claim all critical thought on music is bandwagoning rock critics who have been paid off. This is hilariously reductive and over-generalising, and he never really responds to critics who have praised people like Dylan and Beatles who are not part of large music publication companies. There are plenty of free-lance, independent music reviewers who love these to acts.
>>65512062
>the unprecedentedly frank way they discussed drug usage and sexuality sure as shit counts for something.
Not social commentary. If anything Reed was being completely self absorbed. he was writing about his own experience or at least that community.
>>65512082
That's not what he nor I said, is it?
He is not a great musician. And that author is separating raw literary prose with songwriting, which is valid. Tarantula =/= a song.
>>65512032
>Yes, the industry saw an opportunity
Let's not forget that image and mythos were also perpetuated to sell folks like Bob Dylan, Velvet Underground and even Mothers of Invention.
>>65511323
>has an opinion but wants to look like a profound renaissance man so he revises history and states everything as fact to support it
>>65512119
Damn
>>65512119
This isn't brutal honesty, this is just attention-seeking offensiveness. Of course Madonna isn't desperate for sex, she can probably fuck young hot men every day if she wanted to, and by what measure is he assessing her as dumb.
Yeah it's funny, but it's not a sign of a reputable writer.
>>65512132
>But calling him a mediocre musician is absurdly out of line with decades of critical thought on music
Not really. Listen to his records carefully--- the out of tune guitar he never bothered to tune on Queen Jane Approximately, they way he played his Telecaster on any tour after 1965 in an erratic scrub-a-dub fashion that the sound engineers just had to mix down, or listen to the later Rolling Thunder shows were he lacked a lead guitar player and decided to do it himself.
He was NOT a great musician. He was a perfectly fine folk player, but it took him 2 decades to learn to play with a band, and luckily he just was pretty good at forming bands to support him.
What you are saying about poetry is how I interpret that author's point, I agree with you (although I don't agree with the point itself).
>>65512175
Has Scaruffi ever said he's a reputable writer though? He's even admitted that the site is merely a sphere for his opinions on many topics. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why I find it funny when people get offended by what he says. Just use his site as comic relief or for recommendations and it's far more effective.
>>65512137
I think being the only guy in town singing about hookers and sexual deviants, trannies uncomfortable in their bodies, drug users trying to navigate everyday life, etc. at least comes close enough to worthily include them in the point Scaruffi was trying to make, and while Dylan wasn't exactly a guitar wizard or a profoundly technical singer, he was still a great songwriter and I wouldn't call him a "mediocre musician".
>>65512127
Yeah, if you stopped listening to Bob Dylan around 1963 maybe.
>>65512217
Perhaps we are thinking of 'musician' differently. I was included within the accolades of being a 'good musician', the ability to write good songs. The way you are illustrating shows he was a mediocre musician on a technical level, which I agree with.
But, if Scaruffi is implying Dylan is incapable of good songwirting too when he calls him a mediocre musician, he is absurdly out of line with decades of critical thought on music, and an overwhelming majority of critical appraisal (not all of which was from paid off, big music publications like he seems to imply).
And I think it is fair to assume Scaruffi does think Dylan is mediocre in songwriting with his thoughts and writings on him.
>>65511323
Look at this stupid piece of shit
Look at his shit eating grin
Fuck I hate him and his stupid, shitty face so much
He was too harsh on them, but he's the greatest contrarian ever. 3/4 of the points he makes on this and many other essays are undeniably correct.
Always been on his side because I've never understood the hype around the Beatles.
>We're not going to show any Beatles concerts on TV, everybody will forget about them in a month.
- Radiotelevisione Italiana (RAI), 1965
>>65512282
You seem mad he panned your favorite band
>>65512217
In that sense, yeah, fair enough. Plus there were moments he went out of rhythm playing guitar on Tombstone Blues that annoy the shit out of me.
>>65512281
It was the factorysunburst cunt calling Dylan mediocre. Scaruffi adores Dylan, judging by his page on him. Pic related: that's from his article.
>>65512246
For a guy who lambastes and criticises other music critics for being a bunch of paid-off bandwagoners who are wrong about all rock ever, it sure is ironic that when challenged on his own music reviews he reverts to "lol just my opinion bro chill".
To call other reviewers wrong, he must assume he is right.
A lot of Scaruffi drones seem to to use him as some objective measure, and I think that's because of the way he presents his writing, which is psuedo-objective a lot of the time. The Beatles' essay is a great example of this psuedo-objectivity imo.
Compare him to Fantano, who makes it a lot more clear they are just his opinions, by putting "y'all know this is just my opinion, right?" in all his video descriptions, and by generally not lambasting the rest of the critical world. Fantano is clearly a subjective critic and so even Fantano drones know there is nothing objective or over-poweringly credible about anything he says.
I wish Scaruffi drones could understand this too
>>65512281
the condescending factorysunburst guy was arguing against Dylan
>>65512246
His tone and language presents himself as being a reputable writer, long with the namedropping of his intellectual accomplishments.
>>65512261
>I think being the only guy in town singing about hookers and sexual deviants, trannies uncomfortable in their bodies, drug users trying to navigate everyday life, etc
He wasn't the first at all. These are topics covered by blues and jazz musicians since the Harlem Renaissance. If anything, The Velvet Underground was white-washing those subjects for their own gain. Scruffi forgot to mention that, huh?
>at least comes close enough to worthily include them in the point Scaruffi was trying to make
Of course it does. But as I state above, it's a double standard. They white-washed too; their manager pushed their artsy image and even added a sexy singer; they eventually made pop albums. The things he criticized The beta;es for can be seen in the artists he adores.
>>65512281
>the ability to write good songs. The way you are illustrating shows he was a mediocre musician on a technical level, which I agree with.
Yeah you should separate the two, singwriting and musicianship. They can be tied, but I've known some great musicians who were not good songwriters, and vice versa. Then there's the very few who are both.
>But, if Scaruffi is implying Dylan is incapable of good songwirting too when he calls him a mediocre musician
No, it's this guy factorysunburst, who is countering Scruffy.
>And I think it is fair to assume Scaruffi does think Dylan is mediocre in songwriting with his thoughts and writings on him.
Not sure where you're getting this. Scruffy seems to point to Dylan as a success when criticizing The Beatles, and states Blonde on Blonde as one of the greatest works of the 60s.
>>65512303
Have you heard any of the new remixes on the boxset? They're great. Sounds better than the original albums.
>>65512333
>>65512380
Oh shit yeah that was a mistake, just copy and paste factorysunburst into every part that said Scaruffi, and that's what I meant
>>65512366
That's fair. His intense conviction may seem like "pseudo conviction."
>Compare him to Fantano, who makes it a lot more clear they are just his opinions, by putting "y'all know this is just my opinion, right?" in all his video descriptions, and by generally not lambasting the rest of the critical world. Fantano is clearly a subjective critic and so even Fantano drones know there is nothing objective or over-poweringly credible about anything he says.
Fantano is also the guy who says he's the "internet's busiest music nerd" when he hardly ever reviews a variety of different genres
>>65512454
that was supposed to be "pseudo objectivity" btw
I don't know, I've never listened to a Beatles track outside of stuff on the radio so it doesn't really matter.
>>65512501
nice b8
>>65512454
Yeah I wasn't defending Fantano lol. I'm just saying I find Fantano drones more bearable because they don't consider him a messiah of musical critique and opinion, usually they just find him entertaining and funny to watch.
Scaruffi drones can range, and you definitely come across a lot who believe he was some kind of "paradigm of the true critic who was closest anyone will ever be to the objective correctness of musical worth".
Basically, Scaruffi's drones are a fuckton more pretentious, even though Scaruffi is barely more credible as a reviewer than Fantano is.
>>65511427
Brutally exposed, spanked, and cucked
>>65512454
If Fantano reviewed a broader palette of music and would stop emphasizing lyrics over music so routinely, I would watch his videos.
>>65512401
And nobody was talking about it in blues or jazz the way the Velvet Underground was in rock, and they sure as shit weren't doing it in the idiom of pop music. Hokum songs and references to "riders" and drinking Sterno here and there aren't exactly the same thing as saying "I'm going to down to the square and score a bag of heroin while everybody's looking at me".
It's a completely different style and context and far more bold and unapologetic about it. That's like saying The Beatles' songwriting innovations are moot because of Bach or Beethoven.
>>65512401
Yeah sorry, I got a big ball of confusion with Scaruffi and factorysunburst.
I mixed them up from just writing so much, just replace the names and it makes sense.
>>65512542
>And nobody was talking about it in blues or jazz the way the Velvet Underground was in rock
Ah! Well this is the same argument that Scruffy criticizes The Beatles for. Or more specifically Beatles fans... "It may have been done before, but The Beatles were the first to do it in _____".
Again double standard. If you want to credit VU for being the first rock musicians to talk about hard drugs and sexual deviancy in rock music, you should credit The Beatles as the first to use musique concrete recording techniques in rock music as well.
>>65512564
Yeah I think like 5 other people said that in the time it took me to write that whole long thing.
>>65512517
>Fantano drones more bearable because they don't consider him a messiah of musical critique and opinion
That's not the case judging by his popularity here and the majority of the youtube comments on his videos
>>65512617
>popularity here
He is fucking hated here. If a single thread opens about Fantano it is 95% hate.
>majority of youtube comments on his videos
are just memes and people telling him to review things and calling him a melon or an idiot.
I'm not sure where you are implying there can be found these Fantano drones who think he is some messiah, but i'm fairly confident it is not on /mu/ or in his comment section.
>>65512525
Not really. He's just spotlighting Scaruffi's historical inaccuracies that most are already aware of.
>>65512605
Well yes, they SHOULD be credited for it, but what VU did in this scenario was still a hell of a lot different. The only thing I can even think of that's kind of close off the top of my head is "Spoonful Blues".
>>65511354
/thread here t b h
>>65512667
I mean I agree, I love both VU and The Beatles. I am just pointing out a double standard on Scruffy's part here, not really disagreeing with you.
>>65512644
I guess he's been spammed so many times here that I took that for him being liked
>>65512533
Has he ever reviewed a classical or jazz composition?
>>65512750
Yeah, he's a bit of a meme on /mu/ but most people's real opinions on him here are overwhelmingly negative.
>>65512778
I've never once seen a Fantano Jazz review, and I watch a lot of Fantano.
He did a classic review for Bitches Brew 'cus it's a personal all-time favourite of his but that's all i've seen.
A Fantano drone probably wouldn't even know that Jazz was still coming out in the 21st century.
>>65512454
Fantasy knows that he's got to protect himself from the predations of internet warriors.
Scaruffi, initially didn't have to do that. We all think we're correct about our respective opinions. Scruffles is just an opinionated all man, who wants to air off some rants. Sometimes hes correct, and the sheer scope of his writings that have been displayed make it interesting to review.
It's gratifying to hear someone else being underwhelmed by the beatles.
When i was first getting into music it always felt like it took an abnormal amount of effort to appreciate the so called "GOAT". I won't namedrop but there are countless other bands from that era that made a stronger impression on me and have proven to be more rewarding in the long term.
>>65512910
What instrument do you play again?
>>65512954
>Implying instrumentation is the only way to have a legitimate opinion on music.
So long as you can appropriately express why you enjoy something, that's sufficient to me taking your opinion seriously. If all you can say is "lol, it was catchy", then that's another matter.
>>65512910
You won't "namedrop" because you have absolutely nothing substantive to add to this discussion, you Philistine 15 year old.
>>65513011
>>Implying instrumentation is the only way to have a legitimate opinion on music.
No but your lack of theory knowledge might explain why you are "underwhelmed" by The Beatles.
>If all you can say is "lol, it was catchy", then that's another matter.
Isn't that what you are saying? "lol The Beatles aren't catchy for me"
>>65513070
Not at all. What I am saying is, being able to express why you enjoy certain music in terms beyond the shallowest form of music-listening is sufficient.
I am just saying this doesn't necessarily mean you need to include music theory or understanding of instrumentation. For example, if someone was able to give an account on why they liked The Beatles via the way they blend and contrast emotions, or the way their instrumentation creates atmospheres, or lyrical density, or experimentation in structure. These accounts cann all be given without thorough understanding of instrumentation and music theory, and are all more credible accounts for why someone enjoys musics than "the words got stuck in my head so I kept listening to it".
Giving an account for why you like The Beatles though musical theory is also sufficient, and respectable, i'm just saying it's not necessary to be reputable. So long as some level of sophistication is reached in your reflection of why you enjoy some music.
>>65513070
>>65513173
btw i'm not the original guy you were criticising who said the Beatles were underwhelming.
>>65513173
Nice but >>65512910 has yet to do any of that.
>>65513230
Very true, I wasn't defending him, I was just responding to your "instrument" comment.
OP is fucking ridiculous because it implies scraroofles' bullshit has any bearing on what youre allowed think about x band.
This isn't 'waaah scaruffi shit on my favorite band,' its you formulating your own opinion and substantiating it yourself instead of being a spineless cuck and waiting around for what other people tell you to think.
I don't think especially highly of the beatles or whatever but godDAMN dont sit around waiting for other people's approval.
>>65511912
>>65512082
Hahahahaha butthurt newfag or something I guess
>>65513518
>I don't think especially highly of the beatles
Why not?
>>65513518
I am OP and I wasn't meaning to imply I adopt any of the opinion in the original post.
It was really just thoughts to trigger discussion. Scaruffi hating the Beatles don't make me hate them, but I know there are people who out there that do follow that logic. People who can actually be persuaded out of their musical opinions with "argument". This was more for them.
Also the cuck meme is dead pls just let it rest.
>>65511807
No, anon, telling someone to read a book or Wikipedia isn't a good argument if you have no knowledge yourself.
>>65512815
>>65512778
I'm not a huge fantano fan but I've seen him review jazz before
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBgmf37MGtg
>>65513870
It's quite a bad review though
>>65513538
Do you actually have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to shit a few hilarious netizen slang words instead of expressing one dignified, non-retarded thought?
>>65514074
Did you read the thread?
>>65512778
He doesn't review classical because he only ever does retrospective reviews once a year. He's reviewed some jazz, but there’s not as much popular jazz nowadays
The essay is so bad that for a long time I actually thought it was a meme written by some underage /mu/tant.
