When will you finally give up on trying to be a special snowflake and just admit that scaruffi's ratings are correct?
Defend this, I dare you.
>>66295791
>he fell for the 'Limp Bizkit is bad' meme
>>66295791
Scaruffi explains himself in great detail on those pages. If you'd just get past the rating and the meme pastas and actually read the thing, you'd see he makes very good points.
>>66295855
>he fell for the Scraruffi meme
>>66296457
>he fell for the 'Scaruffi isn't 100% correct' meme
>>66296533
>he fell for the drone meme
>>66296550
>he fell for the special snowflake meme
i like reading his dumb ass thoughts on philosophy desu
>>66295722
I gave up a year ago. I've never been happier with myself. Long live Scaruffles
Because my taste doesn't have to match another one taste.
The ones who follow another one opinions instead of his/her own opinion are the ones who need to fit with some other people to not feel bad about themselves.
>>66298752
but you are a construction of those who surround you desu desu
>>66295722
I'd never actually read any of his reviews until I saw this post, and I have to say, he does provide a lot of historical context when writing them. He approaches albums as a timeline of past and present work by an artist, on the backdrop of the current genre's scene, as opposed to viewing every piece as a standalone work, not afraid to rip apart each album until you realize that there are only 2-3 songs of any worth on an album, and the rest are just 'spiritual'-carbon copies of artists before them, following a tried and true formula to commercial success, rather than stylistic integrity, and bringing an actual sense of uniqueness with them.
>>66295722
>Gives Limp Bizkit and Aqua 7's
Scaruffi is literally the epitome of special snowflake syndrome.
Having said that, most of his highly rated albums tend to be good. As far as lesser known "underground" stuff goes he has pretty solid taste. However for artists at a certain level of mainstream success its generally best to just ignore whatever he says since he tends to arbitrarily overrate and underrate certain artists for really no justifiable reason.
Most of his ratings are pretty accurate, he is just particularly harsh on the beatles
>>66296409
Where do I go to see his actual reviews? I can't see anything about albums on his shit site, I just see small descriptions of the albums and no actual review under the artist's discography history.
WHY CAN'T I MARRY A 12-YEAR-OLD?
>"Dumb boring people use Facebook to post comments that show how smart and funny they are."-Piero Scaruffi on Twitter.
Piero Scaruffi has zero education in music, has never been in a musical group, and has proven time and time again he is retarded in the subjects he is actually educated in (neuroscience and AI).
Is this really someone you want to follow around the playground?
>>66304355
>has never been in a musical group
actually he has
this has been stated many times
why do people never remember?
>>66295722
I hadn’t heard of Piero Scaruffi until I came across this TV tropes page on him recently, in which this Italian scientist who also has a website in which he’s reviewed, like, bazillions of albums, was said to have written a ‘controversial’ essay on the Beatles and how overrated they are. Well, I’m always interested in anyone wanting to have a go at the Beatles because so many try and so few do it well, so I googled ‘Piero Scaruffi beatles’, and I found what I take to be his best thoughts on the subject.
This is one of those situations where you dread even wandering into the line of fire, because the guy is obviously so sure that he’s right, and that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. You can feel the stupidity clinging to you in sticky fronds even as you read. But since what I’ve read of his article is riddled with factually inaccurate assertions stated as if they were true, I can’t let it go unchallenged.
I am not arguing that Scaruffi is wrong to think that the Beatles are ‘trivial’ and ‘overrated’. He can think whatever he wants. He is, as they say, entitled to his opinion. What he is not entitled to do is insist that his opinion is worth anything, if it’s based on an inaccurate perception of reality. What I am saying — and let there be no ambiguity whatever about this — is that Scaruffi, intentionally or otherwise, and in the extracts that I have quoted, largely misrepresents the facts about the Beatles in an attempt to downplay the nature of their achievement. He may know that he’s doing this, in which case he’s mendacious. I prefer to be charitable, and believe that he doesn’t know he’s doing it; that he is, rather, intellectually inadequate to be a music critic. Nothing else I have read on his site convinces me that he has the intellectual tools that the job requires.
>>66305010
This
>>66304355
Yes.
>>66295791
it's like you don't understand his rating system.
He's absolutely right on both of these.
