Korn's debut album is better than anything by
>Bjork
>Modest Mouse
>Mountain Goats
>Godspeed you Black Emporer
>U2
>The Avalanches
>Porcupine Tree
>The Beatles
>Tame Impala
Is he correct to think this?
>>66376147
I don't know why anyone takes this guy seriously
Scaruffi values image more than music
It's great that Scaruffi gets /mu/ so angry
Obviously you shit plebs
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
>>66376147
that's correct. what you talking about?
Reminder that no one hated the Beatles until he wrote his piece. It is the same situation as the Star Wars prequels and the Plinkett reviews.
>>66376147
I'm literally in tears because of this man. How does he get away with this shit? I can't even look at his picture without wanting to hurl the computer monitor across the room.
Apart from Bjork...yeah that's probably correct.
>>66376147
korn and beatles arent even same genre faggot
>>66376466
Bijork is the worst artist in that list exept for Lame Impala
if this post gets dubs he's right
>>66376147
Literally nothing wrong with this
>>66376234
He actually values innovation more than anything.
>>66376147
>8/10
>>66376147
Korn was more innovative than the artists in that whole list (except for Beatles in terms of influence). They pratically pioneered nu metal and influenced every metal bands in late 90s and 2000s.
Scaruffi values a lot influence and/or innovation. Thats why
>>66376875
>8/10
>>66376443
>U2 are better than Modest Mouse
>>66376898
>pioneered nu metal
No Faith no More and Helmet did
>>66376908
>Implying they aren't
Is there anything he likes that isn't dadrock, buttmetal or circuscore
>>66376898
>pioneered nu metal
this is a good thing?
>>66376913
>FNM
>Helmet
>nu metal
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>66376147
only one he's wrong about is Bjork
>>66376973
Who cares about you think? Innovation and influence are one of the few objective things in music
>>66376913
FNM is alternative metal with some influence of funk metal. Helmet is alternative metal with hardcore influence. none of them theres nothing to do with nu metal
>>66376211
Because he has academic formation, therefore his opinions are objective and true, right?
>>66377139
Is this a bait? Scaruffi has education in Neuroscience and AI. Not music theory. Ever wonder why he mentions neurosis in every review when it's usually not even relevant. And, although I think a lot of his high rated albums are great, I think he's rated a lot of great albums mediocre ratings because he cares mostly about avante garde and highly orchestrated work. As if rock is just classical or poetry. Nothing in between.
>>66376453
A lot of people hated the Star Wars prequels actually. But he pointed out everything fundamentally wrong to enforce that opinion higher. I could name a lot of people that I know that hated the Beatles when they were around too.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CTof1qKMbNU
>0:43-0:52
What did he mean by this?
Korn is better than Tame Impala and U2.
Since I Left You -
The results of their recombinant art (particularly Frontier Psychiatrist, A Different Feeling, Radio) were both hilarious and illuminating, as if shedding new light on the values of an entire civilization by deconstructing and decontextualizing its fundamental attributes.
F#A#Infinity - Emotions were hard to find inside the shapeless jelly, dark textures and sudden mood swings
These are positive reviews and good criticism. You autists are just getting unnecessarily hung up on number scores, which don't mean anything
>>66376898
>They pratically pioneered nu meta
You say it as if was a good thing.
>>66376875
>>66376899
these are both good though
not great though
>>66376850
>Album is shit.
>But it's innovating so it's good.
WEW
>>66376850
>values innovation
>doesn't like the Beatles
Pls explain in words that aren't the scaruffi Beatles copypasta
>>66381031
Their music sucks despite their innovation.
>>66381031
simple mersey-beat.
no innovation intended
>>66381031
>Beatles
>innovative
How?
Plebs who argue against Scruffy's will should just get the fuck out.
>>66376875
>>66376899
>according to Scaruffi these two albums are in the same level as pic related
Jesus fucking Christ.
>>66381031
Beatles are very influential, but not very innovative.
Take The Beatles, Bjork, and Tame Impala off the list and it's not even that outlandish of an opinion.
>>66381589
>implying that album is good
>>66381645
Tame Impala are shite
>>66381589
>according to Scaruffi this album is on the same level as these
>>66376875
>>66376899
Jesus Fucking Christ
Hahahaha lmao fuck scaruffi
>>66378156
>Yanqui U.X.O had no dramatic content.
>>66384256
Well it doesn't.
>>66380853
If something's innovative but shit, it might get a 7, if the musicians are competent. Korn's s/t is not shit. It's a legitimately good album that also pioneered a style.
>>66381031
THE FACT THAT SO MANY
>>66381154
>>66381188
I know this is bait, but Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day in the Life, Helter Skelter and Norwegian Wood are just a handful of examples of enormously innovative songs. Regardless of whether you like those songs or not, you would have to be mentally ill to deny their innovation.
>>66384395
What did they innovate?
>The bad news is that the essence of Korn is nowhere to be found. They used to begin songs with riffs that were mythological tales in themselves: behind each riff there was a shared system of signs. Now those riffs sound like business cards.
What did he mean by this?
>>66384514
He means they sold out.
>>66384432
Tomorrow Never Knows is the biggest step forward in recording techniques made by any song, for its time. The multi tracks, tape loops and psychedelic production on the drums and vocals have have profound impact. It is one of the first psychedelic songs ever written.
Strawberry Fields Forever is innovative for similar reasons, as well the reverse instrumentation used and the extremely unusual time patterns and key changes.
A Day in the Life really needs no description; its avant garde compostion, layered structure and orchestral accompaniment is hugely famous.
Helter Skelter was most likely the creation of heavy metal. The Kinks made You Really Got Me, and The Who made I Can See For Miles, and while both are important steps, neither can be described as heavy metal in my opinion. Helter Skelter incorporated almost everything we associate with the genre today. Screamed vocals, manic percussion, wild and out of tune bass and guitar, and of course extreme volume. Go listen to the isolated bass track on YouTube, it's so filthy and clunky, but brilliant.
Norwegian Wood saw the first use of the sitar in a Western song and was an instrumental part of psychedelia, if not the birth of it.
>>66384432
Strawberry Fields Forever - Change of key in the middle of the song, tape experimentation, instrumentation
Tomorrow Never Knows - Proto Droney
Helter Skelter - Proto Metal/punk
Norwegian Wood - Unusual instrumentation
A Day In The Life - Tape experimentation, progressive
>>66384432
>>66384661
This anon beat me to it, and wasn't lazy, so there ya go.
>>66376147
Yes
Korn isn't a bad band m8
>>66376147
>comparing two bands of different genres
How to criticize music:
1. What is the album trying to do?
2. Does it accomplish that goal?
3. Do you personally enjoy what it is trying to do?
If Yes is your answer to 2 and 3, it is a good album.
If No for either or both 2 or 3, it is a bad album.
>>66384432
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GO5W6FRZPM
have a listen to 24:35 - 27:10
>>66384661
>>66384664
Everything you mentioned here was done previously by John Fahey, the Velvet Underground, Jimi Hendrix, Monks, The Kinks, Duane Eddy, The Byrds, Zappa, Dylan,
>>66384664
>>66384661
Also La Monte Young
>>66385028
Elaborate.
>>66385028
yeah but the Beatles popularized it and used those techniques in regular pop/rock songs
Thus bringing it into the consciousness of pop/rock fans who didn't listen to the VU and Zappa (like 98% of Americans at that point)
>>66385100
so they didn't actually innovate anything and just watered down more popular underground concepts for mass consumption
glad we got that settled
>>66385100
But that is not innovation. We're talking innovation here.
>>66385080
Please just look the names up, man. But basically psych rock was the byrds, metal was jimi, john fahey used indian musical techniques, tape experimentation, avant garde composition was done by zappa/la monte young/dylan etc.
It's a whole thing but they did not invent those techniques.
>>66381589
>>66381792
Not agreeing with him, but the 'U think X is better than Y, ur opinion is invalid' shit is really disingenuous and obnoxious. Scoring a sleazy teen sex comedy higher than something like Blade Runner isn't necessarily about saying it's better, but that it's more successful in achieving what it set out to do. Scores are about contextual application.
>>66385134
i'm happy because you're happy.
/thread
>>66385138
Give me songs that preceed those by Beatles, that did the same things.
>>66376147
Would /mu/ like Periphery if he gave one of their albums 7/10?
>>66385134
>so they didn't actually innovate anything and just watered down more popular underground concepts for mass consumption
It's innovative to use those concepts in pop songs
Also using the term "watering down" dismisses their accomplishments. They're extraordinarily influential because of the fact they used advanced production techniques in pop music, and the VU and Zappa probably wouldn't be as well know today if it weren't for the Beatles making their ideas safer for public consumption.
The history of popular music without the Beatles would be vastly different. I seriously don't know how you can dismiss the influence of the world's best selling music group of all time while holding up other artists as better because they're "underground". I even prefer early Beatles but I'm not retarded.
>>66385170
See this is Scaruffi's point. People don't know these artists' work. People ignore them because the Beatles were massively popular. Look up these artist's early albums. Look at the dates. Look at the actual history of rock music.
>>66385190
if i had some kind of cosmic omnipotence i would give bullshit albums 10s from pitchfork/scaruffi/melonhead just to see what happens on /mu/
>>66376875
>9/10
>9/10
>9/10
>>66378156
but Frontier Psychiatrist is their worst song in their discography. Yes, worse than Frankie Sinatra.
>>66385213
/mu/ would praise it and say it's /mu/core
See: MPP
>>66385211
You're not actually giving me a lead. what should i look for?
>>66385236
frontier psychiatrist was the first avalanches song i ever heard and it completely put me off of them
>>66385249
Not him and I'm actually arguing against him but look up Freak Out! and the Velvet Underground & Nico
>waaah the evil italian man is insulting my /mu/core taste again waaaah!
>>66376211
he knows more about music than you could learn in three lifetimes, pleb.
>>66385236
>>66385272
when will this opinion stop
>>66385204
>I even prefer early Beatles but I'm not retarded
>I even prefer early Beatles
>but I'm not retarded
>>66376211
Assuming we're limiting ourselves to assessing his popular music criticism, there are plenty of reasons.
As far as existing attempts to record the history of rock music, catalog its most pivotal recordings and most impactful creative voices, and to evaluate its relationship to broader human culture, interpreting rock music and derivative forms as encompassing a standalone tradition of musical expression rather than placing it in a lesser valued or corrupted role unworthy of the same academic scrutiny as other forms, his History of Rock Music is the best attempt so far. Period. There is no disputing this.
As he writes in the foreward, "This is not a history of the charts", and many of you fail to take in the scope of what that means and why it is significant. He is the first writer to make a sustained case for rock music's elevated status as a mode of _artistic_ expression rather than a mode of _commercial_ enterprise. Remember how belligerent you plebeians get when I refer to art music forms vs. popular/commercial music forms? Scaruffi is the only prominent writer arguing on your side.
By eschewing a focus on popular success or popularly successful musicians for their own sake, his volume becomes not just a history of the "scene", but a serious history of (what he posits to be) an emergent art form, and his role as historian becomes that of tracing emergent musical and conceptual ideas as they first appeared within rock music, whether they directly impacted the mainstream approaches that year or three decades later.
This is iconoclastic by definition, as it runs contrary to the intent of any comparable text, but through his rigorous explanations he demonstrates beyond question that he is no mere contrarian.
Whether or not you agree with all his conclusions or find flaws in his methodology (I've noted my fair share), his text's importance in this regard cannot be diminished. Only a fool would attempt to dispute this.
>>66385289
>it's completely okay to fuck kids and have child brides, trust me i'm a neuroscientist
>>66385138
>Jimi created heavy metal
>Dylan experimented so he must be avant
>The Beatles were not the very first people on earth to use Indian sounds so they played no role in pioneering its use in psych rock
What are you even on about, m8? The Beatles made extremely innovative songs (find me a single song preceding The Beatles that sounds ANYTHING LIKE Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields Forever, Helter Skelter, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Eleanor Rigby, Love You To, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, etc.)
But that's not even the only point here. The other is that as well as pioneering all of the above, they were also the first to do any of it to an extremely high standard. Their albums from Rubber Soul onwards are widely considered to be among the finest works of art ever created within the music industry, by casuals and critics alike, whereas The Byrds or Zappa cannot say the same. Not that I dislike those acts, but as someone previously said ITT, they have The Beatles to thank for mastering all of these experimental sounds so god damn well that they entered the mainstream and became multi-million selling genres.
In my opinion The Beatles are the most influential and innovative band of all time, but even if you disagree with that statement, you surely cannot deny that they were at the very least, innovative.
>>66376276
LOL YEAH HES A MASTER TROLL ARTIST XD JUST LIKE MILO AND GAVIN
>>66385342
he's the music defender bro
>>66385458
>Foxy Lady
1967
>Helter Skelter
1968
Jimi pioneered metal. Link Wray was also very influential.
>>66385524
>FOXY LADY
>metal
>>66385406
Memes aside, Scaruffi wasn't advocating for pedophilia. He was saying that allowing gay marriage would be a slippery slope to child brides. So Scaruffi hates gay people, I guess.
>>66385458
>The Beatles were not the very first people on earth to use Indian sounds
They weren't first. That's my entire point, thank you.
I think I meant to put Dylan elsewhere but he was undoutably experimental and innovative in the early 60s, arguably starting psych rock with Mr. Tamborine man, which the Byrds later covered
>>66381749
oy ur shite mate
>>66385572
It pioneered it. Helter Skelter is, if anything, punk, which was already being pioneered by Monks and the Velvet Underground, among others.
>>66376147
Is he the Armond White of music?
>>66385603
>Dylan was more experimental than the Beatles
wew
>>66385642
Where did I say that?
>>66385634
But nobody knew about the Monks, the VU, or the Stooges. But everybody knew the Beatles and Helter Skelter.
This is like saying Portishead is a bad band because they didn't invent trip-hop. Grade A avant-teen retardation here
>>66385667
>I think I meant to put Dylan elsewhere but he was undoutably experimental and innovative in the early 60s
Meanwhile you're arguing that the Beatles aren't innovative at all
also
>undoutably
>>66385670
>But nobody knew about the Monks, the VU, or the Stooges. But everybody knew the Beatles and Helter Skelter
argumentum ad populum
>>66385670
You seem to be missing the point. I'm not saying the Beatles were bad. I'm just saying they were not especially innovative, and that what people here are claiming they did was done earlier.
It doesn't matter how popular those bands were, because we are not arguing who was more popular. We are arguing who did it first.
>>66385705
Thanks for noticing I made a spelling mistake.
>>66385635
both are highly intelligent and knowledgeable critics of their respective mediums who often run afoul of the critical establishment's views. white's taste is a lot more idiosyncratic, however.
How dare someone have their own opinion on music amirite
>>66385726
No it isn't, I'm saying that the Beatles popularized a heavy/punky rock sound. also
>not taking popularity in account in fucking popular music
>>66385603
You make it sound like someone has to literally invent a musical idea or sound to be innovative, and nothing else qualifies. How about we just say Chuck Berry invented rock so everyone else afterwards must have copied him?
The point is that The Beatles both created sounds we were yet to hear, as well as pioneering other existing ones still in their relatively primitive forms. Both of these things are innovative. You can be innovative by taking someone else's idea, and further exploring its possibilities. The Kinks, The Who and Hendrix played hard rock for example, but the leap from those songs to Helter Skelter is most definition noticeable, and that constitutes as innovation.
By your definition of innovation, it is impossible for any current artists to be innovative because every genre has already been created.
>>66385727
But because they popularized these techniques, they became enormously influential and inventive. Not to mention they innovated by implementing musique concrete and baroque music in pop, which the other groups you listened did not do.
>>66385797
Most definitely noticeable*
>>66385797
>every genre has already been created
what did he mean by this
>>66385797
>>66385817
So we're basically admitting that the Beatles did not invent this shit?
Good. Point Scaruffi.
Everything else past this point would be subjective, arguing who did what better, and that would be useless.
The Beatles did not invent new sounds, and were not especially innovative. They took existing sounds and streamlined them for mass production.
Later nerds
>>66385874
>They took existing sounds and streamlined them for mass production.
THIS IS WHAT I HAVE ISSUE WITH. You're conflating "the Beatles didn't invent tapes and classical music" with "the Beatles weren't influential".
But yeah I'm done with this shit. Avant teens are insufferable
>>66385847
The fundamental genres have been invented, as well as meme ones like noise, and anything "new" nowadays is just an existing genre with another word slapped on the front of it, or a hybrid.
Ska punk, memerap, doom metal, oceangrunge, etc
>>66385495
Scaruffi isn't a troll. His good taste is just such a perfect counter to the radiohead fanboys on /mu/ that he naturally pisses them off.
>Beatles
THE
>>66385938
That's what unimaginative, uncreative people say. If you can't imagine that a new genre can be created that isn't a hybrid genre I don't know what to say to you.
But people said the same thing before rock and roll and hip hop
>>66385874
Just go and listen to Tomorrow Never Knows, because I know as of this moment you have not. Then come back and point me to anything released before it that sounds even remotely similar. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, I would actually happily stand corrected. But I highly doubt you will manage to find anything, and that proves that The Beatles did in fact create new sounds.
>all this hate for the avalanches
>>66385236
retard detected
>>66381188
Feedback, Tapeloops, Distortion, Recording Techniques, updating the "Wall of Sound" techniques, use of eastern instruments in a rock context.
>>66385817
>popularizing something
>inventive
what did he mean by this?
>>66381188
they innovated the use of bongs in pop music
>>66385919
influential =/= inventive
you retarded dadrocker
>>66386093
I'll say it again
But because they popularized these techniques, they became enormously influential and inventive. Not to mention they innovated by implementing musique concrete and baroque music in pop, which the other groups you listened did not do.
ITT: butthurt yanks who are mad that the most influential and popular band of all time were British
>>66386115
>dadrocker
no
not that
anything but that
>influential =/= inventive
kkk
>>66386119
fred durst is from florida sir
>>66386116
>But because they popularized these techniques, they became enormously influential and inventive.
this is where your fucktarded argument lies famalam
popularizing something does NOT mean inventing something
that's a total fallacy
![1468437612922[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/SCTUznU.png "1468437612922[1].png")
>>66386119
>british """""""culture"""""""
>>66386167
>popularizing something does NOT mean inventing something
I never said that you nigger, I said they were inventive because they were the first to use unusual/Indian/psych/musique concrete sounds in pop rock.
While Zappa and the Velvet Underground were more inaccessible, the Beatles merged avant-garde sensibilities with pop, which means that they had more wide-ranging influence than the VU and Zappa.
Do you get what I'm saying? Should I explain it again?
>>66386189
Stay jelly that we have the greatest and best selling music artist of all time, la
![b5247444[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3Gs2hNf.jpg "b5247444[1].jpg")
>>66386256
>british """""""pride"""""""
>>66385028
Previously? Tomorrow Never Knows was on Revolver, released in 1965. Fahey had /barely/ started and not really recorded anything incredible by then. TVU didn't exist, Hendrix hadn't done anything, Monks was 66, Freak out was 66, Dylan was the only contemporary that you mentioned.
>>66386337
This
>>66386249
Please read and decipher the sentence you wrote again you fucking faggot
Hint: there's a "because" in there
>>66386337
This, although Revolver was 66 too
Still waiting for him to find a song released before Tomorrow Never Knows which sounds similar at all. I asked him 20 minutes ago and he has yet to deliver.
>>66386366
I said that the Beatles were inventive because they were the first to combine experimental sounds with chart-topping pop music and a melodic sensibility.
Would you argue that Zappa is a talentless hack because musique concrete had been around since the 40s? Or that the VU is not inventive and experimental because noise music dates back to the 1910s and John Cale wasn't the first to play viola drones?
>thinking one accidentally weird song is equivalent to a whole experimental album
>>66386642
>accidentally weird
hi >>66386366
>people parroting someone's opinion in order to appear to have the same amount of culture and musical knowledge
dubbi dum dum dum doobi doobi doobi dum
>>66386789
>people projecting
aaahhhhh frankiee sinatraaaaa
>>66385168
So if I make a movie that's supposed to be shit, and it turns out that it actually is shit it's a 10/10? It did exactly what it set out to do, and did it perfectly, no less.
>>66388039
Yes
That's why Kid A is a 7/10 while Flockaveli is a 9/10
>>66376453
>It is the same situation as the Star Wars prequels and the Plinkett reviews.
that's an outright fucking lie
>>66386464
I think the problem here is that you seem to think the Beatles had experimental sounds. They did not.
>>66376147
>>66376211
>>66388556
Wow so emotional
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me6krWVfN8I
>>66388592
Yes. It is.
>>66376147
lmao I don't get why /mu/ is obsessed with this contrarian pedophile
this dude can't even see the nuance between 311 albums
>Dammit! , 5/10
>Unity , 5/10
>Hydroponic , 5/10
>311 Music , 5/10
>Grassroots , 5/10
>311 , 5/10
>Transistor , 5/10
>Sound System , 5/10
>>66376147
Korn's debut created a new genre that would take over the world. None of those other artists did that. So yes, he is right.
>>66376147
>>Bjork
shrill boring music
>>Modest Mouse
cuck core indie rock
>>Mountain Goats
kids music
>>Godspeed you Black Emporer
le classical for people who don't like classical
>>U2
mediocre pop tunes
>>The Avalanches
glorified disco edits
>>Porcupine Tree
more cuck core
>>The Beatles
overrated
>>Tame Impala
beatle ripoffs
Everything seems to check out
>>66385375
This is actually a valid argument. Thanks anon, I don't hate Scaruffi quite as much anymore
>>66385990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoSwOrytf_M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35gheud5xBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP_YxDdGni0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPHJvx1ZS1s
>>66386401
>>66391568
Pick one, but I would especially draw your attention to Zappa
>>66385990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stw3yLwWlN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=texKJUVB7KY
Oh hey here's some more
>>66385990
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukbu9dmmzJg
what the fuck two zappas why not
>>66376147
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLTwEUAKY2Y
This is also better than all of that, according to Scaruffi
>next to none application of musical theory, resorts buzzwordey adectives
Theres a reason hes not taken much seriously outside this shithole.
>>66392274
You're right, Christgau is terrible
>>66376147
I don't even like any of those bands and I disagree.
>>66392412
Thanks for the free opinion. Another for the collection.
>>66377203
>>66376147
>>66376211
>>66376234
>>66376462
>>66376850
he is just full of shit and knows nothing about music
>>66393314
Prove it
I think he's definitely overly harsh on the Beatles, but they're definitely overrated, and he's one of the few rock critics who will argue that. Possibly why he goes so overboard in the process.
>>66389947
congratulations anon! You just won the annual award for "biggest bait of the year"! How do you feel?
>>66393584
>three and a half hours later
>>66393584
Prove him wrong.
>>66376147
methemusicgenius.jpg
