How come literally every time he changes his mind he ends up with a worse opinion?
I'm sure there's more examples but these are just the ones I could find.
>>62410448
he was the original contrarian faggot
the opinions on the right are all absolutely more correct except for f#a#infinity which should remain a 6
>thinks he's a critic
>gives ok computer 7/10
okay
>Loveless
current
>Bleach
neither, should be 8/10
>Nevermind
current
>f#a#
original
>lysf
original
>revolver
original
>repeater
original
>zen arcade
original
>pablo honey
neither, should be 6/10 or less
>okc
original
>>62410448
Where can i see original scaruffi scores at?
>>62410526
this desu
should have kept it at 6/10 or if anything lowered it
>>62410542
>loveless is better than zen arcarde and repeater
god
damn
kids
>>62410567
https://archive.org/web/
>>62410542
>Bleach should be on the same level as Zen Arcade
shit opinions
shit opinions
He wrote a long rant about the Beatles and forgot that they're not rock but pop. His jazz picks are shit too. I do however agree with him in saying Reign In Blood is the only great Slayer album.
>>62410600
>>62410605
Zen Arcade is literally just a gay man screaming over meme guitars and the production is terrible
>>62410600
fuck off scaruffi
>>62410653
>meme guitars
>terrible production
>faglike
shit lad, you sure you aren't confused between zen arcade and loveless?
>>62410448
>gy!be are 6
>pablo honey is better than ok computer
>repeater and zen arcade aren't perfect 9's
nice bait op
>>62410653
you just described nevermind though
>>62410653
>Implying bad production degrades th values of the music
>>62410653
true
>>62410526
Worth a 5 at most
>>62410751
incorrect
>>62410448
He changed 77 from a 9/10 to a 7 because irl he met david byrne and didn't like him.
I know he changed his ratings for Talking Heads and Sonic Youth
>>62410781
also jesus lizard and don caballero
>>62410448
Glad he changed revolvers rating
>>62410805
that's the only one on op's pic that i can't agree with the change
>>62410805
it's literally his most contrarian rating
>>62410775
it's an 8 now
i thought it was more songs that was a 9 but is now a 7.5?
>>62410653
yeah but it's still amazing
>Pablo Honey higher score than Revolver
What the fuck? Did he even listen to both these albums?
>>62410906
Scruffi is a memester
>>62410997
This he's being ironic
>>62410448
Loveless was originally an 8? That's interesting. Usually when he changes scores he lowers them, I would imagine it's extremely rare that he raises something to a 9. Very accurate though.
>>62410781
Yeah, s/t, CIS and Sister used to be a 8/10 and Goo a 7/10
>>62410906
both those albums suck anyways
>>62410448
I was just thinking how Mission of Burma - Vs. should be higher than an 8 if you're gonna give Repeater and Zen Arcade a 9.
>Pablo Honey has a higher rating than any of Long Fin Killie's albums
>>62410653
>meme guitars
christ this board gets worse every day
>>62410448
>Zen Arcade
>9/10
I am ok with this
>>62411430
>pic related has the same score as Pet Sounds
>>62411419
but vs is a post-punk album, it has nothing to do with post-hardcore
>>62411543
An Evening with Wild Man Fischer is one of the greatest albums of the 1960's and outweighs anything by the Beatles
I hope he'll never lower his Limp Bizkit's ratings
>>62411594
Maybe I'm off, but I've always thought of Vs. as the definitive "proto-post-hardcore" album. The gigantic guitar/tape-loop chord clusters and somewhat non-linear song structures foreshadow a lot of what makes Repeater and Zen Arcade great. And I know Scaruffi's ratings may be based more on execution than influence or originality, but I still think Vs. was executed just as well as either of those albums.
>>62412239
vs is great for sure but you really need to listen to more post-punk if you think all you just said is exclusive to vs. i guess scruffy just doesn't feel vs is as revolutionary as zen arcade. i love vs and i love generic album by flipper and rites of spring but i can agree zen arcade definitely stands out. but yeah for sure these are all amzing albums, i guess it just comes down to is it it or is it not it yet
>>62410448
>"Authoritative Critic" changing his mind
literally invalidates his whole website
>>62410448
Why do you care about a reviewer you've never met this much?
>know all the scarufficore
>barely even know the best sellers
music for this feel?
>>62412810
what's your personal favorite 8/10, friend?
>>62412902
i suppose it is decent music for this feel
>>62410653
No Zen Arcade = No Squirrel Bait = No Slint = No Spiderland
>>62412969
that's a great pick man. boy you picked an excelent one.
>>62413083
o-okay
>>62413131
you have good taste
>>62413157
i thank you deeply, my dearest friend
sincerely,
dearest friend's friend
>>62413296
that was a bit too much
>>62413035
>implying Spiderland is good
>>62412810
you've listened to all his 8+ albums? there's almost 500 of them
>>62413382
>top of math rock
>top of post-hardcore
>third of post-rock
>not good
wew lad
>>62413435
well, i've got some holes in the 90s, but it's an 8s bonanza
i don't want to live in a world where i don't have another scaruffi 8 to hear, so i'm takin it real slow-like now
>>62413663
i like you
>>62413534
Repeater is better, Zen Arcade is better, Atomizer is better, Yank Crime is better and that's just post-hardcore
>>62413663
you've listened to all his 8.5s and 9s then I'm guessing?
>>62413886
without spiderland there would be no yank crime
and no post-rock nor math rock nor everything else you failed to mention
also no atomizer isn't better, sorry (and neither is yank crime but that's beyond the point by now)
>>62413994
well yeah
probably should have saved a 9 permanently though
>>62414040
>tfw will never hear another scruffi 9
>>62413886
>Repeater is better, Zen Arcade is better, Atomizer is better, Yank Crime is better
I was going by RYM charts, but if we're doing personal ratings, I agree with you here.
literally the only score scaruffi has ever gotten right is spiderland. i hate him so much. he literally pretends to know so much about music but he's embarrassingly ignorant in many genres. especially jazz
>>62414262
have you listened to over 25000 albums?
>>62414262
yes because you of all people know your jazz amirite anon
>>62414290
>>62414301
https://factorysunburst.wordpress.com/2015/02/03/scaruffi-on-jazz/comment-page-1/
this guy has good rebuttal's, i'm too lazy to type out exactly why scaruffi gets so many things wrong. just know that quantity doesn't equal quality, especially when it comes to music education. listening to every jazz album ever won't give you the ability to actually make intelligent reviews of them, especially if you have no formal music education
>>62414366
>But let’s start with the single most important figure in the history of jazz, Louis Armstrong.
stopped reading right there
>>62414366
>Thelonious Monk meets John Coltrane, one of the greatest albums ever made
stopped reading there, this guy is just upset because he has shit taste, wouldn't surprise me if he's a Beatles fan too
>>62414459
you're showing your ignorance. it's almost unanimously agreed by every relevant jazz musician/critic that louis armstrong was one of the most important/influential figures in jazz history. go to any university and ask a jazz professor
>>62414502
he is
>>62414533
influence =/= quality
armstrong is only relevant because there wasn't much going around in the 40's. compared to any other jazz musician armstrong sucked, he does not deserve to be on a "best albums ever" list ffs
>>62414502
>>62414459
"Parker extended both the melodic and the rhythmic range of jazz music in a systematic way. His solos seemed to have no rule, occasionally sounding arbitrary in the context of the group’s playing. Thus each solo appeared to be unique in nature, not the repetition of a distinctive pattern. The polyrhythmic essence of his playing was emphasized by the detours of his rhythm section, but made possible by his melodies, that toyed with beats and with the space between beats. Parker was an oxymoron of sorts: the player of a melodic instrument who indirectly focused on rhythm. His music was revolutionary because it was based on discontinuity instead of harmonious flow."
Scaruffi on Charlie Parker
It's total gibberish. Scaruffi clearly knows nothing about jazz theory, or possibly any music theory in general. Ignoring the blatant and embarrassing errors (polyrhythmic? how can a wind instrument play polyrhythmically?) he goes on to show total ignorance about what bebop music even was. "Arbitrary" and "discontinuity"? To describe bebop? It was literally one of the most technically adept forms of jazz there was. It closely followed tons of chord changes, it was anything but arbitrary. If he said the same thing about modal jazz it would start to make some sense, but even then, he clearly has no clue what he's talking about
>>62414560
I agree, but the quote was "let's start with the single most important figure in the history of jazz, Louis Armstrong." Which can be defended by so many people, I have no clue how you can even argue that.
But aside from that, Scaruffi literally constantly rates influence higher than quality. It's almost as if he only gives high ratings to albums that have the most influence on any particular genre, so it doesn't make sense that he'd even dislike Louis Armstrong, seeing as he influenced nearly all subsequent jazz musicians
>>62414711
his pre-70's ratings are low. that's because even if those artists influenced much more than later artists, scruffy tries to play it fair and give them lower scores, because those artists just aren't that good.
for instance in his rock ratings from the 50's and early 60's his highest rating is a 7 and it isn't even rock. his first rock 7 is from the beatles.
>>62414779
Either way, I'm saying that being well-read =/= having knowledge about a subject. Scaruffi claims to know a ton more than he actually knows. just because he's listened for 25000+ albums doesn't mean he even absorbed any of them, and it definitely doesn't make his opinions more valid. Maybe he should spend less time listening and more time learning about music
>>62414868
it's still a really good compendium out there for a more casual listener
>>62410653
>meme guitars
What does this even mean....
scaruffi is a massive pleb
end of story
>>62414981
if anything he doesn't care about jazz music theory
>>62414891
yeah i suppose, as long as he's not misleading people with no knowledge of the subject, or just flat out being wrong
>>62415004
then he shouldn't talk about it or be so pretentious about a subject that he's so ignorant in
>>62410653
this made me kek
>>62410653
Bleach is 6 at best, very generic
>>62415542
it's the best Nirvana album and he gave Nevermind 8/10
>>62410448
these are all correct
>>62413663
why? you can just listen to the 7.5s next?
plus he's always finding new 8/10 albums
>>62415010
I don't think he is trained in musicology. So a person seeking purely musicological incite will probably get very little out of his writings. Scaruffi does his best to describe the music in technical terms but he fares a lot better at identifying the emotional expression of a work of music and i think that his ratings reflect how powerfully they convey emotion more so than how techniquely impressive and innovative they are.
Taken from his site: "I am not too interested in the instrumental technique. I am more interested in emotion than in technique. Traditionally, jazz has been associated with technique (an odd mis-interpretation of the original spirit of Afro-american music by white intellectuals). I do not enjoy listening to music for the sake of a brilliant solo. That solo has to deliver emotion. If it is technically breathtaking but does not deliver any emotion, that musician is not very interesting to me. There is a difference, in my opinion, between a juggler and an artist. If the playing is barely passable, but it delivers a lot of emotion, that musician is a genius."
>>62410448
I could've sworn he also changed Nowhere from 8/10 to a 7/10
>>62417739
it's insight for future reference. anyway, that would all be fine if he actually just focused on the emotional impact of the music. instead, he makes a terrible embarrassing attempt at seeming somewhat knowledgeable about the actual musicology of jazz, misleading many people in the process. it's downright harmful.
and don't think i don't totally agree with him, i do. i get into fights on here all the time with people who don't think kurt cobain was a great guitarist just because he had bad technique. he was an amazing guitarist.
the point is that he claims to be something and actively tries to be it while just seeming pretentious and knowledgeable. the writer of that jazz article i linked really summed it up the best: "Scaruffi uses technical terminology the way my seven-year-old daughter uses big words she doesn’t really understand; she throws them in there with more hope than certainty, because she wants to sound more grown-up. In her, it’s cute and I love it. In a grown man pretending to have things to say about music, I find it embarrassing."
>>62417870
un-knowledgeable* fuck
>>62410574
>>62410600
>>62410763
A bunch of annoying high schoolers ITT
>>62410653
>meme guitars
>>62417771
nope
>>62417870
He probably fears that the lay man might not take his writings seriously if he does not occasionally make bold statements on innovation. But I kind of agree with you. Scaruffi is a poet at heart and I wish he would stick to what he is best at by mainly underlining the emotional nature of a given work and stop feigning an expertise in musicology. His list of greatest albums are not the most technically impressive & innovative albums on purely musical terms. Nor are they they the most influential either (Sure, White Light/White Heat was enormously influential, but was Well Oiled any where near that influential?). Rather it is a list of albums that he personally finds the most powerful in terms of artistic expression and I really wish he would admit to it.
>>62410775
holy fucking kek
>>62418689
not true by the way
>>62418634
>His list of greatest albums are not the most technically impressive & innovative albums on purely musical terms.
The thing is there aren't exactly musical terms for things that rock/pop albums specialize in (textures, recording techniques, tape manipulations etc.) in the way that there are established terms to analyze classical and jazz. Most of the time there's no written recording of rock/pop to refer to, which also makes it difficult. So I think his list of greatest albums are probably the closest thing to the most technically impressive albums, but the only way to quantify their value compactly at his point in time is to describe their emotional impact.
I haven't read his jazz writings, but I'm sure their atrocious, lol. But are we sure that he considers himself a competent jazz writer? A lot of his website is just personal notes that he publishes. Maybe his bold statements are just things he actually believes, and he wants more knowledgeable people to tell him why they're wrong.
>>62417914
>likes Radiohead
>criticizes high schoolers
the fuk?
>>62419713
Whether or not The Good Son is a great work of art is anybody's guess, but the song structures themselves seem pretty basic. You could probably find albums that are rated lower that are more technically impressive. Scaruffi himself has admitted that he is more concerned with emotional depth of music than technique and his ratings often reflect that.
>>62410448
Why even give him attention you stupid fuckwit? He's the most irrelevant person in the industry and he could finally fade into complete irrelevance if people here just shut the fuck up about his stupid bullshit.
>>62420241
>butthurt Beatles fan
>>62410526
>Thinks hes a [profession in which a person gives their personal opinion on art], has a different opinion than me.
>>62413534
>Math Rock and Post-hardcore ever good
wew lad
>>62420200
Exactly, song structures in rock tend to be basic relative to classical. The Scarufficore albums convey emotion primarily through timbre and spatial awareness, which is difficult to write about quantitatively... I guess it's mostly semantics, but I would say Twin Infinitives is more "technical" than a typical tech death album.
>>62410653
what does gay have to do with it even
>>62422506
the guy from Husker Du is literally gay
>>62410507
Lift your skinny fists and f#a#infinity should be a 9 at least
>>62422687
By Scruffy standards a 7/10 is a 8-9/10.
>>62422624
yeah I know
>>62410653
accurate
>>62417739
> If the playing is barely passable, but it delivers a lot of emotion, that musician is a genius.
This is the most brilliant assertion of musicianship i think i have ever read.
