I'm a bit confused /mu/, why does Scaruffi like AC/DC so much considering they didn't experiment or innovate anything?
>>65177079
who gives a fuck
Because they are good.
cock rock innovators
He literally explains it in that paragraph?
>>65177103
true but scaruffi usually judges music on how it experimented, is it because they didn't even pretend to be unique and just played catchy rock?
>heavy metal
scaruffi can't be right all the time. Classic rock radio killed acdc
>>65177126
this
>authentic
dropped
>>65177126
but the paragraph doesn't really line up with his view regarding rock music in general
He totally explains it, they were dumb rock music which is what rock is really about
>>65177176
while he does prefer rock that experiements with jazz/classical/experimentation, when it comes to bare bones rock music, they were the best at it.
>>65177238
nah, this is what I always hear intellectuals saying about rock music, trying to paint it as "oh yah it's dumb and I LIKE it!!"
no, rock music doesn't have to be shitty butt rock to be good or meaningful. not that AC/DC are bad (I personally don't like them) but I often see people who usually listen to stuff like Bach, Miles Davis, Faust and King Crimson turn around and talk about "dumb rawk, it's what rawk is supposed to be!"
>>65177132
>scaruffi usually judges music on how it experimented
Don't stereotype anyone or anything. Scaruffi is a human being and enjoys music first and only then makes up a reason/identifies why he enjoys it. Usually he enjoys experimental music, praises it for that reason, and ended up with the image of someone who only enjoys experimental. And yet he holds ACDC, Nirvana and Sex Pistols in high regard (because he enjoys them) even if those bands are unoriginal and simplistic as fuck.
>>65177372
>Sex Pistols
> a first wave punk band
>unoriginal
Nah, Scaruffi doesn't care about experimentation necessarily. His view of rock music is similar to Lester Bang's "true Rock n Roll" view of rock music.
So the idea of the music being raw and not watered down is the prime factor.
>>65177079
Probably their lusty negro attitudes
>>65177079
because he is the quintessential contrarian.
i bet he would argue that rock has gotten too pretentious and nickleback are good
>>65177544
This. Authenticity in a world infested of fake-ass "rock", a real musician is as rare as diamonds.
That's why TMR is his favorite album. That record is the embodiment of "I simply don't give the slightest fuck".
I don't know if you dumb underage libcucks understand, but ACDC invented good music. Hard to understand? Fuck off.
>>65178122
>scaruffi disregards acclaimed musician
>"contrarian!"
>scaruffi acclaims acclaimed musician
>"contrarian!"
>>65178134
nickelback is the exact kind of music he abhorres, you pleb
>>65177079
because scaruffi is a fucking pleb
>>65177176
you haven't read enough scruffy m8
he appreciates a lot of simple music
>>65177079
contrarian baiting faggot, he seems like the average /mu/ poster
>>65178622
>liking ACDC is contrarian
>>65177286
>rock music doesn't have to be shitty butt rock to be good or meaningful
No it doesn't. Why do you assume that "intellectuals" who say the enjoy "dumb" rock are saying this? Seems like you're a moron. Yes you might as well be fucking retarded
>>65177079
His ratings tell more than his reviews. The highest there is a 7, same as the Beatles. I've always thought of the Appetite of Destruction rating as weirder.
>>65177372
This, he gave Dookie a 7, which is actually good for his scoring system btw
>>65177079
>Rolling Stone gave a zero to several of their albums; the greates compliment ever paid to them.
Anyone who reads Scaruffi enough will realize he is terribly biased against mainstream music journalism like RS and P4k.
>>65179073
good the world has enough p4k drones
>>65179122
A bias is still a bias. An "ideal" reviewer shouldn't have his opinion influenced by others.
>>65179319
nobody is free of bias, no opinion is truly original. objectivity is a myth
>>65178692
I think you should take some reading classes, for the good of everybody around you
I'm saying that I see lots of pretentious art music loving assholes turn around and talk about how noble and good some generic hard rock bands are, which is amusing. I just think they're posing. Nothing else other than that. :^)
>>65177286
No, it's not that it's dumb. It's that it's smart in how brash, hardcore and off the fuckin' cuff it is.
>>65177412
they just ripped off the new york glam/proto-punk scene
>>65179459
Think what you want, faggot. I bet you listen to Taylor Swift , Alt-J and Chvrches and don't see anything wrong with that.
>>65177079
because Scaruffi is a fucking idiot. Reminder he reduced Radiohead's scores once they became popular. He's a contrarian hack who will compliment AC/DC because few others really do.
>>65180228
[citation needed]
>>65180789
OKC had an 8/10 initially.
>>65180228
>from 2000
Pablo Honey , 7/10
The Bends, 6/10
OK Computer, 6/10
>from 2002
Pablo Honey , 7/10
The Bends, 6/10
OK Computer, 6.5/10
Kid A, 6.5/10
Amnesiac, 7/10
>from 2004
Pablo Honey , 6.5/10
The Bends, 6/10
OK Computer, 7/10
Kid A, 6.5/10
Amnesiac, 7/10
Hail To The Thief (2003), 5.5/10
>now
Pablo Honey , 6.5/10
The Bends, 6/10
OK Computer, 7/10
Kid A, 6.5/10
Amnesiac, 7/10
Hail To The Thief (2003), 5/10
So Pablo Honey went down half a point and OK Computer went up 1 point. And then Hail to the Thief went down half a point. This all evens out into no changes at all, so you are wrong.
>>65180851
No it didn't.
