ITT: Times critics were very, very wrong.
http://www.scaruffi.com/music.html
>>65766018
>implying scaruffi was ever right
scaruffi is good for recs but that's it
>>65766600
>66600
>scaruffi is worse than the devil
>>65766600
>implying he was ever wrong
I bet you like The Beatles.
>>65766068
>>65766600
butthurt radiofags
>>65766068
>NMC Award For Music Taste
kek
>>65767164
>tfw no one here will get the NMC Award For Music Taste
>>65767018
What instrument do you and Scruffy play?
>>65766600
>implying he's ever wrong
>>65767318
I play violin and piano, I think Scaruffi used to play the guitar.
>>65767521
>I play violin and piano
Oh then you'd know that The Beatles were advanced compositionally?
>I think Scaruffi used to play the guitar.
Prove it.
>>65767404
The fact that...
>>65767654
>Oh then you'd know that The Beatles were advanced compositionally?
loool, no, just no.
I mean maybe for pop music, yes, but compared to classical music? or even jazz? no way.
>>65766600
trip-dubs confirm
Scaruffi is always wrong
>>65766600
>>65767733
>I mean maybe for pop music, yes, but compared to classical music? or even jazz?
Well seeming as Beatles songs were covered by orchestras and many jazz musicians...
>>65767018
>>65767112
I bet you're misinformation and ill-fed opinion fans.
Scaruffi was once asked about his reviews, and his reply? "It's just music, it makes me yawn" (paraphrase).
Can't you tell he's qualified to talk about music?
>>65767318
The skin flute.
>>65767733
>listening to only certain kinds of music because it's "better" than all other kinds of music
I'm lmaoing at ur life
>>65768086
Literally autistic pretentiousness in one post.
>>65768224
Ooops you meant to quote >>65767733 and >>65767018
Sorry about that!
>>65767654
>Oh then you'd know that The Beatles were advanced compositionally?
non-sequitur
>>65768555
How so?
>>65768250
You're right, I did mean to quote >>65767733
Sorry
