Anthony Fantano

I miss reviews lower than 3

fuck off

Does anyone have the Cal and Anthony sex tape?

>>68999736
yes I have

>>68999705
no. get of this board, Fantano.

>>68999624
What's the purpose of the "Not Good" reviews? Why not just rate those albums numerically?

>>69000271
People like hearing bad reviews, that's just something every critic knows. He flags up the negative reviews so people can go through and only listen to negative reviews.

People love to think they are better or smarter than the general public and hearing some reason why something other people like is not good makes people feel like they are in a superior class, this only works if you really take fantano's word as objective truth

>>68999624
Fantano is just a guy who talks about music on the internet, I like being subscribed to him because he reviews a good selection of music across multiple genres, and it often makes me aware of albums that might have passed me by.

I take his reviews the way they are meant to be taken, as an OPINION piece.

the guy has taste but he's not 'infallible'. there are albums he has given lukewarm or even negative reviews that I really like, and I don't care one way or the other. its an opinion.

>>69000988
mostly its fun it watch someone take a steamy shit on someone's life work

>>68999624
The only issue with Fantano is that he presents himself as a reviewer and even gives scores, but his reviews aren't done objectively within a given criteria so none of it makes any sense.
Ultimately he's saying he likes things or doesn't like things and presenting his arbitrary metric he pulled out of his ass while repeatedly using the same buzzwords like 'timbres' and 'off-kilter' to describe everything. It's a vanity project, ultimately. A personal preference only holds weight to the person who has that preference so broadcasting it is pointless.

If he actually presented a criteria ahead of reviewing things and didn't just assign arbitrary numbers to things depending on how much he liked them then he'd be fine, but he's not.
He also is a long standing public figure on the internet but doesn't use the word 'meme' properly, which is always a nice way to announce "I've never researched anything".

He seems like a nice guy, though.

>>69001811
And his personal preferences are so scattered. It's hard to tell what he would like a lot of the time. I would be fine with him if he just presented what he liked but he is so forceful about his opinions. This new NOT GOOD segment is just further evidence of that. Also, I agree about his ratings at the end because it seems like a surrender every time, where he knows a lot of people just want the number so he slaps it on the end even though it truly tarnishes the entire review at times for me.

>He seems like a nice guy, though.
Have you followed him on Twitter? He constantly acts like a 14 year old.

>>69001949
You can be nice and shit at the same time, but for different reasons. Like, you could hang out with Fantano for 15 minutes and it'd be alright - he'd be pleasant.
Also, give him a little leeway since his probably getting pestered by autistic manchildren 24/7.

File: NOT GOOD.jpg (95KB, 618x616px)

95KB, 618x616px

>hey, honey?

>yeah?

>our marriage....is NOT GOOD

He's fucking great. I love his reviews he introduced me to great bands and records. Just like /mu/. I've always connected the two.

File: 45678976543.jpg (22KB, 316x455px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 316x455px

>>69002066
>I've always connected the two.

>>69002127
No, seriously.
Both /mu/ and Anthony have been my source of musical recomendations for a really long time>
Can you explain he deal wih Fantano?
Does /mu/ like him or not?

his reviews smack of post-hoc rationalization. very womanly

>>69002223
They love to hate on him and hate that they love him.

>>69000988
Wrong. The purpose of "Not Good" rating is that he doesn't have to put in the effort to assess whether some god awful album was a 1 or 2. Makes complete sense.

>>69001811
Wrong as well.
>A personal preference only holds weight to the person who has that preference so broadcasting it is pointless.
No it's not pointless. The point of reviewers is to wade through a lot of music so you don't have to. When you find a reviewer whose taste seems to more often than not align with your own preferences, it is convenient to "drone" that reviewer for easy discovery of new music. There is absolutely no need for objectivity in music reviewing.

File: swans tho.png (653KB, 876x573px) Image search: [Google]

653KB, 876x573px

>I ALSO LISTEN TO SWANS THO. IM CULTURED THO.

>>69003486
>The point of reviewers is to wade through a lot of music so you don't have to.
>There is absolutely no need for objectivity in music reviewing
No it's not, mate. A reviewer's job is to engage with and properly detail whatever it is they are reviewing so that it's quality can be established. If you can't approach it objectively then you can't review it. Calling a review your opinion is undermining the review and the entire point of there being reviews, and ratings, in the first place.

>When you find a reviewer whose taste seems to more often than not align with your own preferences, it is convenient to "drone" that reviewer for easy discovery of new music.
What you're looking for are recommendations, not reviews.
If his output was strictly announcing releases, giving an overview and then highlighting similar stuff so you could gauge whether or not it might interest you then it would be fine, but behind the pretense of a review it is fucking stupid, your whole argument was stupid.

>>69003559
Post ONE (1) example of a music review where the music is approached "objectively". Just one.

>>69003632
Go find one yourself. Why do you think that a youtube channel presenting opinion pieces as reviews without any criteria makes the entire point of reviewing change to benefit his jump-cut fiascos?

>>69003632
here you go
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/118084

>>69003700
Because I know for a fact you can't even find the kind of review you preach about. You attack him with an imaginary standard.

>it's not kendrick, Death grips or a Concept album

Feeling a light 7 to a strong 5 on this thing.

>>69003759
>proper analysis is imaginary
No, Fantano's wife, I didn't even attack him in the first place. I criticised him, objectively. I reviewed Fantano, properly analysing his output. I also said he seems nice, not sure that's an attack, if anything your comment just now is an attack on me and my credibility.

I work in a creative field, I see a lot of reviews, a lot of critiquing and a lot of people who actually know how to talk about things. You clearly aren't one of those people, otherwise I wouldn't have to write this post. If you want to find an actually review then go find one yourself, I'm not spoonfeeding you anything. I don't use music reviews because I only look at music for it's conceptual accomplishments (the general goal for pretty much all contemporary music, almost completely disregarded by Fantano in every review he makes). I can analyse that myself, I don't need to waste my time looking for someone else to do it and music isn't my area of work so it's not like I need to know all the names and people.

You know, it's generally best to know what you're arguing about before you aggressively oppose a point. It's also good to provide an explanation to support your random statements, especially when arguing against a post that contained an explanation.

Don't get so upset that the man who you treat as a living gospel was criticised, snowflake.

>>69003898
You are so full of shit actually, your entire post has no substance even, hahah. You won't "spoonfeed" me because you are incapable of showing even one such review. Thanks for the laughs, mate.

>>69003486
fuck off shill

>>69004428
I made a post, you argued against it without any actual points. It's up to you to provide an argument, I'm not providing it for you.
I don't know why publicly shitting the bed is something you enjoy doing, but don't attempt this idiocy outside of the safety of anonymity because you would be slaughtered if you tried to argue with sweeping statements in real life.
... Of course, you'd have to leave your house for that to matter and not leaving your house is probably how you developed your self-indulgent, ignorant to anything outside of what you assumed to be 'true' approach to discussion.
You bell-end.

fagtano is actually a pretty cool guy. talked with him at a vektor concert.

>>69004511
We had a differing opinion on what a review is supposed to do. To which you replied "No." That was your "argument". Then I asked you to procure a review that shows your imaginary type of reviewing exists (which it does not), and you keep dodging because we both know you are full of shit. I won't try to argue against your made-up type of reviewing. You should probably kill yourself, though.

>>69004728
>We had a differing opinion on what a review is supposed to do.
There's no 'opinion' on a definition. Something is what it is. You review something with respect to itself. If you present an opinion then you are presenting yourself and not the thing that is alleged to be the subject of the review. This is common sense.

>To which you replied "No." That was your "argument".
No. I made a post that was in effect a review of Fantano. You got upset about it and respond with empty statements. I contested those statements and you could not support them. This board is for discussion, music discussion specifically. To discuss music, you have to be able to understand that difference between a fact and an opinion; between objectivity and subjectivity. You evidently don't know how to discuss anything because you demand to be spoonfed, in effect asking someone to supply you with an argument because you don't know how to make one. That's not a discussion, that's babysitting an infant and I'm not doing that unless your parents pay me.

>I won't try to argue against your made-up type of reviewing.
Yeah, the only actual way to review something is made up (forgetting for a second that literally every single cultural thing ever is made up, retard) because you only know about youtubers.

>You should probably kill yourself, though.
So, in lieu of an argument you openly admit to be 15 years old. Alright, great.

If Fantano acted as an information channel he would be great; he could present new releases and do monthly 'my faves' videos and there'd be nothing to criticise him for. Unfortunately, he presents his preference as the scale of quality which is outright stupid.
Without the scores and without his detailed personal preference it's fine, but as it stands it's terrible.

I hate having to repeat myself, but I guess when you engage an idiot on the internet you have to.

>>69005113
>There's no 'opinion' on a definition. Something is what it is. You review something with respect to itself. If you present an opinion then you are presenting yourself and not the thing that is alleged to be the subject of the review. This is common sense.

Here, let me quote yourself

>Of course, you'd have to leave your house for that to matter and not leaving your house is probably how you developed your self-indulgent, ignorant to anything outside of what you assumed to be 'true' approach to discussion.

All I wanted was to see a review that treats music objectively. How would you criticise a bass riff objectively? I can't argue against something that to me seems completely impossible.

Once again, you are full of shit and that buttblasted wall of text once again had no substance at all.

I used to adore this guy when I was 16.
God, remember the times when Death Grips caused a shitstorm here.

>>69005207
>All I wanted was to see a review that treats music objectively.
Then go find one, I already explained that I don't subscribe to music criticism. Fucking learn to read.

>How would you criticise a bass riff objectively?
With a given criteria, as previously explained multiple times. A bass riff would be a weird finished product though and you review the whole, not the parts.
You obviously don't even know what objectivity means if you're asking that. You really aren't fit to discuss criticism.

>Once again, you are full of shit and that buttblasted wall of text once again had no substance at all.
Ironic, since I supplied information and went to the trouble of trying to break through the layers of millennial-entitlement that sees so many uninformed knobs wave around their assumptions like its news with one hand while desperately swatting away any correction made towards them.
Seriously, a little self-awareness would go an awful long way.

Here's an example, because unlike you I can actual fully develop a point and do so multiple times.
I like the new Darkthrone album. It is one of my favourite albums this year, so far. However, I understand that other albums that I don't like as much are actually substantially better than it because I'm not blinded by self-importance and can differentiate between a preference and a proper analysis.

>>69005318
>With a given criteria, as previously explained multiple times
You have never explained them. You cannot give one example of your imaginary objective reviewing.

The rest of your post, as per usual, was worthless drivel.

>>69005382
>>With a given criteria, as previously explained multiple times
>You have never explained them.
Alright, so you just can't speak English at all then.
"A given criteria" is on a per case basis. Are you seriously trying to argue about criticism with any knowledge of criticism and without any actual reading ability.. Of course you are, you're a 4chan drone who worships an eceleb who is wasting my time.

Objectivity refers to looking at [an object] and taking it for what it is. Looking at it with respect to itself. To properly review it you look at what it is and what it intends to communicate and assess how successful it is in doing it. That's it.
Subjectivity refers to looking at [an object] with respect to the viewer (you) and using it to analyse yourself - picking it apart with respect to what is in you as opposed to what is present in the object. This is not any logical way to review anything because it completely ignores the thing that is meant to be reviewed.

Fantano does the second one.

I expect a basic understanding of culture from someone engaging in a discussion on criticism so I was mistaken in thinking you weren't a complete retard who doesn't understand how understanding creative works operates on a board dedicated to discussing creative works.

I can't begin to understand how it is possible to be so stupid and so incapable of understanding basic ideas to the point you reject all of them to support a sweeping statement made in defense of a stranger whose youtube videos you worship. That's toxic as fuck.

>>69005509
So what would be the metric or metrics of quality for a bass riff? Can you come up with any? Music is subjective, and the only way to review it is by stating one's own personal preferences.

>intends to communicate and assess how successful it is in doing it
You cannot assess these objectively when it comes to music. I mean I would've loved to been proven wrong, even through the most simple example you can come up with. But you can't do that. The only thing you can do is run your mouth about me personally.

>>69005617
>Music is subjective
I literally just explained what subjectivity means. Nothing is subjective, because that wouldn't make sense. A perspective is subjective and only because you are looking at yourself through an object instead of at the object.
Stop making me repeat myself.

>So what would be the metric or metrics of quality for a bass riff?
If this bass riff is the finished product then it is looked at with respect to it's objective; what it intends to communicate. Like I already explained multiple times.
Stop making me repeat myself.

>You cannot assess these objectively when it comes to music.
Yes you can. Julia Holter's 'Loud City Song' is about representing the hustle and bustle of city life through music. She sought to capture the experience of the cold, loud, impersonable city through song and she achieved it. It's not hard to do this if you're in any way competent.

>The only thing you can do is run your mouth about me personally.
Yeah, ignoring every point I made while not posting anything at all besides statements and insults is definitely proof of the exact opposite of that, you're so right.

I practice art. I know how criticism works, it's pretty central to the job. Of course, any competent person understands it too, unfortunately competence is not something that you possess.

>>68999694
That's what not goods are for.