Reminder that Piero Scaruffi is NOT a critic.

even if he is he's a terrible one

He is. What he is not is a musician.

who cares?

he's the only one with the balls to speak out against the beatles, despite backlash from thousands upon thousands of beatles fans, he still keeps on going. he's truly an inspiration as opposed to people like fagtano, who just say what their fans wanna hear

>>69097564
By definition he is objectively not.

>This old article by Piero Scaruffi has won several international awards as the most professional analysis of the career of pop group the Beatles ever written.
I'm just curious, where are these "awards"?

says a lot about how professional the critic scene is when the best isn't one of them.

>>69097583
He is. Thought pieces and reviews are literature.

THE CRITIC IS THE REAL ARTIST

>>69097635
Every poster on /mu/ confirmed critics

>>69097605
that line just shows that Scaruffi is a pretentious autist who thinks his opinions are worth more than they really are

>>69097662
No as they do not do it professionally. They do not earn money from it.

>>69097684
Neither does Scaruffi.

>>69097791
Ok whatever you believe buddy.

>>69097605

maybe in his homecountry?

>>69097791

Scaruffi used to write on renowned italian music magazines. He also wrote books for legitimate publishing houses.

>>69098047
>Scaruffi used to write on renowned italian music magazines

Which ones? I'd like to read a couple of the articles.

>>69097578
OH yeah, i remember that one time where fans really liked the 10 he gave blank face

File: loooool.jpg (134KB, 888x1340px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 888x1340px

>I'm all for a history of rock and pop that doesn't just restate what's been said a thousand times by thousands of journalists and ethnomusicologists. But Piero Scaruffi's take on pop music is essentially a ball of (very often) contrarian opinion that passes itself off as fact.

>The author has clearly not studied music, and his contribution to the history of music is based upon whether or not he has a (non-musical) like or dislike of the musicians. We can get this silly stuff anywhere.

So Mark Prindle isn't a critic either?

>>69098077

He has been for a long time in the editorial staff of Rockerilla, one of the most important italian music magazines.
Then he wrote a 6-volume history of rock music for Arcana Edizioni.
At the time he wrote in italian only.

>>69098331
Is he paid for his opinions?

>>69097529
Of course he's not and everyone knows that, it's also prohibited to cite his 'reviews' on Wikipedia (Fantano's as well) because he's not a real critic. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#List_of_unreliable_sources_.28with_link_to_relevant_discussion.29

>>69097578
>he was the first critic to criticize the beatles

>>69097529
So a person's profession can't be the sole act of communicating an assessment and an opinion on works of art? Nowhere in that definition of 'critic' does it say that the person has to be a professional in the field of art of which he/she is critiquing artworks.

On further note, why oh why do I continue to take shitheads on /mu/ seriously?

bumpo

>>69099525
Just because they are self-published, so technically there is no authority over their content making sure they don't talk bullshit/giving them credibility.

Sure, someone for and old article that has won several international awards as the most professional analysis of the career of pop group the Beatles ever written is not a critic.

>>69102480
what awards? it seems like he just made that up