>The Doors >9/10 What did he mean by this?

>Led Zeppelin 1
>7.5

What the fuck was Scaruffi on


by this?

>>69300605
>>69300660
LZI could be higher i agree, doors are fine.

>Kid A
>6.5/10

what did he mean by this?

>>69300702
>implying no other band had done what The Doors was doing at the time

>>69300734
no one had done it as good

>>69300771
That's subjective, which Scaruffi prides himself on not being

>ITCOTKC
>only 8.5/10

Fucking Scaruffi doesn't know shit

>>69300605
He meant he will do anything to have a contrarian opinion.

I mean seriously, the fucking Doors in his top ten? Why?

>>69300923
""""""""""""""only"""""""""""""""

File: fuckingkids.jpg (14KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 450x300px

>>69300734
>>69300815
of course it's going to ultimately be subjective. how couldn't it be?

who else was doing what the doors did by the time of their debut s/t?

>>69301448
You do realise you can review music without being subjective right?

>>69300815
he said in the recent interview with that aussieanon that he tries to be objective, but it's not possible.

>>69301510
Read my comment again
It still means he's a bad reviewer regardless

>>69301510
Wrong.

One music creator can be factually more influential and unique than another

>>69300734
>>69300815
>>69301468
>>69301543
>>69301566
autistic samefag

calling it, guaranteeing it. laying down the gauntlet

>>69301566
neither influence nor uniqueness say anything about the quality of music.

>>69301620
Who's talking about the quality of music? I'm talking about about the fact that one musician can be more influential than unique another

>>69301618
t. butthurt Scaruffi fanboy

>>69301620
>implying reviewing music means you have to review the "quality" and not what you choose to review