Does he actually not listen to albums entirely before reviewing

>>69937329
He says here that he rarely listens to an album more than once before rating it and sometimes will not even completely finish an album before giving it a rating.

https://radio.adelaide.edu.au/interview-with-piero-scaruffi/

>>69937366
Wow, what a hack, albums can't be digested like that.

He actually only heard Moonlight In Vermont on youtube autoplay

>>69937431
>nigger doesn't listen to music in highest of quality

>>69937389
Yeah, go to 16:25 in the interview and listen for about a minute. He says he will occasionally set an album aside to listen to "several times," but usually only listens once and sometimes will "get five songs in and refuse to waste his time with the last five."

>didn't click on the first listen oh well XD 0/5

scaruffi is so patrician he only needs a single listen to tell if an album is trash

>>69937882
lmao
comment of the century
10/10 I mad

http://www.scaruffi.com/cdreview/new.html

>As usual with Bowie, Blackstar (RCA, 2016), produced again by Tony Visconti,, is mostly image and very little about the music. The ten-minute Blackstar, that was supposed to be the centerpiece, is little more than a funereal litany a` la Doors with jazz horns that goes on five minutes too many. Bowie crooning melodramatic in Lazarus (from his Broadway musical about an alien who falls in love) or romantic in Dollar Days is either delirious and pathetic, certainly not entertaining. His tedious voice interferes with the driving jazz jam of 'Tis a Pity She Was a Whore and with the frenzied and tense Sue (a 2014 single). Even when the voice is not a distraction, the rest is hardly intriguing: I Can't Give Everything Away boasts an awful distorted guitar against syncopated beats and layers of electronic drones: not exactly genius. This is trivial "music" that any amateur could make, except that most amateurs would be ashamed to release it.

>Bowie died of cancer in january 2016.

>>69937940
Based Scaruffles

But honestly after decades and thousands of albums he can probably tell quick if an album will offer anything new or intriguing to him.

>>69938267
>He can tell if songs later on the album will offer something new to him because of how the first songs sound.

What about genre-hop albums? And also, I think it is just straight up disrespectful to give an artist criticism without even giving their music a fair shot. Many musicians will spend literal years toiling over their music before releasing it to the masses. Whether he enjoys it or not is completely up to him, but if he is going to give a "professional" review of it that will influence consumers, he should at least give it a fair opportunity. Are you telling me the music an artist dedicated years of their life to isn't worth the hour it takes to listen to it? He is a complete hack and shouldn't be reviewing music.

>>69938943
He literally said t's just his opinion. They're not supposed to have influence. But anyways ~20,000 albums and classical compositions so he probably has an ear for what's going to be worth listening to. Who cares about the artists dedication, if it's not good it's not good.

>>69939106
This is a gross opinion. Quantity does not equal a proper understanding of new music, especially if said person is aged.

>>69939106
>He literally said t's just his opinion. They're not supposed to have influence

His intention means nothing. He positions himself as a professional critic and therefore will have influence. If he thinks otherwise he is an ignorant idiot.

>he probably has an ear for what's going to be worth listening to

Correct, he can probably make an educated assumption. However, unless he actually listens to it, he cannot be sure. How can he rate albums he hasn't even heard? This is damaging because, as mentioned before, he does have influence (one needs only to browse this board to see that).

>Who cares about the artists dedication, if it's not good it's not good.

It is simply disrespectful to an artist to not listen to their music all the way through before releasing a potentially scathing review that could potentially have influence. I don't know how big of a drone you have to be to defend this reprehensible behavior. He is an absolute hack in every sense of the word.

>>69939252
It's not just quantity. He bothers to review thousands of works, sometimes with meticulous detail and deconstruction, and then builds his own canon to set standards. When he dislikes an album early on it's likely because it's doing something he's already heard done, and that work simply isn't going to stand the exemplary works he's heard before.

>>69939295
>His intention means nothing
Yes it does, he never claimns to be making an objective standard with is hobby, so it's up to you whether you take him 'professionally'. But in fact the main purpose of the critiques are to store memories of what he listened to, as he claims to have a bad memory.
>However, unless he actually listens to it, he cannot be sure. How can he rate albums he hasn't even heard?
He does listen to it, or at least a good amount. see >>69939336
And his influence on mu is almost entirely as a meme or a recommendation guy.

>>69937329
>I heard that on here a couple times

Well then it must be true. Everything people say on /mu/ is true, and people here all know him personally and know everything about how he reviews albums.

>>69939522

I can't believe you continue to defend this man.

>he never claimns to be making an objective standard with is hobby, so it's up to you whether you take him 'professionally'

This is the case for almost every critic to ever exist. Are you going to say no critic has influence? Fantano says at the end of every video that it's "just his opinion" but I can guarantee that many people's tastes are influenced by him, as is the same for literally any critic who is recognized by a group of people and puts their opinion in the open for people to see.

>But in fact the main purpose of the critiques are to store memories of what he listened to, as he claims to have a bad memory.

This is also irrelevant. As stated above, his intended purpose of his criticisms doesn't matter because he does have an influence on people.

>He does listen to it, or at least a good amount

See >>69937522

>When he dislikes an album early on it's likely because it's doing something he's already heard done, and that work simply isn't going to stand the exemplary works he's heard before.

Perhaps if an album has an underwhelming beginning then it can never be an exemplary classic, but he completely negates the opportunity for it to have a redemptive second half. On Black Flag's My War, the first half is more direct hardcore punk while the second half experiments and can be seen as a progenitor for sludge metal. While we don't know for certain, what if Scaruffi simply found the first half a boring retread of hardcore tropes and didn't listen to the innovative second half? His rating and criticism of the album would be incomplete. Since he does not let us know how much of an album was listened too before it was rated, we might as well consider all of his reviews as possibly incomplete or invalid.

>And his influence on mu is almost entirely as a meme or a recommendation guy.

There are many people on this board who have their tastes influenced by him, if you haven't seen them you are newfag.

Y'all know it's just his opinion right?

>>69937522
Artists fault for not having anything good in the first half of the record

It's ordering skills 101

>>69940389
Fuck off Fantano. Go and whine about being vegan some more.

>>69940449
See >>69939738 about My War by Black Flag

And also in music it's called sequencing not ordering lol

>>69937389
>>69937522

He doesn't review the ones he doesn't finish, idiots.

>>69940492
my war is poo all around

>>69941732
And you know this, how...?

>>69942145

because he said it on his site/in the interview as well.

>>69942714
where exactly?