Scaruffi reviewed Cardiacs' albums. Sing to God got a

Why

>The closer, Foundling, finally slows down the tempo to intone a pathetic David Bowie-esque singalong but punctuated with magniloquent mellotron. If Wagner had orchestrated a Marx Brothers film maybe it would sound like this.

bowiefags BTFO

File: 1483637904133.png (102KB, 641x829px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 641x829px

This is awesome!
I knew it was going to be a 7.5!

>Each song is like two or three Lennon-McCartney songs in one, wrapped in multi-layered arrangements (Phil Spector to the square) and catapulted into pop heaven by punk energy.
Beatles and Spector fans BTFO!

>genre: genius
fuck, I love scaruffi <3

File: 1482201575535.jpg (7KB, 225x225px)

7KB, 225x225px

>Divers 6.5/10
>HYIMW 6/10

>>70140213
Kill yourself

>>70141572
Noo

>>70139184
I'm quite pleased desu
More people should know about Cardiacs

>>70139735
http://www.scaruffi.com/music/best.html

>Greatest musicians of Rock Music
>1972
>Male Singer: David Bowie

>>70141944
You are the one that hate The Dear Hunter right?

>>70142084
No, why?

Surprised he only gave it a 7.5 with how much he praised it, I guess he just hates rating pop music highly.

>>70143220

7.5 is in between "buy it eventually" and "buy it now". Seems appropriate enough.

>>70143220
7.5 is a great rating if you know how Scaruffi's ranking works. I think his rating is spot on, and I say this as someone who has that album as my personal favorite.

File: 0e9.jpg (24KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 499x499px

>>70140213
How do you know he even listened to the full album before he wrote that review though?

>>70144113
he said that he only doesn't listen to it in full if he dislikes it. presumably the 2-5 ratings may be subject to only a single listen, if that, whereas it follows that higher scores mean more listens.

>>70144113
He had already made a smaller review before the longer one. Also, it's not that difficult to listen to as much music as scaruffi.

File: 02f.jpg (34KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 655x527px

>>70144176
While he likely listened to the full thing, it is unlikely he listened more than once. He said he only sets specific albums aside to listen too more than once if the first few minutes really grab him.

>>70140213
God, I hate you

>>70144187
He has said before that while he will occasionally set an album aside for multiple listens, he usually only listens once and sometimes will "listen to the first five songs and refuse to listen to the last five."

He is just an irredeemable hack and the fact that anyone holds his opinion in high regard is ridiculous.

>>70144209
this would make his reviews all the more impressive.

File: 1483644074146s.jpg (2KB, 125x73px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x73px

>>70144258
>Listens to most albums only once and all of his reviews are basically nothing more than half baked first impressions unless they received 8.5+

>"more impressive"

What is the most impressive is your bait, my friend. Now take your (You) and run along

>>70144326
not saying his word is gospel, but his 7.5+ reviews are universally thoughtful and insightful. if he only needs a single listen to provide a valid interpretation of an album and place it into the broader context of human cultural history, well God bless him.

>>70144209
He did listen to StG at least twice, as there is no way he would have remembered all the song names and their details otherwise, because he had already made a smaller review years ago before this update.
Basically, you are fucking stupid.

>>70144219
Good.

>>70144249
Yeah, I'm not surprised about him doing it about sub-par albums. Why shouldn't he on the first place?

>>70144367
Good point.

>>70144367
>thoughtful and insightful

kek, do Scruffags actually believe this? most of the time he makes up a version of the song in his mind (likely because he remembers it poorly form his single listen) and then criticizes that. Alternately, he will call something a "psychodrama" and with no other explanation drop an 8 on an album. Also, he is far too nostalgic for the idea of a single artist as an auteur and will regularly bash albums for no other apparent reason (and no significant criticism) other than that it was worked on by many people.

>>70144411
>Basically, you are fucking stupid.

It's his words, not mine dude. You are merely hypothesizing about how many times he listened to the album when in actuality we have no idea. He himself has confirmed that he rarely listens more than once. Stop blindly defending a hack. Anyone who would go to such lengths to defend some critic needs to re-evaluate why they listen to music. Is it for validation from others, or for personal appreciation? Because the way you are behaving would suggest it is the former.

>>70144531
>most of the time he makes up a version of the song in his mind (likely because he remembers it poorly form his single listen) and then criticizes that
it looks like the only one pulling things out of their ass here is you. your latter point is fair, i'll admit, but his highly-scored albums are always given ample explication (thought unfortunately some of that has yet to be translated into english). do you actually read his reviews, or look at the scores and then get mad when they don't align with your views? i'll give you a tip, friend: the value of a critic does not lie in how often you agree with them.

>>70144411
>Yeah, I'm not surprised about him doing it about sub-par albums. Why shouldn't he on the first place?

Because it completely negates the possibility of a record having a redeeming second half. Take, for example, the album My War by Black Flag. While the first half is hardcore punk all the way, the second half experiments and was hugely influential for the sludge genre. If he had listened to the first half and thought it derivative and ceased listening, his rating would be skewed. We have no idea how many times this has happened and as such his entire rating system is fundamentally flawed because he gives us no indication of how much of an album was listened too before it was rated.

>>70144713
as far as i know he didn't go into this, but you have to wonder how often he actually only bothers with the first half. it seems reasonable to assume that's reserved for his bottom-of-the-barrel ratings, like late-period tangerine dream. not defending the practice, but if he only does it for a the handful of albums he gives a 2 or 3, it's hard for me to care that much.

>>70144657
My argument is not that his tastes do not align with mine, it is that he is a poor critic. While his high reviews receive some explanation (whether that explanation is good or not we can agree to disagree on), his poor reviews rarely receive any explanation. This is representational of a poor critic. He cannot even provide valid criticisms for an album he deems bad. He cannot describe why he believes an album to be poor. He simply slaps a 3 on it and writes maybe a few sentences. This is likely because these albums did not receive a fair chance, because he listened to it only once or less than once. How can you defend this? It is insulting to the artist who's work did not receive a fair chance, and doesn't provide a reasonable metric to people trying to understand his rating system, because we can never understand what he thinks makes an album bad. What differentiates in his mind, between a 3 and a 2? or a2 and a 4 even? we will never know because these albums are given arbitrary scores based on who knows what.

>>70144615
I stated my argument as to why he listened to Sing to God at least twice. Take it or leave it.
Also, fuck off with your pseudo psychology.

>>70144713
I'm pretty sure he skips the albums for already bad albums, not just inoffensive stuff. And if everybody is talking about how good this new album is then I would bet he would make the effort to listen to the full thing.
This is actually a pretty common thing you can see on RYMers where they almost automatically rate low obviously bad stuff.

>>70144838
>It is insulting to the artist who's work did not receive a fair chance
Git good then.

>doesn't provide a reasonable metric to people trying to understand his rating system
Lurk more.

I kind of agree with the rest except the "one listen" thing though.

File: 0045778698264.png.925x925_q90.jpg (187KB, 925x925px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 925x925px

>>70144851
>where they almost automatically rate low obviously bad stuff.
only sucks when that happens to GREAT albums, and it does.

>>70144838
i agree in principle, but if you look at his pages, it's often an artist's later work that receives his lowest scores and fewest sentences, and he usually described these works as derivative of their glory days. based on his ratings, most artists have at least one worthwhile release, which he gives a proper assessment. if he feels their later albums are derivative (or perhaps that their early albums contain mere traces of glory to come), how much detail is needed to posit that? furthermore, there's always going to be an arbitrary dimension to differentiating between ratings on a scale like this, and i recall scaruffi even saying that he views numerical scores as a formality to appease those who demand them in a music critique.

>>70144931
Sure, but that's not because they didn't listen to the full album already ;)

>>70144411

>t. pretentious asshole

Let's hope you don't talk to people IRL.

>>70144851
>I stated my argument as to why he listened to Sing to God at least twice. Take it or leave it.

Fair enough. I will concede, he likely listened to StG at least twice. Happy? That is merely one album of hundreds.

>I'm pretty sure he skips the albums for already bad albums, not just inoffensive stuff.

This is based on what evidence?

>This is actually a pretty common thing you can see on RYMers where they almost automatically rate low obviously bad stuff.

Then why is Scaruffi held in higher esteem than the average RYMer who has all the Brokencyde albums rated at 0.5?

>Git good then.

Not an argument. As a professional critic he should at least provide some professional curtesy to the artists whose work he is reviewing. If you made music I'm sure you would understand.

>Lurk more.

What?

He is a poor critic and his ratings should not be held in any significant esteem. By coming on this board and praising him with your "God I love Scaruffi" crap, you are contributing to the problem. The problem being, paying attention and giving relevance to a poor critic.

>>70145021
>As a professional critic
he's not a professional critic, though, and has stated that his site is largely just a way for him to catalog his thoughts in a centralized location. he just happens to have amassed a following of those who find his reviews eccentric yet intelligent.

>>70145021
>The problem being, paying attention and giving relevance to a poor critic.
a poor critic he may be, but he's an excellent meme, and i'd say more people than you think recognize that this is why he's liked or "liked" here

>As a professional critic he should
nah he should do whatever the fuck he wants

>>70145018
What the fuck are on about now?

>>70145021
>That is merely one album of hundreds.
Sure.

>This is based on what evidence?
No evidence really, it's what I would consider to be the neutral hypothesis, what everybody does and would need to hear an argument as to why would someone deviate from this norm.

>Then why is Scaruffi held in higher esteem than the average RYMer who has all the Brokencyde albums rated at 0.5?
I'm only saying it's natural behavior.

>Not an argument. As a professional critic he should at least provide some professional curtesy to the artists whose work he is reviewing. If you made music I'm sure you would understand.
There is not enough time for everybody, so git good and stop complaining.

>What?
You don't even know how his rating system works and it's on his homepage on music. Come on now...

>He is a poor critic
When it comes to reviews? Sure.

>his ratings should not be held in any significant esteem.
This is more controversial. His ratings are pretty special for deviating so much from the average rock critic.

>By coming on this board and praising him with your "God I love Scaruffi" crap, you are contributing to the problem.
Stop taking image board culture so seriously. I was only fun posting.

>The problem being, paying attention and giving relevance to a poor critic.
A poor reviewer, but a good source to discover new music. That's why he's so esteemed by many.

>>70144945
>if he feels their later albums are derivative (or perhaps that their early albums contain mere traces of glory to come), how much detail is needed to posit that?

perhaps even the most minimal amount of detail at all?

>Death Grips' lame No Love Deep Web (2012) continued the artistic decline of the project.

If you believe a critic can write a "review" like this and have his opinion still hold any water at all then I'm sorry but you are sorely mistaken. I'm not a Fantano drone and he has some severe flaws but even for albums he dislikes he will give some detail as to why. This already puts him leagues ahead of Scaruffi, who is literally next to Christgau as one of the worst critics to ever review music.

>>70144931
ISMFOF is fucking awful Kys

>>70145174
scaruffi's reviews are deliberately written in context with the rest of the artist's discography. on his death grips page he explains what he found virtuous about exmilitary, and why he felt the money store was a decline in quality. nldw, he posits, continues along the path he already described in money store. what's wrong with this method?

I hate Scaruffi drones so much

. Why do we need to have threads about this irrelevant meme critic every fucking day

>>70145142
Ok, I think I can see your point. Yes, I would agree that his ratings are at least unique and his writing is occasionally unintentionally humorous which is probably why he is a meme. It just pisses me off when people take him seriously because it is clear from multiple angles that his criticism is deeply flawed. Yes, he has some good obscure recs. Other than that, however, he has almost nothing worthwhile to say. I guess I just mistook your shitposting as Scaruffi worship and got triggered but it seems we agree on more than I thought.

>>70145214
but that's wrong (their soulja boy cover aside), and $c3n3 stuff is awesome. you probably think Attack Attack! isn't one of the best/most important bands of the 00s either

>this shit got higher than pet sounds and peppers

>>70145338
That's fine. I don't hear many (or any?) people praising his reviews. They just exist, and are kind of nice to read sometimes, such as this one
>Each song is like two or three Lennon-McCartney songs in one, wrapped in multi-layered arrangements (Phil Spector to the square) and catapulted into pop heaven by punk energy.
which could be useful to get some people to get into Cardiacs for example. Just little useful snippets, but nothing serious.

>>70145406
Pet Sounds should have been an 8, Peppers should have been a 6.

>>70145258
It is extremely reductive. There is about 45 minutes of music presented to him and the mere fact that he believes he can disregard it in a single sentence should tell you all you need to know about Scaruffi. The fact that drones like you find this even remotely acceptable baffles me. Anyone who has listened to both NLDW and TMS knows that they are significantly different both stylistically and thematically. This "criticism" is bellow undercooked.

>>70145435
>Scaruffi should write ten page long reviews for every album he rates or else he's a hack
Yeah, great.

>>70145432
They should both be 9s you tool

>>70145508
You've just defended Scaruffi's reductive "reviews" of music with a reductive assessment of my argument. The irony is almost palpable.

>>70145435
doesn't a reductive review seem fitting for (what is perceived to be) a derivative album? that's scaruffi's stance, anyway. christgau's, too, but even i think that guy is a hack. a funny hack with decent prose, but still a hack.
>anyone who challenges and/or disagrees with me is a drone!
i haven't listened to either in a while, but i certainly don't recall as drastic a stylistic difference as you're implying. in my mind, exmilitary was punk-y and aggressive, while nldw was colder and sparser, and the money store embodied a halfway point between the two. from where i'm standing, scaruffi seems spot-on in noting the direction the band moved, though i personally disagree with the artistic quality he attributes to this trajectory (i always preferred nldw to money store).

>>70145562
No, fuck off. Lurk more you faggot.

>>70145590
I'm not defending his reviews, I don't think they are particularly noteworthy.

>>70145596
>doesn't a reductive review seem fitting for (what is perceived to be) a derivative album?
I agree with this.

Cardiacs have a consistent as fuck discog
All of their albums are good
>The Seaside 5.5
But that's one of their best

>>70145562
>that meme reviewer and this random tripfag should hold the following opinion

>>70145590
that's not really irony. you're just not going to hold an opinion worth 10 pages on everything you listen to, you don't have the time in your life to go deeply into everything. so the question for scaruffi would be do i not mention it on my website at all or do i want to be comprehensive? it's not like you couldn't get an essay on nldw from everywhere else you looked either

>>70145671
Their real shit is on A Little Man, everything after that I find to be abysmal.
Why would anybody want to listen to Dirty Boy and Fiery Gun Hand

>>70145673
>more than one sentence = a 10 page essay
I didn't even know scaruffi drones could count to 10

>>70146781
XD

>>70145596
I still believe a reductive review is not appropriate for a piece of work that can take years of an artists life but if you do, that's fine. But how do you address the reviews/ratings that make basically zero sense? For Mayhem's De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas he describes it as "furious" and with no further explanation, gives it a 6.5. This is widely considered one of the best black metal records ever recorded and he gives it a one word description, along with an extremely brief history of the musicians that played on the record. Surely you cannot justify this?

>>70147480
i don't see why the amount of time it takes to produce an artwork should have any bearing on the length of the critique. as mentioned earlier, his stance on nldw seems totally valid when taken in conjunction with his writings on their other material. i fail to see how that mayhem review makes
>basically zero sense
it is a furious album indeed, though i will agree that this particular review does leave something to be desired. perhaps he feels that all it has to offer is its fury and historical importance as a pioneering album? not that i necessarily agree with it, but i don't see how it would be an invalid interpretation.