Scaruffi on "The Seer"

>>71170220
Holy fuck he actually called them "the Swans"

giving in to the post rock label, hiding lack of ideas behind drones, pandering to the indie community

>>71170220
He didn't. Newer Swans is very much a different take on the exactly same style of music that Swans have always done. Yet there are fans that are irrationally mad for idk what reason. It's not like the new stuff is that easy to digest compared to their 90s stuff.

>>71170220
Why doesn't he shit on any of their more accessible, straight-up folk rock albums or their gothic phase?

>>71170220
People ITT are going to be salty because they like The Seer, but Scaruffi is exactly right on this one.

>>71170220
The Seer is the logical continuation of Swans after Soundtracks.
The old faggot wants to be contrarian. Look at his review of To Be Kind, he struggles greatly to justify his dislike. It's gonna be hilarious when he actually reviews The Glowing Man considering all the reasons he ""disliked"" The Seer and To Be Kind were because "they're not scawwwy enough".

TLDR: Scaruffi believes Pablo Honey is equal in quality to Kid A and The Glow pt. 2

>>71170334
That's okay to say, but why do you and Scaruffi think that?

>>71170338
>Scaruffi believes Pablo Honey is equal in quality to Kid A and The Glow pt. 2
that actually hurts a bit

>>71170329
Because he's a shameless contrarian that forms a large portion of his opinions on music on nothing other than the desire to go against the grain.

>>71170334
He's really not.
You're probably comparing The Seer to the rest of Swans discography when it's not trying to be like any of their other albums.

>>71170288
>hiding lack of ideas behind drones

Good joke, the last three Swans albums have been relatively operatic in scope in terms of content in comparison to their early work which often intentionally focused around a single simplistic riff for 10 minutes at a time.

When I heard The Seer, I thought it was amazing. Two albums later, and it feels like I could probably draw up something like The Seer in a week. The Seer, TBK, and Glowing Man may as well be one giant album called "We can take 5 minutes of ideas and make 5 hours of music".

It's pretty good, but it follows this very predictable formula, and once you realize it's all tortilla with cheese, meat, and vegetables, the interest starts to disappear. And I say this as a modern Swans/TexMex fan.

>>71170405
Jesus Christ it's the goddamn 21st century and people still haven't caught up to innovations in musical perceptions. At least normies have a reason as they aren't too committed to the musical medium. You don't.

What album, if any, does scaruffi agree with popular critics on?

>>71170405
yikes

>>71170405
>I could probably draw up something like The Seer in a week

yeah totally dude and I can write a chart-topping no. 1 pop song because haha jst four chords and a nursery rhyme melody right

>>71170400
most of their older songs werent even ten minutes long though. Sure they may be more operatic but dramatic storytelling really didnt sound like the aim of something like filth or children of god and clocking in at 30 minutes a song doesnt make it inherently more ambitious.

>>71170405
If anyone could've made albums like The Seer and To Be Kind, it's strange that no one did.

>>71170480
TVU&N
The Doors
TMR
Blonde On Blonde
Astral Weeks
Loveless
Spiderland

>>71170480
Have you even looked at his top list?

>>71170480
The Doors

>swans
DUDE REPETITION LMAO SO DEEP

>>71170543
>>71170550
let me rephrase: what recent albums, if any, does he agree with critics on

>>71170543
>6/8 from his youth
>2/8 created genres
Hmm, really makes you think

>>71170439
he explained pretty thoroughly why its not as huge of a feat as new swans fans hail it as. I dont get what youre criticizing.
>>71170483
promotion and exposure are just as important to pop music as simplicity and familiarity

>>71170541
How is it strange, you are implying others would want to make it, which implies it has some sort of value. But it doesn't. You just think it does because you bought the hype like a good little indie consumer.

>>71170572
Get off the board, kid.

>>71170502
no track on filth comes even close to the seer in terms of compositional complexity, they are all blatantly more ambitious songs

>>71170220
you literally can't prove him wrong

>>71170577
>created genres
thats funny i dont know which ones you could be talking about

>>71170600
Tell me how I'm wrong, modern Swans is literally repetition for about 4 minutes, then a slight change (whoa so dramatic) and more repetition for another 4 minutes, till you have a 12 minute songs, and this is repeated over a period of two fucking hours.

>>71170575
Joanna Newsom, Nicolas Jaar, Danny Brown, Shaking the Habitual, Julia Holter, the Archandroid, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, etc etc

>>71170597
You do realize how stupid it is for you to even respond? What you just typed is literal trash. Read back your paragraph and genuinely think about what you typed.

>>71170502
Focusing more on getting more out of the overtones is for sure more ambitious though. Something like that requires a lot of conventional forms of repetition. It's kinda what Glenn Branca was trying to achieve but with a more colorful palette of timbres and also being heavier.

>>71170588
Not sure if you're talking about that anon or Scaurffi. But in the case of Scaruffi, yeah he mentions that Branca and Sonic Youth have done this style as well. That being said, it's different in the case of modern era Swans where it's not just the electric guitars anymore. There's a far larger variety of colorful sounds that Swans work with, and their work is also at the same time very heavy. They are literally taking how there was a variety of sounds on SFTB and combining it with Branca/Youth.

>>71170405
>it feels like I could probably draw up something like The Seer in a week

ok do it then buckaroo

>>71170642
DAMN you Swans/critic drones get quite defensive over their terrible infinite loop garbage.

>>71170220
read his full review and scaruffi will explain exactly why he feels that way. ultimately i disagree, but scaruffi's interpretation of later swans is by no means invalid.

>>71170620
youre basing that on sheer length though, structural composition aside, filth takes "unmusical" sounds and appropriates them into music thats almost even catchy at times. there may not be ten minute long passages transitioning into a climax but who the fuck would even press/release that from a brand new punk band

>>71170625
You can't prove him right either

>>71170629
And old Swans is literally repetition for four to eight minutes (whoa so dramatic) and then the song ends and more repetition for four to eight minutes till you have an album.

The point being, why pretend you like old Swans if you don't like new Swans? Repetition is an important part of their music. It's their schtick. Complaining about "modern Swans" being repetitive is fucking retarded. From day one they were doing this.

>>71170685
Oh, good boy :)
Have you ever considered ending yourself? Ending your life that is. The easiest way for someone young like you would be to jump from a large height.

>>71170687
I understand his opinion completely, but I still don't understand why he thinks he sold out

>>71170480
he praises all sorts of mega popular acts. off the top of my head: metallica, bob dylan, the doors, bruce springsteen, acdc, sex pistols, rolling stones, van morrison. he even has a few kind words for jimmy buffett.

>>71170732
>all from his youth
Wow, my noggin sure is a joggin

>>71170757
>mega popular acts are those that have stood the test of time
really craggles my cranium

>>71170705
Who said I like old Swans? I haven't listened to them.

>>71170757
Whoa it's almost as though music might have been better back then

>>71170769
>>71170778
>it's almost like music was better when the critic I follow was a kid
>popular bands that people Scaruffi's age still love
Wow, really trains the brain

>>71170676
i think that sounds cool in theory but honestly old swans seemed like getting more sounds out of less resources while new swans can drag in a gong, gamelan, harp and steel guitar but the song still seems to go into the same safe territory and just builds a wall of sound instead of evoking unfamiliar timbres and textures. they got so obsessed with deconstructing rock/pop that it just became loud moments and soft moments for the most part

>>71170778
URANAL

>>71170808
as >>71170638 demonstrates, he still lauds recent work that garners critical buzz. my only point is that for a work to qualify as mega popular it literally has to be old, or it may well just be a passing fad.

>>71170597
Scaruffi go away

>>71170808
What are you even trying to say?

>>71170266
reminder that he's french, he doesn't speak/write great english. explains a lot of his reviewing style desu

>>71170905
>explains a lot of his reviewing style
yeah hes too busy eating baguettes to listen to the music properly

>>71170905
isn't he italian?

>>71170729
fair point actually, the connection between the negative qualities he finds on the album and the band having sold out doesn't seem very clear. i guess he's implying that gira somehow knew the musical style of the seer would be met with such warm reception by p4k and their ilk, but again that really does seem a stretch. ultimately i'm not so concerned with the acerbic closing sentence of a review, certainly much less concerned with that than the preceding paragraphs, even if i might disagree with them. it is kind of a silly line, but whatever, i think scaruffi has justified his distaste well enough and that's all i really care about.

>>71170220
swans were not great before the comeback, with the exception of children of god and and their 90s work. the comeback albums are far more musical, different enough that they can't be compared directly with, say, filth, and far too out there to really be considered a sellout. their relationship/cooperation with pitchfork could be described as such, but describing the actual music as a "sellout" is lazy and inaccurate.

>>71170338
>The Seer is the logical continuation of Swans after Soundtracks.
I really don't see the similarities, at all. in fact they're complete opposites. the seer feels like a 2 hour meditation on an idea. soundtracks is a 2 hour compilation of jumbled ideas. not that that's a bad thing

>>71170220
I mean, having Karen O in your album is a pretty big red flag.
Gira is just ripping-off Branca but removing everything that makes Branca's work so amazing

>>71170821
>old swans seemed like getting more sounds out of less resources while new swans can drag in a gong, gamelan, harp and steel guitar but the song still seems to go into the same safe territory and just builds a wall of sound instead of evoking unfamiliar timbres and textures.
That's because their stuff like SFTB was more an attempt at variety of sounds. Such a thing isn't the aim of newer Swans stuff although it's definitely there.

Newer Swans takes inspiration from their more colorful sounds around SFTB time, takes the idea of relentless heaviness from their early days, and then adds in the Branca/Sonic Youth influence. Like a lot of Branca and Sonic Youth's music, on a surface level particularly from the perspective of melody and harmony it sounds like they are playing the exact same shit. But beyond the surface level is when one starts to hear the overtones they were trying to reach for. To be able to do something like this, there needs to be a lot of repetition, walls of sounds, and a high enough volume to capture it all. Not to mention that the records aren't even just loud/soft moments, rather they are akin to minimalist inspired works that constantly switch different sounds in and out. A person who browses /bleep/ might actually have a far easier time digesting this style of song structure than someone who's more used to just listening to rock music. I know I used to have a tougher time understanding music with subtle additions/changes like this for a while and used to think even lauded /bleep/ legends were overrated trash. It's a completely different change in perspective in terms of what to look for musically.

The ultimate result is achieving a psychoacoustic effect similar to minimalist classical composer Charlemagne Palestine (his work Strumming Music is a good start to understanding harmonic overtones, and Gira has even collabed with him.)

>>71170985
Yeah, I respect his opinion. But Swans selling out is completely wrong

>>71170483
you literally can

>>71170905
he's actually italian and largely influenced by marxist theories of art

>>71171163
that's right anon. you can do anything if you set your mind to it :)

>>71171163
If you want it to top the charts you should suck some producer's dick, quite literally

>>71170905
doesn't explain his shit taste unfortunately

>>71170985
>explains bits and pieces of the record
>says they did nothing original citing Branca and Youth when neither approached the music in this manner
>says it sounds nothing like Swans when it still does the heavy relentless repetition of their earlier stuff while also having that pseudo-spiritual gothic feel of their post-COG work
>makes baseless accusations about the The Seer being some kind of P4K bait when the band has never cared about this stuff, and the claim makes even less sense with how ostracized that band got post-rape accusation
There are things that can be objectively proven wrong in his review of The Seer. I don't even care that if he does or doesn't like the record, but to continually claim that everything he said is justified is ridiculous. His writing's full of contradictions as usual.

>>71171095
want to reiterate my agreement with you on that. i do love scaruffi but he can really get ahead of himself sometimes.

>>71171198
the point was writing it, not achieving the same level of success. no one is disputing that there's more to the music industry than songwriting, in fact that's kind of the point the original guy was making - that it's quite easy to write songs like swans and it's the dressing that has made them successful (I disagree completely fwiw)

>>71170220
didnt care for it myself tbqh fam3.14

SFTB>>>>>>>>>the rest

>>71171247
which is why he's so entertaining there's no other critic with such hot takes

>>71171244
his main issues with the seer seems to be that there's a relative dearth ideas (especially relative to its length) and that these ideas are indebted to musicians like branca and sonic youth. i really don't understand how anyone can dispute these two assertions, even if you ultimately disagree, like i do, with his conclusion that they make the seer a bad record.

>there are still people who are't aware that scaruffi is just some anon using a random old man's facebook photos and writing intentionally shitty reviews just to trigger /mu/

>>71171247
I hate Scaruffi because he contradicts himself for attention, makes purposely callous statements with no reasoning behind them, always shoehorns his autistic Beatles rants whenever he can.

He also strokes his own ego and bombasts his achievements without evidence (he literally made up an award for himself, "best music taste"). Lastly (not music related), he's a creepy fuck saying pedophilic things, and keeping a gigantic picture log of his people/friends ("friends of piero"). Most of them look unaware that the picture is being taken.

It's gotten to the point where I honestly believe it's all an elaborate joke by a person or a group of people.

>>71171163
you're a fucking moron dude

>>71171303
>relative dearth ideas (especially relative to its length)
Song lengths ranging from 1.5 minutes to 32 minutes, the structures of the tracks based on their time, the army of guests that show up to either do vocals or instruments, the variety of sounds that lead to each track sounding different. It makes even less sense when he goes onto describe the differences in each track, and that comparatively he has also given a record with a similar style though not as ambitious a 7/10 (330,003 Crossdressers From Beyond the Rig Veda)

>and that these ideas are indebted to musicians like branca and sonic youth
Most of Branca and Sonic Youth's experimentation with this style was limited to mostly electric guitars though. Swans go far beyond just the electric guitars on this record and their other newer ones.

>>71171434
He may be a ridiculous old fart, but at least I discovered many great music thanks to him.

>>71170338
>pablo honey equal to Kid A

he's not wrong, if you want a good version of Kid A listen to amnesiac

>the glow pt. 2

muh whiny indie band

>>71171499
Well that's great, but I cannot respect him as a music critic for any reason. He doesn't even listen to most albums more than once, or even finish them.

He refutes this by saying, "If you listen to an album over and over again, you'll love every album you've ever heard." Which one, is not true. Secondly, that's ridiculous to say that he has to listen to an album several times, but you can gain a new perspective or opinion on an album after at least 2 or 3 listens. Are you telling me that he listened to Trout Mask Replica one time and thought it was a 9.5? It's extremely likely that he didn't and I think he's a joke of a music critic.

>>71171434
>keeping a gigantic picture log of his people/friends ("friends of piero").
http://www.scaruffi.com/friends/

holy fuck you werent kidding. im convinced this guy is autistic. that's the only explanation for this compulsion to categorize literally everything.

>>71171434
none of this is (true, by the way). scaruffi always adequately defends his views and probably has the most consistent methodology for determining the merit of an album of all rock critics.

>>71171463
yes, there's variety in song length and an army of guests and etc but i have to agree with >>71171001 that the bigger picture seems like an extended meditation on a single idea. which i thought was gloriously transcendent, as if they were exploring every possible dimension to that idea to show just how much it can encompass and accomplish, but it's a single idea nonetheless.

swans do go beyond electric guitar, but the sound is still indebted to their style. for him that's not enough, i guess. for me it is.

>>71171598
What did I say that wasn't true?
>>71171591
It's genuinely bizarre to look at those pictures, most of them are unaware that he even took them. Like, did he get their consent of posting those pictures, for the entire internet to look at?

>>71171576
>He doesn't even listen to most albums more than once, or even finish them.
you're misconstruing his words. he said that he only ever fails to finish an album if it's egregiously awful (so probably about a 2 or 3 on his scale) and that he generally only gives works a single listen, which seems to imply that his highest ranking albums go through at least another relisten, probably several for his 9s. and at the end of the day, who gives a shit about the amount of times he's listened to an album if he can walk away from that experience with insightful commentary and an ability to connect it to broader fields of human expression?

>>71170905
>reminder that he's french
he's a guido

>>71171650
that he doesn't defend his views or that he contradicts himself.

>>71171598
>that the bigger picture seems like an extended meditation on a single idea
So...like Beefheart on Trout Mask Replica? The Doors on their self titled? That Sun City Girls album I mentioned earlier? Practically most of his highly rated records minus some exceptions like Uncle Meat or Faust I enter this category. Before you bring up song lengths again, what Swans were trying to do requires more time to pull off.

>but the sound is still indebted to their style.
Like Beefheart is indebted to blues and jazz. Faust to rock n roll and musique concrete. Etc.

Like none of these are valid. If he had consistency over his reviews, yeah sure it would make sense. But there is no such consistency. And that's the real problem here, and always the problem with the guy outside him citing things that can be proven to be objectively false (like in the beatles critique).

It's kinda baffling I am even having this discussion considering that he's only meme status here for a reason.

the seer is the best swans album

>>71171654
>insightful commentary and an ability to connect it to broader fields of human expression

Whatever you say, I don't agree with it in the slightest. I can't truly listen to a critic that only listens to albums once. It's my personal opinion, but I think there are more things to gain out of albums than the first listen

>>71171033
its not that i dont hear the change in dynamics and the subtle addition of textures in a chaotic mix, i get that theres stuff going on but it doesnt seem like much more enjoyable than the average crescendocore band when its mostly volume dynamics and a few layers of bells and feedback that drives the song forward. I admit thats an interesting approach to writing music but the product itself just feels samey especially compared to the ascension or bad moon rising/confusion is sex. abandoning melody to focus on presence is a cool idea but it leaves a void to be filled especially for songs that pass that ten minute mark, personally i dont think the seer and co fill that void besides a few nice moments. Its funny that gira can make really inspired music out of acoustic instruments in aol or tape recordings on sftb or just untuned instruments and improv percussion but once he has everything at his disposal, he just tries to throw it all together in the loudest way possible instead of really laying out an idea for how it should sound

>>71171667
I worded that poorly of defending his views, I intended to say that he basically says brash things without seeming any forethought (in my opinion). He poorly defends himself if anything. On the contradiction bit, he has absolutely contradicted himself in the past, just look at his bjork reviews.

>>71171687
well yes, all music ultimately deals with a limited set of ideas and is indebted to certain styles. discussions of merit and originality and etc are thus about degrees. scaruffi contends that the seer had few ideas, and, perhaps most importantly, these ideas were mostly derivative of other acts. he clearly disagrees when it comes to all of those other albums you mentioned, especially about the latter point.

also categories like 'blues,' 'jazz,' 'rock n roll,' and 'musique concrete' are far more expansive than individual acts like branca and sonic youth.

>>71171734
you can listen to whichever critics you want to listen to, but to me, the idea that the paramount value of a critic lies in the amount of times they've listened to an album, rather than what they have to say about the album, is ridiculous. are you telling me that if you came across a review of an album that articulated its virtues and vices in a way 100% agreeable to you, but found out it was written after only a single listen, you would disregard it?

>>71171434
almost all of these things can vaguely describe your average /mu/ poster
>>71171734
i think how attentively and actively you listen is more important than how many times you listen but i do agree that most people wont absorb a lot of whats going on just listening how they normally do

>>71171795
he's certainly bold in his style, can't disagree with that. but that's one of the things i appreciate about him; would you really prefer a meek critic who has to constantly equivocate in his views? i don't really think he poorly defends himself either. his reviews for low-scored albums tend to be a bit lacking, but if you read his 8+ reviews they're universally thoughtful, provided they've been translated. what about his bjork review do you find contradictory?

>>71171734
the three b's of scaruffi that constitute his appeal

brevity - stays succinct; doesnt analyze lyrics
boldness - doesn't hesitate to pan popular albums
breadth - i cant think of another critic who's reviewed as much music

>>71171852
I never once said that the times a critic listens to an album is more important to what they say, but that makes me highly skeptical of what they say since they are analyzing the album, what it does well, what it does poorly, how unique it is, what it is influenced by, what it influences, etc... I'm saying you can understand or have a more justified opinion about an album with more than one listen.

If a music critic "articulated an album's virtues and vices in a way 100% agreeable to me. But they say they have listened to it once." Then sure, I would regard it. But I have yet to see that, therefore I don't but it. It's purely hypothetical.

>>71171893
I don't listen to what people have to say on /mu/. Listen, what they say is more important than how many times they listen to it, in my opinion, I am highly skeptical because you can get a more justified opinion and analysis of an album out of more than one listen.

>>71171952
all of which is your prerogative, then. i'm going to agree with >>71171893 that a single attentive and active listen always beats multiple passive listens, and contend that even if scaruffi does mostly only bother with single listens, his writings reflect that they've been attentive/active.

apologies if i misconstrued your views; i'm drunk and a bit prone to hysterics in this state.

>>71171942
That's another aspect of Scaruffi that I'm skeptical of, how has he listened to like thousands of albums, watched thousands of movies, read thousands of books, traveled the world, wrote essays/novels, write the reviews, worked his software job etc...? I get that he's old, but there's an element of disbelief

>>71171782
It doesn't SEEM like it to you. That's your prerogative bruh. No other crescendo core band for one has as many sounds come in through a track as Swans do (this can be quantified) Nor do they ever try to achieve harmonic overtones like newer Swans does.

>just feels samey especially compared to the ascension
Again, most tracks when all layers come in have far more individual parts than The Ascension, and the album achieves a higher variety of harmonic overtones than The Ascension since it's not just electric guitars. Same with early Sonic Youth but with an even larger gap.

Seriously just sounds like you didn't pick up on what newer Swans was trying to do.

ITT: nu-males

>>71172018
in his own words, his movie scores are based on the views of his favorite critics. he probably only watches the highest rated ones, which makes his media-consumption habits seem a bit more reasonable.

>>71172007
That's completely fine since that is subjective, but I consider a more analytical approach to music criticism instead of first impression. I can't think of the number of albums on my hand that I initially hated, then grew to enjoy after two or three listens, and vice versa. There's many aspects to consider about music too.

>>71171806
>reminiscent of Erik Satie
>equivalent of the Fantasia in Schumann's career
> the orchestral chaos of Charles Ives and the audacity of John Cage
>the frenetic geometry of Ornette Coleman
>The Delta blues inspires three of the great masterpieces of the album
All for Trout Mask Replica. I gave the benefit of the doubt of expansive examples. He's the one who gives these.

>scaruffi contends that the seer had few ideas, and, perhaps most importantly, these ideas were mostly derivative of other acts.
By what measurement? If he's giving albums just as long with less variety in structure, styles, and sounds, then it doesn't really work out does it?

>he clearly disagrees when it comes to all of those other albums you mentioned, especially about the latter point.
No shit he would. That doesn't mean that his written explanations make sense.

>>71172051
I find that silly, but whatever. He's only doing his thing for himself, to organize his life and his own experience with art consumption. He has his goddamn family tree on his site

>>71170937
I don't blame him I do like baguettes

>>71172056
totally agreed when it comes to my own personal thoughts about an album; i'm hesitant to make any definitive claims until i've given something several listens (though i notice that i'm much more confident in my analysis of novels and films after single engagement; wonder why that is?). but ultimately i find immense value in scaruffi's reviews even if they are first impressions. the idea that they may largely be first impressions actually makes his output all the more impressive to me.

>>71172106
Sounds like you're easily impressed then. Most of it is babble, a lot of repetition, and a lot of just wrong observations. He's quantity>quality when it comes to his "music reviews".

>>71172066
your examples of trout mask replica's antecedents are significantly more varied than the seer's antecedents. to synthesize those seems a lot more impressive than to synthesize sonic youth and glenn branca, no?

by the measurement of his understanding of music, i guess? no one said this is an exact science. but still, by your own implicit admission with regard to tmr's influences, it seems easier to make the case that it is a more 'aesthetically significant' album than the seer.

>>71172106
>immense value
>first impressions

That sounds like a contradiction

>>71172122
seems to me that you're butthurt he denigrated some of your favorite acts, but whatever. if you really don't think his analysis of beefheart or springsteen has any merit, you can continue doing so and it won't impede my life or understanding of art in any way.

>>71172171
how so? the implication that the process matters more than the final product strikes me as bizarre. if bach composed his brandenberg concertos in a single one-hour session that wouldn't detract from their value, would it?

>>71172190
But he listens to the albums he likes more than once? Of course it's going to be a good analysis because he gives it more than one listen. Once again, did he base his "Trout Mask Replica" review on first listen or first impression? That would be amazing for an album he considers the best rock album of all time.

>>71172020
>Seriously just sounds like you didn't pick up on what newer Swans was trying to do.
quantity over quality? i mean give any post rock band a bunch of instruments, a big ass studio and an understanding of harmonics and amplification and they would go for the same goal probably

>>71172215
The difference between me and you is that you actually find immense value and like what he says. I don't, not because he listened to an album only once, it's because I don't find strong justification in what he says (my opinion).

>>71172190
Nah, even records I love that he has reviewed very highly (The Modern Dance, Fare Forward Voyagers, Y, Double Nickels) have pretty shallow, bloated and pretentious words attached to them as well. Anyone who gives Scaruffi any legitimate merit is probably new to the guy/new to /mu/ as well. I initially fell in love with him when I first came on /mu/ and his copypastas were posted here. Now I just laugh at the guy.

>>71172227
okay, fair point. at the same time, there's something to be said that after a single listen he's able to hone in on particularly impressive works for further evaluation. but even so, i find that his reviews for albums with more mid-ranged scores are nonetheless valid interpretations appropriately connected to their musical, and even extra-musical, predecessors. if that makes me easily impressed, so be it; i'll still find insightful commentary in scaruffi's opinions and that's enough for me to continue reading him.

>>71172161
>your examples of trout mask replica's antecedents are significantly more varied than the seer's antecedents
Not really. The examples of TMR's antecedents can be reduced to "surreal post-modern atmosphere", "chaos in music", and the blues.

He compares The Seer to Branca/Youth's take on overtones through lots of sound, free jazz chaos, Pink Floyd-esque builds, hard rock music akin to Zeppelin and Fleetwood Mac, and The Doors' take on jazzy blues stuff.

Chaotic (free jazz/some classical) + The Blues<<<<<<Builds ups/breakdowns + chaotic free jazz bits + microtones and overtones + blues/hard rock

Which one seems more impressive I would leave up to an individual person. To me the latter is far more impressive due to what it has achieved in the time period it has been done in (doing blues + free jazz during a time period when both genres are flourishing vs somehow becoming a bastion of good rock music in a time when nobody's able to release good stuff in that realm.) It was far easier to make good popular music in a time when most of the ideas were unexplored compared to now when a lot more of the ideas have been explored so figuring out where to go next takes more skill.

>it is a more 'aesthetically significant'
Maybe so, but aesthetics isn't all that counts for music, for me even less the more I listen to music as I try to look for the minor subtleties that make something timeless as opposed to its surface level qualities that can only be judged through particular contexts that aren't all that important.

>>71172251
your prerogative, then. it seems we're at a crossroads here.

>>71172285
admittedly i haven't heard y, and his minutemen reviews in english seem mere shadows of their italian counterpart (of which i am not fluent), but you really don't find any value in his commentary on the post-industrial anomie reflected in modern dance, or the odyssean, meditative, and expansive, east-meets-west vibe of fare forward voyages?

>>71172230
Godspeed has an even larger default team of musicians along with a better studio as they are more well known to be able to attain that and they certainly don't make their music as layered as Swans.

>an understanding of harmonics and amplification and they would go for the same goal probably
This is just dumb. You can just magically introduce people to how different sounds interact I guess. Bet you think if somebody gets the understanding of polyphony from Bach, Vivaldi, and Handel that they'll be able to easily write a melodic masterpiece as well.

>>71172371
>surreal post-modern atmosphere
>chaos in music
>the blues
all extremely varied categories, for what it's worth

>Which one seems more impressive I would leave up to an individual person.
well yeah, of course, and your defense is absolutely fair. all i've ever been trying to argue is that scaruffi's position is also fair, which you initially seemed to dispute.

>>71172398
>but you really don't find any value in his commentary on the post-industrial anomie reflected in modern dance, or the odyssean, meditative, and expansive, east-meets-west vibe of fare forward voyages?
>The Modern Dance
Spends way too much time using pretty words to describe its atmosphere rather than the actual music on-goings (which he does go into here and there.) Maybe it makes sense from the idea that the site's supposed to be mainly for himself to record his thoughts, but as a musical analysis this shit's just going overboard with pretty words leading to far more repetition than there seems to be.

>the odyssean, meditative, and expansive, east-meets-west vibe of fare forward voyages
The way he talks about this one just sounds like he didn't listen to Fahey's other records hard enough. There's VERY little on the actual content of the record, and thus again, the non-musical babble that he has doesn't really do much for me, and Fahey's been doing east-meets west expansive spirituals way before FFV. As someone who has gone through Fahey's entire discography, his bits on Fahey feel very shallow and not that exacting on what's going on.

Before you mention it for whatever reason, and for what it is worth, I don't like pop music criticism in general. Too much time spent on writing non-musical babble instead of analyzing the musical content itself. I personally much prefer reading actual musicological stuff.

>>71170905
italian, which honestly explains his love for "the"

>>71172438
I only have a problem with his writing, not his opinion.

>>71172505
okay, this is completely fair. you're right that his reviews can be lacking in in-depth musical analysis. i find he captures the atmosphere of albums quite well, and for me that's enough. perhaps it's because i lack a music theory background and think of music primarily in the way that scaruffi tends to articulate it. regardless i find value in his writings, but you seem quite justified in your stance on them.

also i've only listened to ffv from fahey, and was thinking of going to america next, as per scaruffi's recommendation; do you think i'd be better off with another release?

Wow, what's this? An intellectual thread on /mu/? About Scruffer the kiddie puffer of all things? I'm impressed.

>>71172738
pederasty is the foundation of all intellectualism; haven't you read the greeks?

>>71172571
If you like standard old school folky blues, his first four albums are great.

If you want something very close to FFV, then yeah America is where you wanna go next. Make sure if you can to cop both an original version and a reissue version of America as the reissue has all these really cool takes on various folk/classical/national anthem stuff, but the original has a slightly longer version of Mark 1:15 (or really just check out the long one.)

But if you want his earlier attempts at trying different things (weird objects for slides, ragas, recordings/sound effects, arrangements), then you wanna go with Vol. 4, Vol. 6, Voice of The Turtle, Requia, and Yellow Princess. These are not as refined, but still ahead of their time.

Skip his Christmas albums, check out list last four LPs if you want some weird ass shit takes on folk music, and if you just want a bomb ass record from him no matter what, there's always the amazing live record The Great Santa Barbara Oil Slick (might be his most unanimously loved record honestly.)

http://www.johnfahey.com/index1.html

^if you're interested, go through drop down menu at top, select whatever album you're listening to, and read up on liner notes and stuff

>>71172791
seems like i have a lot of ground to cover; appreciate the recomendations

>>71172850
Yeah dude. Also if you really want to try to cover all that I recced, I would honestly suggest going in order so the first four, then Vol. 4 till Yellow Princess, then America/FFV, then w/e. Not only a growth of the artist kinda thing, but it's a fun little lesson on American folk music as well with both his stylings and the standards he often ends up covering.

>>71172879
to be honest i'm probably going with america next, but if i love that one as much as i expect to i'll probably work chronologically, roughly in the order you've recommended, and then ultimately beyond to reach all the missing pieces.

anyway it's been fun but i need to get to bed, good night.

>>71170362
only a pleb would deny this

>>71170362
I don't understand why people think Bends is a great album while hopping on the Pablo is shit bandwagon - to me the former is even blander in both the sonic and songwriting department

>>71172007
>a single attentive and active listen always beats multiple passive listens
I only listen attentively. Music is music, to be listened to, it's not some white-noise machine to keep your ADD in check

>>71170627
Loveless and I guess Spiderland
TVU&N created genres as well but it is from his youth

>>71172023
scaruffi is a nu-male

>>71170937
topkek man

>>71172422
No but with a big ass studio, time, instruments, engineers and collaborators at their disposal they could keep experimenting until they acheived those overtones. Godspeed hasnt really reached the same sound but i dont feel like thats what they do except for brief moments, theyre a more cinematic driven band and some of their climaxes arent as loud as they are moody or uptempo. I just dont see swans moving forward with how they manipulatr sound. Its always these female choir vocals, tremolo guitar picking, crash cymbals and some bells or chimes for every loud exciting part. I think it probably sounds wild live but it seems like a copout and samey especially in album context. Its not even bad, i like some of the buildups too like in toussaint or mother of the world but for a band known for being loud and dramatic, their loud dramatic parts are their biggest cliche.