Daily reminder to always put numbers on art.

There's something pretty symbolic about giving an album by the beatles a 5. Just goes to show how mediocre and "of their times" they are

The fact that

>>72407237
Whereas Chinese Democracy clearly a was creativ masterpiece pushing the boundaries of modern rock.

File: vessel rating.jpg (27KB, 352x265px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 352x265px

ITT: albums better than revolver

>>72407219
yeah, he's biased and an idiot, we know that already

>>72407219
He's right there.

>>72407293
this isn't incorrect, but I'm kinda perplexed by the idea of an unbiased music critic

like, he's producing scores by dividing the number of instruments used on the album by 3, adding that number to 0.25x the number of lyrical metaphors minus the mixed ones minus 1 point for brickwalling plus 1 point for concept albums...

>>72407396
The issue with Scaruffi is he's biased by factors outside of the music. He has a grudge against The Beatles, Bowie, Radiohead etc. very obviously because they're commercially successful and critically acclaimed. You see this as a factor in any write-up of a band who is like this. I mean the whole "the fact that..." write-up centres on others perceptions of the Beatles.

>>72407396
I wouldn't hate him as much if he wasn't so confident and arrogant in the stupid bullshit he spouts while also claiming every other critic is bad except for him

does this guy work for a relevant publication, company, anything. why do people here get so hung up on this freak

>>72407551
he's le contrarian man who knows obscure albums

>>72407551
>implying any music publication is worth two shits

>>72407551
He's got some genuinely good taste sometimes and I wouldn't have found a lot of my favorite albums without him. He's also independant and remarkably diverse, which is an attractor to some.