pleb

>>72453252

aren't fantano's ratings not allowed on wikipedia pages anymore?

>>72453304
whys that?

>>72453252
oh go he keeps putting his own ratings on wikipedia

>>72453367
because he's a youtube celeb and the wikipedia mods don't consider youtube (bigger and more important than actual television) stars relevant enough.

will Fantano be looked back on as the Christgau of youtube

>>72453580
I think his channel is big enough now and his reviews have shown a bigger relevance than many other review sites.

>>72453419
probably not

ANTONIO FANTONIO HERE WHAT GUD MUSIC NO IT HAS TO BE A DEATH GRIPS ALBUM OR ITS AT MOST A 3/10 FROM ME TRUST ME IM AN INTELLECTUAL

>>72453580
>>72453727

They don't consider it an actual publication, so he's not allowed.

>>72453727
exactly. If pitchfork is relevant for that section, so is fantano.
>>72453898
>it's not a REAL publication because it's video based
would it make him more legitimate if he posted text based transcripts on his website?

>>72453921
>would it make him more legitimate if he posted text based transcripts on his website?

No. For example they don't allow scaruffi reviews.

>>72453948
So I'm curious now. What makes a music publication legitimate?

It just got taken down lmao

I know people will get on him for supposedly only listening to Pop before reviewing this, but do you need to really listen to an artist's discography to "review" to their newest album, even if said album is a follow up to their most popular? I'm sure it helps but does the average fantano watcher care?

>>72454035
being referenced in a news paper comic strip

>>72454035
paying

>>72454035

There was a huge discussion on some wikipedia thing. I don't know. But I think they actually want it to be published by a company or something and not a personal thing like your own youtube show.

>>72453948
Wait wait wait, they allow Pitchfork, but not Scaruffi?

>>72454047
I don't he would've panned it that hard if he was already familiar with something like Zauberberg, knew what he was in for and go "well, this isn't for me". His review gives you the impression that something went horribly wrong with Gas' style when really it's about the same as it's always been.

>>72454124
Literally no one outside of /mu/ cares about him.

>>72454075
So if Anthony just makes TheNeedleDrop a company would it be legit?

>>72454167
it's already a company. They want him to write for a newspaper or something basically

>>72454167
Isn't he already sorta his own company, selling tnd merch?

>>72454035
being a publication is a start

>>72453580
>>72453727
>>72453898
>>72453921
>>72454035
>>72454052
>>72454073
>>72454075
>>72454167
If you don't have an editorial board you're effectively not professional, not publishing things that are professionally curated. If you don't have sufficient archiving, proofreading, etc. going into your reviews you shouldn't consider yourself on par with a full publication.

Pitchfork is terrible but that doesn't make Fantano more legitimate.

>>72453580
that's actually good since youtube is fucking cancer.

>>72454321
>It's cancer because... it's youtube! why is that bad? uh.. I... uh... I don't know it's just cancer because I don't like it!

>>72454399
Nice autism.

>>72454399
the site is shit, and a majority of any popular channels is dumbed down to basically nothing. only an autist would think it's a useful website

pleb

>>72454399
Because YouTube has no editing, no curation.

>>72454254
I think Fantano has people that work for him that edit his stuff

Real talk, hate him or love him, Fantano is a very big music critic now. If irrelevant music publications are perennially featured, why shouldn't he be? You seriously think Rolling Stone is anywhere near as influential in 2017? It's all about the internet now and he is the biggest internet critic by a lot.

>>72455281
You idiot, video editing isn't what an Editorial board does.
>>72455719
Because their work is officially reviewed and judged by their peers before publication.

>>72455833
>Because their work is officially reviewed and judged by their peers before publication.
And what makes their opinions worth more than Fantano's? The people have spoken, and more people listen to Fantano than any of those antiquated publications.

>>72455858
>And what makes their opinions worth more than Fantano's?
That's not the point, retard. It says "professional ratings," not "influential ratings."

>>72455891
Fantano is a full-time youtuber and music reviewer. It's his source of income. He is a professional. Who's the retard?

>>72455907
He is not a professional, he has no accreditation nor does he have any authority that he answers to.

>>72455907
Being payed through donations and adsense to make music vlogs doesn't automatically make it a profession.

>>72456047
His accreditation and authority are the people.

>>72454399
YouTube is corporate internet culture, nothing likable about it

tony is just a dude who uploads videos of him reacting personally to music. I value his opinion more than most music critics because he is just a guy expressing his genuine feelings. A lot of music critics tend to speak for the sophisticated and wind up alienating their audience. It's extremely rare for me to find as much insight in a pitchfork or whatever other blog review as i do his.

at the end of the day though he is not part of a publication system. newspapers and magazines have systems to avoid one person's polarizing opinion being alienating. They are basically "authorized to have an opinion" because they are corporate and designate themselves as having the responsibility to review albums.

fantanos reviews are literally no different from reviews written by people from rolling stone or pitchfork, though those writers may have more experience doing so. in m opinion the scores displayed on wiki articles should be from crowd based review sites like RYM or whatever, accompanied with data about chart performance. notable critics should be chosen contextually.

>>72456157
No, they aren't. "the people" can't stop him from publishing something.

File: 1481694681074.jpg (40KB, 480x362px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 480x362px

>>72456157
That doesn't make any fucking sense. Stop posting.

>>72455833
>Because their work is officially reviewed and judged by their peers before publication.
Says who

>>72456047
What accreditation does a music reviewer get?

>caring about another persons review
SAD