What do you think of his reviews?

THE

4/10

everything he rates a 7 or higher is genuinely good
the true underrated patrician ones are his 8s which all sound amazing to me

don't really care about the rest. still like the beatles (sorry scruffy)

I don't. Sometimes they're good for a laugh tho lol

>>72469448
FACT

Honestly think he has excellent taste in music in general.

File: whosscruffylookin.jpg (49KB, 493x241px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 493x241px

His taste is generally good but I find that he punishes artists too much for being "overrated" (Radiohead, Bowie, for example). As if it's the artist's fault that critics universally love them. Even Lester Bangs, who Scaruffi calls the greatest rock critic, said that Station to Station was a great album after having hated Bowie before.

His long reviews for albums he really loves like the first two Velvet Underground albums are great and insightful but the shorter, one paragraph reviews can be pretty repetitive and pointless (watch how often he uses terms like "apocalyptic" to describe the atmosphere of an album, its funny).

Overall he's a fine critic in terms of taste, but not really a great writer like Christgau or Bangs

>>72469683
content > writing

>>72469427
There isn't a single review of his I disagree with where I can't at least see where he's coming through.

File: pixelcanvas.io (-761,-95) 2017-04-28T21-18-40Z .png (54KB, 1366x662px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1366x662px

>>72469576

>>72469704
Don't get me wrong, I like Scaruffi, but I've never truly enjoyed reading his reviews the way I have with Lester Bangs- his humor and way of framing the place of a certain artist in the music industry at the time is really fun to read.

Scaruffi has solid opinions but they're generally not presented in a very engaging way, except on some of the longer reviews as I mentioned.

>>72469807
i agree

>>72469704
Not for reviews m8
If you just use the same 10 adjectives for every album then the adjectives lose their meaning

>>72469824
that's not writing, that's content

His knowledge of not only music history but of art history and its movements gives him the ability to contextualize and dissect the music he critiques in a way that very few people are able to. People generally hate him because they are probably Beatles/Radiohead fans or something like that

I disagree with him to certain extents but in general he's a great critic

>>72469843
your use of vocabulary is part of your writing style

"content" in this case would basically just be his ratings and general opinions of an album, wouldn't it?

the

>>72469888
the use of adjectives is a part of a description and ultimately just thought process
people might be poor at describing something that doesn't mean the content isn't there still

Honestly, his write-ups on everything are just so completely retarded that it's hard to take him seriously.

>>72469683
>but not really a great writer like Christgau or Bangs
>Christgau
>a great writer
what the hell? his reviews are borderline unintelligible, unless I'm missing something. and i'm not even gonna mention his scores.

>>72469968
I think his opinions are generally awful but he's a great writer imo. Easy to follow but insightful.

https://robertchristgau.com/xg/music/dionysus-emp.php

https://robertchristgau.com/xg/music/stones-76.php

both very interesting reads

>>72469968
le devesating one line reviews with thesaurus vocabulary

>>72469946
>Honestly, his write-ups on everything are just so completely retarded that it's hard to take him seriously.
THIS

>>72469946
>>72470101
t. Radiohead fans

>>72470133
t. Scaruffi drone

>>72470169
Nah, just read more than two reviews of his of meme /mu/ artists

>>72470183
so did I, and they either don't say much or are autistic rambles that a lot of times come out as nonsensical

>>72470228
Doubt it
No one in this thread besides you and the other anon seems to agree with you
>autistic rambles
Could you be anymore predictable

>>72470250
>l-look! everyone is agreeing with me! y-you're obviously wrong!
come up with an argument anytime

>>72469683
>but the shorter, one paragraph reviews can be pretty repetitive and pointless

Sometimes it's clear he doesn't really give a shit and is just writing a review for completionist sake.

desu if he didn't get caught in this "muh culture archive" shit, he could have focused on stuff he cares about and took the time to be amazing.

>>72470293
That wasn't my argument. It was just to add the fact that I doubt you really know what you're talking about
My only argument is that you used "autistic rambles" as an argument
Learn to speak properly then we can have an actual discussion :)

>>72470347
have you read his stuff? his write-ups on the Beatles, Bowie, Radiohead, Bjork or whichever popular artist he doesn't like? a lot of it is made-up, inconsistent or just straight-up nonsensical

>>72469683
>the shorter, one paragraph reviews
They're called capsule reviews. I agree that they're somewhat pointless, but they exist to give an idea of what the critic thinks of a wide variety of things they don't necessarily have time to write lengthy pieces of criticism for

>>72470459
>made-up
The only one I can remember being clearly made-up is a part on the Beatles
>inconsistent
Like what? Beatles again is the only one I can really think of
>nonsensical
I feel like you don't understand the simple meaning behind things

His summary on Bowie is nothing short of probably the most accurate review of Bowie ever made and all his Bowie reviews seem pretty consistent with each other. Same with Bjork, really. He's also very consistent with Radiohead and its side projects.
Can't think of any other reason you say claim it's "inconsistent" other than the fact that you really like those artists and don't like someone dismissing them for being sell outs, or in Radiohead's case just really pretentious and overrated

I don't trust any music critic who doesn't have musical training.

>>72470559
Yeah that's fair, I just wish that they didn't make up the majority of his reviews. But I understand with the amount of music he has written about, it's inevitable.

>>72469427
I don't agree with all of his reviews but I like his dedication to what he does.

He doesn't understand music theory, but seems to have a fairly decent grasp on art theory. His reviews of experimental rock music and such are great but when it comes to pop, jazz or classical he's pretty useless.

>Spiderland (1991) was even more abstract. Its harmonic zigzags through irregular tempos, fractured melodies and discordant counterpoint were as disorienting as notes scribbled in an unknown language. Vapid moribund passages were inundated by sudden tidal waves of sound, or, better, given the glacial tone of the band's jamming, arctic quiet was shaken by icebergs cracking in the ocean. The whole album flew in a dis-organic manner, but still retained an odd sense of unity. It sounded like the stream of consciousness of a mathematician's brain as it was solving a difficult theorem.

>The albums by Lisa Germano are comparable to the bloodcurdling finale of a thriller. Her songs were rituals of victimization, or an exorcism of victimization. Her epic diary of insecurity and paranoia was like a report on someone in a desperate mental state searching for redemption that was only found in reclusion. Her style was long, exhausting, and mournful, terminating in psychological death. She was among the few musicians to have reached their peaks artistically during the 90's.

>Low gave new meaning to slow and mellow rock, a genre that is ironically the anti-thesis of rock. Enhancing rhythm and riff, renewing the musical grammar of moral depression, of psychological excavation, and emotional breakdown, the Low have rediscovered the little joys of poets, those that unearth the sadness of the human soul.

I genuinely like Scaruffi's descriptions sometimes. People call it pretentious but I think these are accurate.

>>72470684
I like his catalogs of jazz and classical music. He doesn't write much about them, though, outside of those brief histories. He's specifically said he doesnt' write reviews of classical music because he doesn't want to embarrass himself when there are people much more qualified who do so

>>72470584
>The album was a masterpiece of faux avantgarde (of pretending to be avantgarde while playing mellow pop music).
no one claims OK Computer is avant-garde in any way. hell, no one even claims it's experimental.
even if people did, that sentence is nonsensical. "faux-avantgarde"? he's claiming nothing with pop structures can be experimental
>I Can't Give Everything Away boasts an awful distorted guitar against syncopated beats and layers of electronic drones: not exactly genius
that song literally doesn't have distorted guitars
he claimed more than once that Bjork is one of the best female songwriter in recent years while also claiming she's one of the most overrated songwriters in recent years
his Beatles rant is self-explanatory, you have to be incredibly dense not to see what's wrong with it
also, his write-up on Kraftwerk is a funny little shine of stupidity
>Ralf & Florian (1973) refined the relationship between rhythm and melody, and Autobahn (1974) finally abandoned any intellectual pretense and laid the foundations of disco-pop, but now their operation of "black exploitation" was not all that different from what Presley and the Beatles had done: 1. take black music, 2. remove the provocative elements, 3. enhance it with modern technology, 4. and turn it into easy-listening music for the white masses.

>>72470813
the kraftwerk one triggered me. how do people take this guy seriously

File: 1373245719427.jpg (58KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 720x540px

>>72470674
>>72470640
>>72469540
>>72470684
>i dont care for reviews of someone who doesnt know programming works (Video games reviews)
>i dont care for reviews of someone who doesnt know how camara and audio works (Movie reviews)
>i dont care for reviews of someone who doesnt how to draw (Art reviews)
etc

>>72470943
?

>>72469427
His reviews have their moments and his highly rated albums are worthwhile listens, but he as a tendency to be rambling and repetitive, as well as an over-reliance on cultural context compared to the actual music on the album his reviewing. As six-sentence summaries, his reviews would be masterpieces.

>>72470813

>no one claims OK Computer is avant-garde in any way. hell, no one even claims it's experimental.

Radiohead fans claim this all the time. Go look at a youtube comment section for pretty much any Radiohead song and see for yourself.

>>72470813
>no one claims OK Computer is avant-garde in any way. hell, no one even claims it's experimental.
Lots of people do though. As they did back then. You might not, that's fine. Even recently Fantano called that album as breaking barriers or something like it in his general Radiohead review.
It's faux-avantgarde because it tries to sound different and adds tons and layers of production when really it's just nicely written alternative pop rock songs. Nothing wrong with it, nothing amazing about it either. Seems to fit the 7. The rest of the description is obviously pointed at journalists who at the time praised (and still do) the album as the next big thing in rock music when really it just paved the way for generic British alternative rock bands like Muse.
>no distorted guitars
There are many kinds of distortion in guitars, I don't understand what you're saying. Distortion isn't just the typical heavy metal sound.
>Bjork
when did he do that?
>Kraftwerk
The Kraftwerk obviously follows from the Beatles review and many other reviews of his from this time. It's about how music around the 60's and 70's quickly shifted from social issues to just easily consumable ones using a sound that came from a different purpose. It follows from an earlier sentence:
>When they pursued that fusion, they de facto replaced conventional drumming with electronic rhythms, or, better, the essence of Afro-American civilization with the essence of European civilization.
Kraftwerk was the first band to drop conventional drumming for electronic beats for easy consumption instead of beats of frustration as they originally were meant in rock music of the time. Kraftwerk took the ideas of rock music composition and made it more accessible and completely electronic, thus removing the meaning of what using cheap drums and cheap guitars (at the time) was.

>>72470943
Someone who reviews things should certainly be aware of how they're produced, but I was mainly talking about ear training and knowledge of music theory.

>>72470966
>As six-sentence summaries, his reviews would be masterpieces.
kek

>>72470966
>cultural context compared to the actual music
what the fuck does this even mean
cultural context is what gives meaning to rock music
rock music in general is pretty shitty without it when compared to any other big genre

>>72471066
just goes to show how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art

>>72471135
i know this is a joke but seriously pop and rock music fucking sucks compared to classical and /mu/ is full on pleb if it believes in anything else but this

>>72471027
>Even recently Fantano called that album as breaking barriers or something like it
breaking barriers =/= avant-garde or experimental
the music was a breath of fresh air at the time. being creative doesn't mean being experimental
>There are many kinds of distortion in guitars
not in that song
>when did he do that?
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol6/bjork.html
>Bjork finally deserves a place next to the great songwriters of her times, Lisa Germano and Tori Amos
>Sometimes, Bjork can't help proving that she is one the most over-rated songwriters of the 1990s
literally on the same page
>they de facto replaced conventional drumming with electronic rhythms, or, better, the essence of Afro-American civilization with the essence of European civilization
he's saying drums are inherently black, it's a fucking stupid thing to say

>>72471169
as a whole yes but theres nothing inherently wrong with rock or pop

>>72471169
jazz is rly good tho

>>72471169
No classical music has ever affected me on the same level as my favourite rock bands
I like Janacek and Ravel a lot but most of the other classical I've listened to just doesn't interest me

>>72471199
there's nothing inherently wrong with anything in life in general, why would anyone ever say what you just did

File: the scrolls.jpg (115KB, 700x933px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 700x933px

>Hello, stranger, it is me, Ping-rou Xiaoruffi. I have come from the far away lands of China to give you a message...
What does it say, /mu/?

>>72471218
probably because you're a pleb who really needs it to get "personal" and borderline invasive

>>72471228
>there's nothing inherently wrong with anything in life in general
u sure abt that

>>72471255
I'm not sure what that means

I don't get triggered by scores, so he's not bad.

>>72471169

this

>>72471218
How much do you know about musical form in classical? Do you know how to follow a sonata form movement? It helps a lot in appreciating it.

>>72471228
because people will argue that rock and pop are inherently bad genres or objectively shit and I think its important to dispute it

>>72471255
>I've been lurking /classical/ for a few months and am now beyond pleb shit like poetry

>>72471194
>breaking barriers =/= avant-garde
That's literally what avant-garde means. On the front. Breaking barriers.
>being creative doesn't mean being experimental
Sure but we're not talking about creative, we're talking about original and unique, just like everybody else did at the time
Still a decent number to be reviewed, why would you even take OK Computer as an example. Kid A/Amnesiac could be a much more interesting discussion imo
>not in that song
Just listened to it and I heard something that could easily be a commonly used distortion that allows guitars chords to sound like bad synth chords
>Bjork
Those are two completely different reviews and you literally just took things out of context. In one review which he gives Bjork her second 7 ever and last one so far he says she's a good songwriter in that album, finally at the level of Tori Amos, on the second one he says she was a shitty song-writer on that other album. I really don't see inconsistency here, one thing is writing for one album, another is writing for another. Boggles me how you take this so harshly when it's really just "this was good, this wasn't".
>he's saying drums are inherently black, it's a fucking stupid thing to say
Drums in rock music started from jazz which ultimately was a black thing, or at the very least a poor person thing. The choice of that particular instrument had a meaning. Kraftwerk removed that meaning but applied the same idea of rhythm.

Basically what I conclude is that you really suck at taking meaning from what he's saying lol

>>72471386
except poetry in rock music fucking sucks compared to actual poetry

>>72471383
sure i guess

>>72471453
Sorry you have shit taste in rock, I guess its too hard to grasp for some people.

>>72471460
you don't even know my taste in rock what the actual fuck are you even saying you mouth breather

>>72471474
If none of the lyrics are good then its safe to say you have shit taste in rock and came here to bait about classical.

>>72471319
I know what sonata form is but I don't think I'd be able to follow it properly

>>72471492
It's not that difficult, though it might be necessary to have someone walk you through a few examples first. Maybe there are some youtube videos that do so. Look it up if you're ever interested

>>72471490
it's not that the lyrics aren't good, it's just that you're delusional if you think they come anything close to actually good poetry
rock music as a whole works because of its context because otherwise its basically just sort of silly pop music with lots of special effects
my favorite rock band ever has some of the best lyrics i've ever heard in rock music: fugazi

>>72471490
There are some rock lyrics that are OK, but we're comparing them against like Shakespeare here.

>>72471548
A lot of celebrated poetry is INCREDIBLY based in context, what the fuck?

>>72471566
most really good poetry stands the test of time and doesn't need much context to be moving
but of course context gives meaning in really all types of art

>>72471422
>That's literally what avant-garde means. On the front. Breaking barriers.
OK Computer has innovative songwriting while still maintaning a lot of characteristics from Alternative Rock at the time. it's not avant-garde, it was never supposed to be avant-garde, and it was praised simply because it was a new and creative rock album
>why would you even take OK Computer as an example
that's the album he called faux avantgarde
>I really don't see inconsistency here, one thing is writing for one album, another is writing for another.
he's obviously talking about the bigger picture in both of those quotes. if he meant that the album he was talking about is overrated, he would fucking say the album he was talking about is overrated
>The choice of that particular instrument had a meaning
what would that be? because it seems like the meaning behind it is that it produced good music.
>Basically what I conclude is that you really suck at taking meaning from what he's saying lol
you're the one trying to make sense of all the stupid bullshit he spouts lmao. just accept that Scaruffi isn't as intelligent as you think he is

>>72471609
>OK Computer has innovative songwriting

Not that Anon, but explain

>>72471555
The dude who invented a lot of the English language? Ok you sure got me anon.

>>72471588
Standing the test of time is probably the absolute worst standard you can have for this discussion since you're comparing a medium that's pretty much always existed to a genre of music that only really hit its stride about 50 years ago. How are we even supposed to have a conversation about this?

>>72471548
>special effects
effects are great, tone, timbre, and texture are important to music, even in classical or everything would be a solo piano piece or something

>>72471616
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_Computer#Music_and_lyrics
:^)

>>72471616

One or two songs weren't about not having a girlfriend.

>>72471621
rock poetry is a direct follow up from american poetry
i don't understand what's wrong with this discussion especially in what has recently happened (dylan just won the nobel prize for literature)

>>72471621
IMO the claim that Shakespeare invented so many words is questionable. He was likely just very familiar with vernacular

>>72469427
I don't trust anyone who calls Trump "Vladimir Trump," regardless of politics.

>>72471659
I believe the major influence on it is Beat poetry though correct me if I'm wrong

>>72469427
Single-handedly changed how I thought about music. This had an immeasurable impact on the emotional colors of my 20s, and my aesthetic tonalities are still shaped by it.

The fact that he's a mathematician is the icing on the cake for me.

>>72471659
Because you're comparing a popular medium of highly discussed entertainment to the greatest highlights of the entire idea of using words as art. We won't know what rock music will truly stand the test of time because like no time has passed since rock songwriting started to get good.

>>72469427
He gave the Velvet underground's s/t album a fucking 6.5/10. That's at LEAST their second best album. Jesus Christ.

>>72471689
His political writing is fucking hilarious

>>72471751
Cmon, TVU&N was flawed, but its not their third best.

>>72471609
>OK Computer has innovative songwriting
It has ok songwriting. It's not a big deal. Again you're overselling it and overpraising it and claiming it to be better than what it really is. It's not that innovative, the structure is still basically the same.
>the bigger picture
Well what is the bigger picture? One is good, the other isn't. He said the song-writing was overrated on the not good one, how do you not read this? Are you dumb?
>what would that be?
The frustration of lower classes and individuals who were ostracized by higher society, while retaining its own original culture (beating drums is literally the most African music thing ever). Kraftwerk is the epitome of white washing when it comes to rhythm in rock music since it just replaced this for a machine for no reason other to "just dance and distract lol".
>you're the one trying to make sense of all the stupid bullshit he spouts lmao. just accept that Scaruffi isn't as intelligent as you think he is
I'm just reading what he's saying, and you're still holding on to false assumptions or grasping at flaws that simply aren't there (the "big picture" thing, the "i pretend i don't get the drums" thing)

>>72471720
it hasn't really gotten better i'll tell you that

>>72470066
I can't stand Christgau's taste. He comes off as too much of a clueless Boomer at times and too political for me to enjoy.

>>72471816
>Again you're overselling it and overpraising it and claiming it to be better than what it really is.
I'm just saying why it was praised. I don't care for the album myself, but calling it "faux avantgarde" is stupid
>Well what is the bigger picture?
Bjork as an artist.
>He said the song-writing was overrated on the not good one, how do you not read this? Are you dumb?
are you being a dense retard on purpose? he literally said "she's one of the best songwriters" and then "she's one of the most overrated songwriters". he didn't say "this album has really good songwriting" or "this album's songwriting is overrated". he's talking about Bjork's body of work as a whole in both of those quotes.
>(beating drums is literally the most African music thing ever)
that's a bit of a stereotype. Africa has very percussion-heavy music, but it doesn't mean they invented percussion or are the only ones responable for developing it.
>Kraftwerk is the epitome of white washing when it comes to rhythm in rock music since it just replaced this for a machine for no reason other to "just dance and distract lol".
that's exatly what Blues started off as.
Kraftwerk using digital drums isn't appropriation just because they made dancable music.
>you're still holding on to false assumptions or grasping at flaws that simply aren't there
you're being incredibly dense on purposed just to defend a mediocre critic with a website. stop overanalyzing his dumb rambles
even if you do like him you're actually retarded if you think he can't be wrong

>>72472104
>I'm just saying why it was praised.
Yeah, it was overpraised. People said even bigger things than you. And it's normal because the album really tries to sound like it. It tries to sound avant-gard, while it actually isn't. It's "faux" (false) avant-garde. Not a hard concept to get m8.
>it's stupid because I don't like it
Ok moving on.
>Bjork as an artist
Read his summary right on the beginning, then. It's right there.
>he literally said "she's one of the best songwriters" and then "she's one of the most overrated songwriters"
Again taking it out of context. Like I said, he means very clearly "in this album shes at the level of the best" and "in this album she's one of the worst". How am I the one being dense here? Lol you must be fun to read the newspaper with
>that's a bit of a stereotype.
That's fine, you're right, I was just trying to get a point across anyway.
>that's exatly what Blues started off as.
>"just dance and distract lol"
Is this a joke? That's not what Blues is AT ALL. More like the complete opposite. Pr0tip: it's about suffering.
>just because they made dancable music.
No one said it's because they made dance-able music by itself. Scaruffi only said it's because of how they replaced the rhythm but kept the structure of rock music. What are you still not getting here? It's like the 3rd time I've posted this.
>incredibly dense
Dude, lol.
>overanalyzing
Come the fuck on.
>you're actually retarded if you think he can't be wrong
But I do think he's wrong, particularly on his harsh treatment of the Beatles and some occasional reviews, like Danny Brown's Old (the one I remembered right now).

>>72472253
>>72472104
>>72471816
>>72471609
>>72471422
>>72471194
>>72471027
>>72470813
>>72470584
This is the most autistic thing I've ever read

>>72472515
then don't read it stupid

>>72472253
>It tries to sound avant-gard
it literally doesn't, that's what I'm saying. Thom himself said they were just writing pop tunes. they're just really good and creative pop tunes.
>Read his summary right on the beginning, then. It's right there.
so literally everything else he says about her should be ignored because of his summary? I don't get this.
>Again taking it out of context
let's take another look at the quote, shall we
>Bjork finally deserves a place next to the great songwriters of her times, Lisa Germano and Tori Amos, thanks to picturesque and shocking cues such as the terrified tale of Hunter
praising Bjork for her work in Homogenic. alright, fine.
>Sometimes, Bjork can't help proving that she is one the most over-rated songwriters of the 1990s, and she manages the task wonderfully on Selmasongs (Elektra, 2000).
how can you possibly think he's only calling the record overrated? he's literally saying "she's overrated and this album proves it".
that album wasn't particularly very well received anyway, so I don't see any point in calling it overrated
the quotes are back-to-back on her Bjork page, and are the opening lines in his reviews. it's not out of context, it's what he thinks of her as an artist
>he means very clearly "in this album shes at the level of the best" and "in this album she's one of the worst"
if he means that it's not clear at all
>That's not what Blues is AT ALL
you're right, I was being hyperbolic. that said, "it's about suffering" is a bit of a generalization
>Scaruffi only said it's because of how they replaced the rhythm but kept the structure of rock music.
but that's not white-washing, and it doesn't remove their merits as musicians.

>>72472515
>waah people are discussing music on a music board

>>72472541
>>72472559
it's a bad discussion full of pedantry and hair splitting

>>72472752
yeah but I'm having fun being outraged

>>72472559
>Radiohead
I get what you're saying, but that quote has more to it and so does the OK Computer review. The secret is in the production of the album, which is what Scaruffi criticizes the most in Radiohead (in general, actually).
>how can you possibly think he's only calling the record overrated?
I get what you're saying, but it's obvious he's talking about her past here. Most other albums of hers are rated not that positively by Scaruffi. In his point of view, sometimes she can't help but to prove or follow the same tendency of mediocre albums that have been praised but really don't sound that good to him.
>that it's not clear at all
It wasn't that hard to get. It's really just a matter of English.
>"it's about suffering" is a bit of a generalization
But that's what the word "Blues" means, though, no?
>but that's not white-washing, and it doesn't remove their merits as musicians.
To be fair I said it was white washing, not him. I don't think he removes any merits to them as musicians, just states the fact that their music, while with as good composition for dance music as it gets, came from rock music and removed a lot of the meaning.

That's all I guess. Can we go to bed already?

>>72472798
>Can we go to bed already?
yeah sure
it was fun
just curious, but do you like Bjork? I've never been a fan of her work desu

>>72472844
I honestly never payed to much attention to her after Medulla but then again I didn't really pay much attention to her before

>>72472844
>>72472904
JUST FUCK ALREADY