>gave In Rainbows a 5 >gives Lana Del Rey a 7 holy fuck

>>72660562
Ultraviolence is legitimately a good album.

In Rainbows is T R A S H

>>72660628
Wrong.

>>72660603
I can't even say who's worse waifufags or scaruffi drones

>>72660628
kys

>>72660562
>>72660562
1. Read his rating scale. Radiohead already have an album that is worth a listen in his opinion (Amnesiac). In Rainbows is pretty lame outside of Jigsaw, Nude and All I Need. (>but muh feels)
2. Opinions and cause he's funny.
3. He will not cause she already has a 7. Highest it will get is 6.5

>>72660656
>waifufags or scaruffi drones
same thing

>>72660562
yeah much of Art Angels will no doubt go over his head and he'll give it an 8 just to play it safe

>>72660679
>3. He will not cause she already has a 7.
why?

>>72660730
It's too late into her career.

File: 1493281117857s.jpg (3KB, 125x112px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x112px

>>72660603

>>72660743
???

>>72660772
She's a popstar with over 5 years of music behind her. She has to go full Scott Walker for him to give her anything above a 6.5.

>its a "radiohead fan acts autistic" thread

>>72660789
>She's a popstar with over 5 years of music behind her.
he gave a 7th to Trent's 5th album
also Kate Bush and Bjork got 7th by him on their 4th albums

>>72660865
These people are talented though and did it some time ago. Scaruffi is old and grumpy now and only likes something if it is either hitting his nostalgia strings or is a new artist that really goes out of his neck to be experimental.

>>72660789
>>72660865
also Bowie

>>72660898
>These people are talented though
so is grimes

>did it some time ago
he still gives 8s

>>72660921
>so is grimes
ha ha
>he still gives 8s
Read the second part of my statement.
I've been reading his shit for 8 years now and I'm fairly certain what ratings he gives out. I rarely miss. I guarantee you 100% that if anyone receives an 8, then it is definitely not Art angels.

>>72660972
>ha ha
???

>I've been reading his shit for 8 years now and I'm fairly certain what ratings he gives out. I rarely miss. I guarantee you 100% that if anyone receives an 8, then it is definitely not Art angels.
I don't think he'll give it an 8, but a 7 is possible

File: 1419276482088.jpg (416KB, 1350x900px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1350x900px

>>72660562
>taking any self-titled reviewer seriously

/mu/ never fails to impress me with its stupidity

>>72661002
I doubt any synthpop album after Shaking The Habitual will get a higher rating.

Art Angels is basically on the same level of clumsy as Yeezus and look what happened to that.

>>72660921
>so is grimes
so are the bandcamp and soundcloud musicians who actually make decent music with no outside help

>>72661003
This
Fuck that pasta nigger

>>72660679
>Read his rating scale
link?

>>72660562
He's a genius who should be taken seriously. I cannot imagine him giving an 8 to Art Angels.
>>72660603
Ultraviolence is a terrible album
>>72660628
In Rainbows is excellent
>>72660652
No, you're wrong
>>72660656
I can say who's worse: waifufags. Kill YOURself
>>72660679
No DON'T read his rating scale. Radiohead have no albums worth listening to in his opinion, and In Rainbows is great outside of those three songs. He has no good opinions and is not funny. He will give her the 8 because having a 7 has no bearing on whether you get an 8.
>>72660698
>>72660698
They are distinct hings
>>72660719
Wrong, Scaruffi will give Art Angels the first 10.
>>72660730
It's obvious why.
>>72660743
No, it's too early in her career to get below a 9.5
>>72660763
No, come on later
>>72660772
!!!
>>72660789
She's a rockstar with over 5 years of music ahead of her. She has to deviate from Scott Walker as much as possible to get anything above a 6.5.

File: Big3Critics.png (1MB, 1704x608px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1704x608px

Rate them from most to least likable.

In rainbows is literally easy listening soccer mom

File: btbam scarufii.png (122KB, 770x430px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 770x430px

>>72660562
This guy thinks mallcore wank is 8/10

>>72662370
... Music

>>72660562
you're right
he should have rated in rainbows less

itt: buttblasted radioheads not having their religious following confirmed by a normal, level-headed guy