What did /mu/ think of melon’s arguments for being include

File: 1494915581839.png (923KB, 600x749px) Image search: [Google]

923KB, 600x749px

Even if you hate melon man you have to agree that he is the most relevant music critic walking the earth so yeah he probably should be on Wikipedia.

File: based zomby.png (145KB, 400x483px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 400x483px

we dont want him anywhere near wikipedia he is nothing to do with this and never will be

>>73641715
stupid frogposter

If wikipedia thinks that irrelevant hack Robert Christgau's reviews are good enough, then Melon's reviews should be included too.

>>73642398
Xgau is actually funny though, unlike this nu-male comedian Fantano.

>hey guys its just my opinion
>btw guys respect my opinions and make them official
can't have your cake and eat it faggot

man i just think his taste in music is terrible

>>73641697
Who?

>>73642403
Not an argument.

Sure, if his review is listed in the table as Soaring Godspeedian Guitar Leads/10

Hack

>>73641715
I agree but fuck off with your frogs

Borderline fucking retarded because "most relevant critic today" still doesn't get anywhere near the traffic of the sites featured in the review boxes nor does he have the sort of legendary tenure of sorts that Christgau and Downbeat have. You can't just have some random dude on YouTube be featured. Like, do we start having the more popular RYM reviewers on as well? Cuz a lot of those guys are exclusively shitposters.

>>73641697
I don't understand why he cares. It's fucking Wikipedia. Who cares if they see you as more if an entertainer than a legitimate music critic? It's not like being considered a "professional" by their standards is meaningful in any way.

>>73642398

this

>>73643586

name one RYM reviewer who gets literally millions of views every day

>>73642398
>>73643733
how about fucking neither you fantano pr shits

>>73643586
That's cus melon was turned into memes. How could anyone ever take his shitty opinion seriously?

>>73643746
That's the point he's making, retard. Either have both of them or have neither. Be consistent.

>>73643764
>Either have both of them
see
>>73642403

Fantano is the Pewdiepie of music reviews.

>>73643741
Is YouTube views the measure to go by then? Like, this really isn't well defined.

>>73643788

you already posted this in another thread, fuck off

File: 1459230025579.jpg (26KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 540x960px

>>73643778
>he deserves to be considered a "professional" critic by Wikipedia because I find him funny
The retardation on /mu/ never fails to amaze me.

>>73641697
Why the fuck are critics on wikipedia articles about musicians at all?

They just interject their opinion on bands/musicians that have nothing to do with them. The critics can have their own wikipedia page thats about them. Critics are parasites, leeching out their tentacles onto other people with more notoriety for their own self serving purposes.
FUCK ANTHONY FANTANO
All critics shit on musicians wiki should be deleted.

>>73643824
How else could you decide if guy should be an official critic or not?

the melon is a pathetic melon man
his useless opinions don't belong on even wikipedia how sad is that

File: cnybL.png (203KB, 560x314px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 560x314px

>>73643804
And I will repost it every time until you like it,

To be fucking honest stop posting melon in here, he doesn't know anything about music. You all people who still post him in here probably too because only a retard care about his reviews. He and Pitchfork aren't relevant anymore. Their audience is just a bunch of posers who think that if they know every BNM then they're cool and have better taste in music. But the truth is that melon and Pitchfork are for plebs. Deal with it.

get rid of sections of musicians wikis that have to deal with critics opinions

>hurrr I have an opinion
>huurr I get paid by someone to publish it
>hurrr somehow that makes it important or legitimate

critics useless words are purely subjective, they should not be on a wikipedia page that is about factual information.

>>73643788
at least the melon has recency bias

pewdiepie seems to review memes that were memes 5 or 6 years ago

>>73643860
>they should not be on a wikipedia page that is about factual information
The critical reception of an album is factual information.

My RYM ratings should be on wikipedia

>>73643886
It has nothing to do with the musicians, its only projected on to the musicians. If there was a wikipedia page for every review a critic had done that would make more sense than critics being allowed to put their worthless tentacles where ever they want.

>>73643854
Umm, I think you are the one who has to 'deal with it' guy, we will never stop talking about Fantano, so 'deal with it' as you say.

>>73643849

and it will be false every time, even if I do like it.

>>73644080
ok, Anthony.

>>73643854
t. ARTV

>>73644145
he's not wrong you know

>>73642923
I mean P4K's reviews are official and your average p4k review is just filled with subjective buzzwords and little to no music theory knowledge. At least the melon talks a little about music theory,well more than p4k at least

>>73644276
>the melon talks a little about music theory
He has demonstrated almost no knowledge of music theory or aesthetics in my experience. I'll gladly take it back if you show me a review where he can link his scores to something beyond his own taste.

File: 1473295245711.jpg (30KB, 600x465px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x465px

>>73641715
he has shit taste though

the bigfoot hunter comparison was legitimately autistic and embarrassing, even for a wiki discussion

wikipedia (wikijewdia) is globalist shit anyways. cultural marxism to the max.

>>73644662
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha you're pathetic

>>73644662
What a fucking droney tool. Even if this is bait, there are actually people with opinions like this. Crikey.

>>73643741
>name one RYM reviewer

>>73646035
>>73646052
jidf pls go