>The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumental mediocrity.

>>73855559
haha hes got a big nose

post yfw you realized Paul was the best guitarist in the band

>>73856006
Its not a big nose though, especially considering his age.

>>73856430
it's fucking massive what are you talking about

does scaruffi even play an instrument?

>>73856643
Readers often ask me why I did not become a musician, since my essays, indirectly, tell a musician what music he should or should not be making. Other readers accuse critics of being merely frustrated people who would like to be the very musicians and stars they "criticize". Again, in my case it goes back to my passion for history and for knowledge. Pythagora, who had a mystic attitude towards things, thought that the audience was more important than the athletes: the athletes were entertaining the audience but the audience was "contemplating" the athletes, and to Pythagora that was more important. Understanding nature was more important than being a part of it. In a sense, when you "contemplate" nature you manage not to be part of it, to be something else, above and beyond it, almost divine. Pythagora thought that this "contemplation" of nature led to logic. To Pythagora religion and mathematics were the same: the pure mathematician was a religious prophet, and viceversa. Contemplation was the key to understanding the universe, and it led to logical explanation of what the universe is. Logic was so ubiquitous in the universe that Pythagora thought that numbers were the ultimate reality. In particular, he discovered the relationship between numbers and music. Music is logic. All of this was evident to him as the "listener", not as the "maker" of music.

>>73856674
this inane rambling makes me believe that he's exactly the jealous bitter critic that he talks about

He seems like the kind of guy who was too spergy to be a musician so he decided he would dedicate his life to writing mental gymanstics to put himself above a pedestal in his own eyes

I actually just lost a lot of respect for him.

>>73856786
hmm, i actually just gained respect for him
the level of dedication he has to his mental models is quite inquisitive indeed

>>73856786

why do people who don't like critics always assume that critics are failed musicians? the role of a critic in the world of art is a completely legitimate and important thing and you are a buffoon if you think otherwise.

>>73857047
>being this hopeless

>>73856643
>you gotta play an instrument if you gonna criticize music

Fucking idiot. Do people have to know how to cook if they are going to criticize a plate?
Fucking idiot.

>>73855559
Literally none of those guys are better guitar players than George...

George was a killer on the slide and was very good at subtle, ear-wormy guitar licks.

John was a very economical player and was excellent at fingerpicking and used it to create a rhythm/melody hybrid.

Paul is just a fucking songbird and is proficient at just about any instrument he touches. I would say he's a very good guitar player as well.

>>73857089
Absolutely. I would trust the opinion of a chef over the opinion of some random nobody every day of the week.

Don't be mad because you're too stupid and lazy to understand music.

>>73857047
go back to stealing opinions from /r/hiphopheads and stealing articles from real journalists fantano

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDeXn_Ze1jE

Listen to how George plays this, in 1964.

>>73857260

do you actually think this is impressive

classical and jazz guitarist BTFO this in the 50s and 40s and earlier

>>73857260
1963*

File: 1425132403971.png (30KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x400px

>>73857211

>little sister having an operation
>doctor fucks something up and kills her
>mfw I can't criticize him for his mistake because I am not a doctor

>>73855559
>even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary

What did he mean by this?

>>73857306
they should really force an IQ test to be allowed on the internet

>>73855559

>proficiency in instruments = good

Jesus fuck this guy is insufferable. Requiring skill in instruments is not essential to being a great songwriter, and the Beatles not being good at their instruments (idk how anybody can think this, but giving scruffi the benefit of the doubt) has nothing to do with their ability to write great songs and be highly influential musicians. So what's the point of shitting on them if it doesn't even matter?

Also, might as well just totally write off punk music while he's at it too.

Some seriously ignorant shit. Consider me triggered.

>>73855559
George Harrison could mop the floor with Pete Townsend any day of the week, and even Pete would be the first to admit this.

Keith Richards had the chops but was a wannabe blues man.

Davies, and all the guitar players of The Yardbirds could oat certainly hold their own with George Harrison, but their styles of playing were different, but not necessarily better.

This green text is strictly a matter of opinion, and not based in fact.

>>73857089
>Do people have to know how to cook if they are going to criticize a plate?
what is a palate?

>>73857089
>George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist

Yeah, great criticism. Many food critics actually cook as a hobby and know techniques, this guy can literally not play any instrument and he's criticising a guy from The Beatles for his technique.

>>73855559

The greatest consolation to me about all of this is that Scaruffi will never know what it is like to enjoy the wonderful songwriting of the Beatles because he's too busy being such a self-righteous asshole

>>73857361
>might as well just totally write off punk music while he's at it too.

It would be great it he did this. Rock music in general is bad, but punk is just absolute trash.

>>73857527
Music is a plebeian art form and learning how to play a musical instrument is a waste of time. A good music critic would never do such a stupid thing.

>>73857527
Do you have to be a director in order to call a movie shit?

>>73857260
This is terrible. He has no tone or anything. It's wispy, and twangy and anyone can play this in less than a month of learning guitar.

instrumental proficiency was never the appeal of the beatles. i like a lot of scarufficore but the dudes a music journalist; a hack

>>73857361
>>proficiency in instruments = good
nah he doesn't think that at all. hes just bashing them because he really hates them. he himself said that the only thing that matters in music is emotion. if you can't play your instrument for shit but you put a lot of emotion into it scaruffi will like it

File: 1499734386803~2.jpg (21KB, 452x252px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 452x252px

>>73855559
What's the name of this haircut?

>>73859493
Luigi

>>73859331
This, they were never famous for solos and other stuff like that, their music just works.

>>73855559
It's settled, Ringo is the best Beatles, right from the mouth of Pizza Scaruffi.

Why are Beatlefags so easily triggered?

>>73859380
Of course this is correct, also Christgau said same. Expression is what counts in a song, not technicality.

>>73856674
>he discovered the relationship between numbers and music
scaruffi confirmed for fedora materialist

That's pretty weak criticism. Just because they didn't have the single greatest at their instruments in history doesn't make them bad. They still played just fine.

File: spl500702_058.jpg (81KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 600x900px

>>73856631
This is a "fucking massive" nose. You sure got some weird standards.

File: IMG_1597.jpg (35KB, 486x449px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 486x449px

>>73859493
>>73861509
>Why are there age limits? why is it illegal to marry a 12-year old? Helen of Troy was 12. Juliet and Cleopatra were still teenagers when they became famous. Most heroines of classic novels and poems were underage by today's laws. Thomas Edison married a 16-year-old. Medical studies show that the best age for a woman to have children is between 15 and 25 (lowest chances of miscarriage, of birth defects and, last but not least, of the woman dying while giving birth); while the worst age is after the mid 30s. And the younger you are, the more likely you are to cement a real friendship with your children; the older you are, the more likely that the "generational gap" will hurt your children's psychology.
>(not true, by the way)

How knowledgeable in music theory is he again?

>>73862155
Say what you want about fantano, but at least he isn't a pedophile.

>>73862155
s-source?

>its another scaruffi thread where people fail to realise he's taking a view of popular music from a historic and philosophical viewpoint

>>73862155
Go ahead and link to the page you got it from instead of taking things out of context friend

>>73857260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUgj94xGS3g

Not to mention that even outside of those frameworks, there are much more impressive guitarists like Sandy Bull from even before 1964

>>73857348
Yeah, to stop mongoloids like you

>>73857306
Technically, you can't. You can sue the shit outta him, but even then a judge can't revoke his medical license. Only the state medical board can do that, at least in commiefornia.

>>73862207
Christgau isn't either.

>>73862155
there is literally nothing wrong with what he said. he is objectively true. of course, considering his age, it does come off a bit pedophilic but still.

>>73855559
>Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks

What about Townshend of The Them, Richards of the Peet Hurlers, Davies of The Crimps?

>>73855559
He's jealous that the Beatles were getting laid, stoned and having fun while he was a jerk off.

>any of those other guitarists
>original

What a JOKE

>>73862207
Fantano is a tasteless retard tho

I had a dream that Scaruffi came into the store I work at and told me he was working on more music reviews but was really overwhelmed because people want him to review so much new stuff, and he actually started crying, and I gave him a hug, and then this other person who recognized him gave him a hug too.

>tfw will probably never give Scaruffi a hug

>>73862207
i don't know about that, there is something queer about him. i bet he would love to give the girlies a taste of his pecker.

>>73857089
i fuckin hate plates tho

>>73855559
It doesn't fucking matter. Complexity =/= quality.
A lot of the best songs out there are pretty simple.
Picasso once said: It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.
I think the same applies to music.

tl;dr shut the fuck up fuckhead

>>73859493
Male pattern baldness.

>>73857260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bmJ2oeEovI
Listen to how Joe Pass plays this, in 1964.

>>73855559
>>the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence
What instrument does Scruffy play again?

>>73857306
Yes because you don't know the cause
>>73857089
Except here he's specifically criticizing technique. It's OK for him to say if he likes something or not, but for him to criticize actual playing ability without knowing what he's talking about is embarrassing.

>>73864646
Picasso paintings look like feces compared to Raphael or any other classical artist. Modern art is a disgusting endeavor.

>>73864852
>Modern art is a disgusting endeavor.
Stop

>>73864871
Anyone who pushes it has a deeply rooted hatred of western civilization, beauty, order, tradition, and the white race.

So no, you should be killed.

>>73864915
>>>/pol/

>>73865230
Great point, wtf I love modern art now

>Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton, Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but more original

Call me when these fellas release something as good as All Things Must Pass

>>73865335
I released something as good as All Things Must Pass and I'm not a musician.

>>73865347

niga fug u

>>73855559
total rubbish, desu

Apart rom anything else , the important thing is the standard of their songwriting, which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay above and beyond about 99% of all musicians.

But to talk about technicality, actually the Beatles are a very good, tight knit group.
1, They played hundreds of hours in small clubs in their formative years. This develops interband sychronisity.
2, George Harrison is/was good enough to play 90% of guitar parts in 90% of music that most people listen to. He isn't amazingly good, yea, but not every single musical phrase is inherently demanding, and nor does it have to be.
3, Ringo Starr is / was one of the best drummers for keeping tempo in the studios. He had no 'red light fever'.
4, John Lennon's rhythm guitar while singing is actually quite difficult to do. He also used strange piano-esque inversions of chords on the guitar. He made his parts deliberately a bit obtuse, a bit like his own personality.
5, Paul McCartney is more than good enough on the bass, guitar and piano and has a very high vocal range. He still belts out demanding pieces like Hey Jude into his 70s, always in key

you could also add their foresight, ability, and bravery in their revolutionary studio techniques on their (later) albums.

So no, you are talking out of your ass to be honest buddy

>>73859493
JUST-cut

>>73865430
>this post
It reads like something written by a 15 year old girl.

>>73857361
>I am not too interested in the instrumental technique. I am more interested in emotion than in technique. Traditionally, jazz has been associated with technique (an odd mis-interpretation of the original spirit of Afro-american music by white intellectuals). I do not enjoy listening to music for the sake of a brilliant solo. That solo has to deliver emotion. If it is technically breathtaking but does not deliver any emotion, that musician is not very interesting to me. There is a difference, in my opinion, between a juggler and an artist. If the playing is barely passable, but it delivers a lot of emotion, that musician is a genius.
It's not a shame for a musician to be decent at what he's doing.

>>73856006
its a completely normal nose for a male italian

>>73865472
>jazz has been associated with technique (an odd mis-interpretation of the original spirit of Afro-american music by white intellectuals)
But the bebop revolution which is the point in which jazz was started to be associated with technique was done by almost exclusively black musicians like Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie, what the fuck is he talking about?

>>73865430
>you could also add their foresight, ability, and bravery in their revolutionary studio techniques on their (later) albums.
Nothing that wasn't done before (Beach Boys, Frank Zappa, etc), and you can mostly thank George Martin for the studio techniques not the Beatles per se.

>>73865494
What the fuck are you talking about ? You missed his point. Blacks never had a say in music history/music writing.

>>73865519
Jazz became a technically demanding genre exclusively thanks to black musicians.
It wasn't an "odd mis-interpretation", there's no discussion or argument possible here, bebop was such a breakup from everything that preceded it that even musicians like Louis Armstrong hated it, they considered it technical masturbation.
It wasn't white boys that came up and said "well I guess jazz is about technique" it was a bunch of black musicians on the 51st street that made it as technical as possible.

>>73865551
>Jazz became a technically demanding genre exclusively thanks to black musicians.
Except he simply wouldn't agree with that...

>>73862199
i hate the "muh music theory argument" but i honestly think scruffy is musically illiterate. a lifetime of contrarianism has fooled his followers into thinking he has taste. at least he kind of showed ringo some respect.

>>73857705
No, but I'd trust a guy who actually knows how to direct a movie to say what exactly is shit in the movie rather than some random jackass.

>>73865506
>Nothing that wasn't done before
So? Who cares.
>Beach Boys
and you can mostly thank The Wrecking Crew for the studio musicianship not the Beach Boys per se.
>Frank Zappa
and you can mostly thank The Mothers of Invention for the studio musicianship not Frank Zappa per se.

File: 1498889957826.jpg (25KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x480px

So to all the people who say you need to be a musician to judge music:

What kind of musician do you need to be?

Is playing one instrument enough? If you are very good at piano but ONLY piano, are you allowed to judge saxophone players?

If you want to judge an orchestral performance, do you have to be able to play every instrument used in the orchestra?

If you are in a psych rock band, are you allowed to judge jazz and classical or only other psych rock?

How does it work?

>>73865956
>What kind of musician do you need to be?
Well, what are you judging?

>>73865997

I want to be a critic to judge all music like Scaruffi. How many instruments do I need to learn to do that?

>>73866011
>How many instruments do I need to learn to do that?
Well zero, since you want to judge music like Scruffy.

>>73866011
zero

>>73866029

I meant to judge *all music* like Scaruffi does, not judge music as good/poorly as Scaruffi does.

If I want to judge all music, every genre, and do it WELL, and have my opinion be valid unlike Scaruffi's how many instruments do I need to play?

>>73866011
>I want to be a critic to judge all music like Scaruffi.
You mean getting basic facts wrong, perpetuating historical revision and disguising your musically uneducated opinion as fact and intellectualism?

>>73866054

literally look at the post above yours you turboautist

>>73856786
Music is sort-of unique in that appreciating and listening to music is a different skill than playing it. Now, there's a lot of overlap, but the two are inherently different, and knowing how to play an ie. guitar well doesn't really make you an expert in music. Most contemporary musicians have pretty shit taste in music desu.

>>73866050
>how many instruments do I need to play?
Just learn Music Theory.

>>73866073
>>73866084

Stop being an idiot please

>>73866084

Okay but then how do I judge music that doesn't depend on theory, like punk or improvisation in jazz?

>>73866104
>like punk or improvisation in jazz?
Theory applies to both, especially Jazz. What are you even talking about?

File: ButterSuicide.jpg (61KB, 622x454px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 622x454px

>>73866104
>implying punk and free jazz aren't rooted in theory

>>73866104
There's no music that doesn't depend on theory what the fuck are you talking about mate.

>>73866158
>>73866131
>>73866119

okay fine, if I know theory I will essentially understand how to play every single instrument ever created and judge them being played in any context or combination or genre?

>>73866185
If you want to prove us intrumentfags wrong you need to stop sounding like a musically illiterate imbecile

>>73866185
If you know music theory you will be capable of understanding musicianship, which doesn't depend on the particular instrument.

>>73866202

maybe if instrumentfags want to prove critics wrong they should explain how playing an instrument is some magical key to understanding every genre of music better.

>>73866308
>prove critics wrong
About their opinion?

See >>73864735

>>73866337

>About their opinion?

yes, because musicians constantly say that a critic's opinion is "less valid" if they don't play an instrument.

>>73866377
>"less valid" if they don't play an instrument.
Correct

What's there not to understand? Do you ask a plumber about heart surgery? They will both have an opinion and that's OK. But whose would you trust?

>>73866417

that's not a fair analogy. music is art, not science. there's a huge difference in the way they should be judged.

>>73865469
You didn't refute anything he said though.

>>73866437
>music is art, not science
See >>73866084
>there's a huge difference in the way they should be judged.
If you believe this, why do you think there is no difference in the way, say, Jazz, rock and classical should be judged?

>>73866185
I don't even think you need to know theory/instruments, your argument was just terrible.

>>73866216
This is correct

>>73866455
as a musician it is not necessary to study music theory because with practice all of that shit comes naturally anyway. learning theory can help accelerate your understanding of music or a particular instrument but it can also be stifling to creativity if you always formulaically stay in the lines

>>73859493
IL JUSTOLINI

>>73857637
>>73865472

>Explicitly states that he doesn't care about instrumental proficiency
>Shits on the Beatles for it anyways

Why is this guy such a dick?

>>73855559
Scaruffi is a cringeworthy beta pseud. This is common knowledge to everyone except for newfags.

>>73866580
>muh theory stifles creativity
Can this meme die.

Some of the most creative jazz musicians of the late-20th century were very versed in music theory. Sure, some of it comes naturally, but willful ignorance because "muh free spirit" is retarded.

>>73866738
>jazz
>creative
>proceeds to *doot doot* for twenty minutes

>>73866781
>rock
>creative
>guitarist goes *waow-waow* for 5 minutes

>>73866580
Why do people against music theory always talk about it "stifling their creativity"? Learning music theory doesnt make you a mindless zombie unable of free thought, it just give you the tools to better understand the melodies, harmonies, and rhythms that you play. If anything it should make you more creative when songwriting.

>>73866738
music theory acts as tools to help craft a song but at the end of the day its not necessary to have a great understanding of music and every single musician who is self taught is a testament to this because like i said a lot of it comes naturally with practice and training your ear anyway

>>73866911
>practice and training your ear anyway
So... using music theory, albeit unintentionally.

>>73866911

>every single musician who is self taught

...are inferior to the ones who actually learned.

>>73867075
>(not true, by the way)

File: e53170f815d31b8269a87e983c49ab21--andrew-loomis-art-tips.jpg (15KB, 236x305px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x305px

>>73866892
im much more of a visual artist than i am a musician but ill put this in relateable terms for you. loomis was a famous illustrator and art instructor who popularized graphing/mapping out a face/anatomy which can really help accelerate your understanding of basic human anatomy but if you ever go to /ic/ you can always tell who studies loomis because their people (that are proportionally right) are often stiff and they suffer from same face syndrome. i've never used anything like that, i've just drawn from the pure joy i get out of it and i think my art is better off for it. i think the same applies for music and any creative process. there will always be rules but it doesn't mean you have to follow them.

>>73867075
I mean, you can't entirely generalize like that, but I agree that formally trained ones tend to be better.

>>73867096
>there will always be rules
What are some of the music theory rules, according to you?

File: adrian belew.jpg (14KB, 236x365px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x365px

>>73867075

adrian belew would like to have a word with you anon.

>>73867096
You need to walk before you run. Having an understanding of your roots is essential to becoming great. I'm sure there are people who just pick up a guitar and make folk-revival, but knowing what folk revival is, where it came from, what it's history is ect. will allow you to elevate your art.

Also, /ic/ is filled with pleb-tier hobbyists, not actual artists.

>>73867123
well pretty much every time i ever see someone use music theory as an argument on /mu/ i envision a 15 year old with an over inflated sense of self worth for learning all of his guitar scales. any knowledge you have of something is an advantage but its not necessary to know scales to solo

>>73867230
Ooops you didn't answer my question.

Try again.

>>73867263
music theory is a broad term anon, what do you want me to tell you? its a general understanding of music and it usually defines what things are in music. do you want me to explain to you what harmony or dynamics are? i've literally never had someone sit me down and teach me any music theory but i've picked up most of it on my own just from playing or listening to music for the past 15 years

>>73867423
>what do you want me to tell you?
You made a claim:
>it can also be stifling to creativity if you always formulaically stay in the lines
and
>there will always be rules

So what are these "rules" and "lines" you speak of, in music theory, in which you have to follow?

>i've literally never had someone sit me down and teach me any music theory
So why are you trying to have a conversation (and condemn) something you've never learned?