What is the most controversial opinion by the melon guy? Pic related.

File: hatesthony-kentano.png (192KB, 456x238px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 456x238px

>>74263885
I guess giving DAMN a 7 is fine, but he's given much worse albums better scores, like Flower Boy.

Daily reminder that TKOL is one of their best albums.

>>74263885
Well I mean yeah they're both garbage albums.

fuckin narkopop 2/10 because he googled voigt's name once, saw "pop" and expected pop music

>>74263934
flower boy doesn't have a single bad song on it so I think it's 100% deserving of the score he gave it,

Pablo Honey is great. Neck yourself.

File: bait_insult.png (42KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 625x626px

>>74263934

File: Shrug.png (89KB, 683x470px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 683x470px

>>74263934
Not exactly, though this does prove how arbitrary it is to "score" an album, let alone any other form of media. You cannot maintain the exact same standards and apply them to each and every single album that is released in a draconian manner - how you rate them will be heavily effected on your perception of the artist, your musical preferences and even the more trivial factors such as your mood and how you listened to the album (there is an enormous difference between listening to an album in the background and concentrating solely on it). Naturally albums that many viewers may consider an 8/10 will not obtain such a score whilst others that are considered "inferior" will be rated higher even if it seems to contradict the reviewer's general outlook and preferences. It wouldn't surprise me if Fantano succumbs to burn-out in the coming months if he hasn't already, and that can heavily effect one's enjoyment of an album. We can only be thankful ultimately that he hasn't been bribed for his reviews (at least as far as one can see, say what you will of his sponsors). That being said it does seem that he's gotten something of a soft/harsh stance against music with no real medium, albums are either "NOT GOOD"/ >3 or otherwise 7s, 8s and so on. It seems that he's naturally became prejudiced towards certain "sounds" so to speak over time (though I wouldn't attribute this to recent success, given how much music he's listened to it is only natural, it'd be far more difficult to enjoy anything of a particular sub-genre if you've already listened to near everything that's been done with it). Nonetheless to continue his YouTube "career" for over five years, manage three channels (one of which does not gain Ad revenue) and constantly feature on other channels is considerably impressive, undoubtedly charismatic and a surefire show of stamina.

Apologies if I've rambled somewhat.

Numerically rating albums is silly. It's just a carryover from the old days of music journalism. Critics like Anthony Fantano and Pitchfork shouldn't be numerically rating albums but instead just exposing people to new albums and artists they might otherwise have missed. A simple favorable or unfavorable rating would suffice.

>>74263885
MFBTY
/thread

>>74264112
My fantasy beautiful the yeezus?

>>74264080
This is true. Of course when you listen to Kendrick your expectations are going to be a lot higher than Tyler.

>>74264110
numerical scores are necessary just like a hammer and nail are still necessary and textbooks still being necessary, the new "revamped" scores you want are vague and dont indicate quality so they're useless

File: Melon.jpg (37KB, 642x361px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 642x361px

>he didn't like The Background World.

Can we switch from the 1-10 to the patrice oneal 1-30 scale?

The 1-10 scale seems easy and practical to use but you always find yourself wanting to put a decimal after the whole number. It also gets in a gray area around the 5-7 range because if you give an album a six, then it seems like it could be worse than what it is because it's almost a five, which would be average. Anything below a five just is thought to be below average and untouchable, but some fours could possibly be ok. But if you give an album a seven because you think it's better than a "six", then you kind of bring down the value of a true seven and this is where the 1-30 scale makes up for all that.

Think of the 1-30 scale broken up into three parts:

1-10 = bad album

11-20 = average album

21-30 = good album

So you essentially have three 1-10 scales but they are based on what type of album they are. Once you determine what group a certain aöbum belongs to, you can then give it a rating in it's scale. Since you have already determined if it's bad, average, or good, there is no need for decimals or devaluing the scale. So for example, you may think that pablo honey is good. Well most likely it will fall into the average group, but it's on the high end of the ugly group scale, so a nine or 10. You'd give it a liste, but on a 1-10 scale, you'd probably only give her a 5 or 6, which is average. Something like DAMN. would obviously be in the good album category and would most likely in the upper region of the respected scale. I would say some people in this group would consider
it a 30. it would be a good "good" album.

>>74264080
Thank you for the ramble. This is the quality shit I come here to read.

File: download.jpg (7KB, 301x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 301x168px

>>74264335
Good ideas, but the problem is how to implement it. People are already comfortable with the standard scoring system.

File: needledropmostdisliked.png (553KB, 1011x1114px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1011x1114px

Who is in the right here?

>>74264215

Measurements are only useful if they're objective. And the textbook industry is terrible. A better alternative would be open source ebooks or something like that.

>>74264639
the point im making is that the concept of numerical scores are not going away because they're too universal and easily applicable. Just because a textbook is online doesn't make it not a textbook

>>74264631
usually the videos with a ton of dislikes are the only ones where he's actually right

>wrong or at the very least too harsh
>too harsh, no explanation given besides shallow bias against kanye
>never listened
>J cole is average
>never listened
>never listened
>never listened
>dont know the score
>dont know the score
>way too fucking harsh on travis considering that musically this is rivaling rodeo

>>74263968
tbf the album isnt that great
live he is 3000 x better

>>74264674
not true at all he gave one of the weeknd's best mixtapes a 3/10.

>>74264335
one of the most retarded things i've ever read
a number and 10 minutes of words about the album is specific enough

>>74263934
Damn was bad though, should have been a light 3 desu

>>74264631
mac demarco fans are so cancerous

>>74264705
>Damn was bad though
compared to kendrick's previous works its subpar but compared to contemporary hip hop its above average.

>>74263885
That he is a relevant, professional music reviewer.

File: 4.png (2MB, 1100x1350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1100x1350px

>>74263934
(you)

that fucking slowdive review was shit

File: 1451347230153.jpg (94KB, 618x652px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 618x652px

>>74264745
He is a Professional music reviewer.
Professional means that he gets money for doing something and guess what, he gets money for doing reviews

>>74264716
But that isn't true. Compare flower Boy, 444, and big fish theory to damn and damn looks like a sad bag of uninspired nothing with three good songs and the rest being total borefest trash.

>>74265203
He is a professional reviewer in the same way that a homeless person is a professional beggar. Sure, okay, maybe you make money from it, but it's still not a real job.

>>74263934
I don't think anyone is even remotely capable of giving Kendrick an unbiased review
as far as I can tell he gave this a 7 because people realized Pitchfork was just sucking Kendrick off and he wanted to distance himself from that

>>74265141
It was, but the new Slowdive wasn't that great friend.

>>74265323
All three of those albums are seriously awful, Damn was pretty solid. Please explain to me what it is that people love about Big Fish and Flower Boy (excluding 444 because I don't think anyone likes this album) because I hear pure shit on each album

>>74263885
Not controversial really since people generally agree with him on it, but he gave Scumfuck an 8 and opened the floodgates of people sucking a very okay album's dick

>>74265203
He's a youtuber not a reviewe dude. Pewdiepie could review an album and he would make money off that video but it wouldn't make him professional

>>74264080
are you the gentlemen that made that beautiful Everything Now review in that other thread

>>74264631
people were disliking the Salad Days one because of melon's hair

>>74263982
Not even potholes

>>74264263
the background world is one of the worst tracks Trent has ever made imo. its an OK song smothered by a lame gimmick that hes done before.

File: header.jpg (44KB, 460x215px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 460x215px

>>74264080

>>74267678
It's an amazing song, imho. The ending fit perfectly and it makes perfect outro, creeping and slowly disorting itself into chaos.
Trent has never done this type of ending before, you can try and point to stuff like "The Great Destroyer" or "Black Noise" but none of them decide to utterly destroy a song as much as those did.

File: 13672319.jpg (39KB, 576x472px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 576x472px

>>74265359
>Gets paid enough to live his life
>Hurr Durr get a real job faget
You sicken me