I agree with most of the things expressed in his Beatles essay,

he gave Abbey Road a 7, he really understand about music

His Beatles rant is completely justified but his ratings are genuinely retarded,I mean fuck off with the ''no album is 10/10 shit''

>>74341770
This
I'll immediately discredit any reviewer who thinks that they should never give a 10
At that point you're basically just using a 1-9 scale which is no different

>>74341438
>>74341462
>>74341770
Tbh I think the harsh ratings on those albums is due to his illogical hatred for the band. I'm sure if the Beatles weren't such a popular band he'd have given pretty much all of their albums +1.

>>74341770
9.5 is just a 10 pretty much. He'd given Trout Mask Replica, Rock Bottom and Faust 9.5. Those are his 10's imo.

>>74341770
>I mean fuck off with the ''no album is 10/10 shit''
he only gives scores to popular music. he said when a popular music album will rival jazz/classical masterpieces only then it will get a ten.

>>74341828
That's retarded, no one judges classical and pop music on the same scale

>>74341837
>That's retarded, no one judges classical and pop music on the same scale
fucking lmao. it looks like he has more respect for popular music than you do. in his eyes albums that he gave a 9.5/10 are probably fucking miles ahead of shit that you gave a 10

>>74341960
He uses deflated scale, his 8s are normal people's 9s

>>74342001
more like his 6.5s and 7s are normal people's 10s

>>74341770
Anything beyond theoretical or abstract, especially art due to its subjective nature, simply can not be absolutely "perfect", since it contradicts its own definition.

>>74341828
I suppose that makes some sense but every form of music have their own aspects which aren't really that comparable to each other