Scaruffi

Guys, Scaruffi changed the rating of Magical Mystery Tour from 6/10 to 7/10, and I think he also changed some other things in the text. What happened? Don't tell me he listened to it again and liked it more than the last time. What made him change his mind? Beatles fags can't get away with this.

reminder scaruffi gave good grades to literal rym tranny shills

Makes sense seeing as Scaruffi can never seem to make up his mind about the Beatles. He opines that

Ringo is one of the greatest drummers of all time

Paul and John are some of the greatest singers of all time

Sgt. Pepper's is one of the greatest psychedelic albums of all time

Abbey Road is one of the greatest pop albums of all time

The Beatles had "melodic genius" and created "tours de force"

while at the same time noting that they

"had nothing to say and that's why they didn't say it"

created nothing worthy of being saved

Boybandfag and toejamfag are just Scaruffi arguing with himself.

I think Scaruffi's main point against the Beatles in that page, is that despite using innovative studio techniques, they almost never abandoned the chorus or the melody-based song. He never denied that they were great at making melodies, and nobody really can. That said, I think Scaruffi's perception of the Beatles may have changed a little, but even so, he can't change the fact that he said they were a scam. That's a big part of what the rock section of his blog is based on and it will take time to change everything if for some reason he no longer thinks that way.

He says that but then gives Metallica two 8s, a 7.5, and a couple of 7s?

I just don't get how he likes Sgt Pepper's the most when it's easily their weakest post-Rubber Soul album.

He's also obsessed with the idea that they did everything a year or two late versus their contemporaries, which sure but I think most people would agree that musically they weren't big innovators but still brought forward a lot of ideas to the average music listener of the time and were constantly changing

Let It Be is worse

why do you fags still care about some old cunt's opinions on music you like or dislike
literally none of it matters

no one cares

Scaruffi just doesn't like music centered on melody.
He's more into music that arouses havoc, makes one plunge into a Dantesque hell of emotions and sensations, triggers a paroxysm of feeling and metaphysical blablabla. If you read the reviews he wrote for his highest-rated acts, he always praises this kind of things.

And conversely he rates bands that were great at writing catchy melodies with a maximum 7. And calls their songs 'ditties', as if they're some silly children's tunes.

You're not wrong, that's an accurate observation. I've come to accept that a 7 on a normie-ish album is actually a great score for scaruffi

anyotherwayendupanyotherwayendupanyotherway

imo their best melodic chorus

calls their songs 'ditties', as if they're some silly children's tunes

Pretty fitting for The Beatles

Pepper’s is the GOAT

makes one plunge into a Dantesque hell of emotions and sensations

I hardly get that from Blonde on Blonde, apparently the 17th greatest album of all time.

Scaruffi rates music based on novelty rather than actual quality, it's why he almost always rates artists early albums the highest

Rubber Soul is so obviously their best.

It’s interesting he compares the Beatles unfavorably to the Kinks (“the most original British band of their time”) despite giving the Beatles better scores.

What do you suppose those “several international awards” are? Hard to imagine someone considering an essay with the line “Ray Davies was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney” (no elaboration) as the most professional anything.

He was too generous with the stones imo

Not talking about the scores. Who else gets the “all of your work after this point isn’t even worth mentioning” treatment?

Yes. I think Who's Next used to be an 8 as well, but I could be wrong tho. Quadrophenia is their best anyway.

it's typical modernist thinking, he doesn't value the classicism of artistic conventions, and thinks that artists who explore form are inherently greater than someone who works through a well-established form. case in point he says this about art tatum:

"He coined the language, but he failed to write the poem: his style was a baroque infrastructure of embellishments. That colossal apparatus of technique was tested mainly on brief pop tunes, it was never adequately employed for a major composition. Fame and respect came in 1933 with a breakneck version of Nick LaRocca's Tiger Rag (march 1933), and his first hit came with a solo-piano cover of Vincent Youmans' pop tune Tea for Two (march 1933). His repertory would remain of this (very trivial) quality."

i personally think it's a pretty shallow brand of criticism, and you can kind of predict what he thinks of a certain artist before you even read him

I think its very unprofessional but also funny
I dont know if he did that with others, my guess is yes, since there are a ton of artists he tolk about

Unprofessional but funny sums him up nicely.

Other artists get either all their albums reviewed or they get a comma/10. Stones is the unique that I’ve seen.

hahaha fucking savage

it's funny because he did this with the stones but he's reviewed an assload of tangerine dream albums that genuinely get 2s or 3s

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain

I also have a problem when an artist has more than 50 albums in their discography, it makes me think that its just work for them with no artistic value. I really like Brian Eno, but I would prefear that instead of 50+ albums he had fewer cause as I said, you end up with a lot of filler. Ofc I understand its their job

I thought he never listened to albums more than once. or maybe it meant he doesnt listen to an album more than once to give it a rating.

I think most of the reviewed albums are 1 listen.
When he changes scores means he revisited them

pretty accurate.
I favour all those things too so I fux with my nigga scruff