Is he the only critic worth droning?

Make your own opinion you fucking dumbass

no he is a just prententious provocateur. his arguments on artists he doesn't like are flawed and can most of the time he boiled down to "I don't think these people make good music"

You clearly didn't understand his Beatles and Bowie analysis then. Keep in mind those artists get praised a lot for being "original" and "revolutionary" when that isn't the case obviously and anyone who listens to experimental rock will tell you the same. Scaruffi does a great a job explaining why the Beatles and Bowie did nothing except repackaging what was done in avant-garde scenes before them to a poptimist audience.

Out of the countless talentless, obnoxious and PEDOPHILIC hacks in the art critic scene, Piero Scaruffi has to be the absolute worst contender. It speaks a lot that a man who has reviewed the works of over 8600 musical artists for more than 30 years is so incompetent when it comes to his alleged 'craft'. Not only does Scaruffi have the lowly musical intelligence that is easily overshadowed by any first-year music student at your local university campus, the man is also an inadequate writer. His critiques are often mediocre, lack true depth or substance, as if he had listened to most of the music as ambience noise while he performed other trivial tasks around his small apartment. He often spews out what more capable critics have already been saying years before him, displaying no originality or free thought of his own. Whatever minuscule level of content Scaruffi manages to say in his writing is completely made to irrelevancy by the totally arbitrary numerical values he assigns at the end of his reviews, as if "5.5/10" means anything in the context of artistic value. To make matters worse, he seems to ignorantly misuse the most simple adjectives as if he is still learning basic writing skills despite three full decades of professional writing, and a number of published books. This is the same man that will claim the widely famous rock group 'AC/DC' as: "one of the greatest heavy-metal bands of all times", and yet one can find a sea of 5-6/10's on their page. Either Scaruffi is humorously unaware of the meaning of the word "best", or he has a clear bias against certain musical styles that don't fit his particular taste. Regardless, the average high school student could likely compose a more thought provoking music review than Scaruffi could even dream of achieving. The ultimate gift to the music industry would be to see this tired elderly man pack up his pencils and disappear off the net for good. Not worth anyone's time reading his embarrassments of critiques.

based post

Go back to /lgbt/ you Frank Ocean fan

kek

>Scaruffi does a great a job explaining why the Beatles and Bowie did nothing except repackaging what was done in avant-garde scenes before them to a poptimist audience.
he doesn't do that, he just says that without any explanation. he also fails to explain why that's bad in any way.

He has absolutely no context or knowledge of anything he discusses as a foreigner. English is not his native tongue, he will never understand pop-music. Everything he says should be immediately discarded.

>Beatles and Bowie did nothing except repackaging what was done in avant-garde scenes before them to a poptimist audience.
Poptimism was not an ideology at that point in time. Look at the chart numbers for your "avant-garde releases" no one heard that shit. If no one heard it, it can't be influential by definition, no matter how forward thinking or good it is.

Except he made a ton of errors in it.

Alos
>get praised a lot for being "original" and "revolutionary" when that isn't the case
Not correct
>Scaruffi does a great a job explaining why the Beatles and Bowie did nothing except repackaging what was done in avant-garde scenes before them to a poptimist audience.
That's fine though. Using new ideas in new contexts is absolutely fine.

>Poptimist audience
Poptimists didn't even exist then you fag
He has a point though, Radiohead is the modern example of that
Making Avant garde music palatable to the masses
There's value in that even if it's not strictly innovative per the dictionary definition

why are you replying to me

Other user didn't deserve the (you)

Poptimism exists since the 50s (at least). What the fuck are you saying? Just because the term was coined recently it doesn't mean it's a modern ideology.

>Poptimism exists since the 50s (at least).
provide evidence for this

scruffi is the logical conclusion to music criticism

vvvvvvvvvvvv

Didn't he review a bunch of albums he didn't even listen to?

yes
movies too

>a thing created to directly counteract something that emerged in the 1970s
>exists since the 50s

>music has to be innovative to be good

Attached: 664.jpg (558x614, 18K)

>Poptimism exists since the 50s (at least).
Your a fucking retard. Poptimism arose from the dominance of the album format from 1966 onward, particularly in the 80s with dance music, but really did not gain critical momentum until the latter part of the 90s. Stop posting and breathing.

Poptimism was invented in the 2000s
As a social justice campaign
It has nothing to do with music listeners .

Counts. Its about critical coverage of music
No one in the past was on a crusade to go to bat for vapid pop music as critically significant because it was rightly disregarded as corporate product not worthy of further discussion

if it didn't everyone would just listen to the same song over and over again until the end of time

>rightly
Which The Beatles proved wasn't so

As you can see in practical IRL application, this hasn't happened. Thus you are wrong.

>when that isn't the case obviously and anyone who listens to experimental rock
Experimental rock is a type of possible innovation, but it's not the only one. David Bowie is very innovative but not in the "avant-gardist" way of doing things. More in the post-modernist way.
Scaruffi doesn't understand that because he's an avant-snob.

>Scaruffi doesn't understand that because he's an avant-snob.
Scaruffi doesn't understand that because Anglicism and Americanism are utterly lost on him as a guido. He will never understand because he is not one of them. There is a reason American and English pop music hits the rest of Europe years after the fact.

>being a humble cuck
A real man is proud of his work, Pierro is someone you could look up to for that, sheer self-confidence

He's also a non musician who doesn't know theory

>defending pop music

>m: I curl up

inside the palm of your hand,

in a cut of the crevasse

where foam roars fertile

of you, and scream until breathless

your sharpened nails.
m: I curl up

inside the palm of your hand,

in a cut of the crevasse

where foam roars fertile

of you, and scream until breathless

your sharpened nails.
f: Now your stem, crippled, cries

warm dew; and with your lifted finger

you point to our motionless shadows,

coiled up on the chandelier.
>f: Now your stem, crippled, cries

warm dew; and with your lifted finger

you point to our motionless shadows,

coiled up on the chandelier.

Yeah, really should be proud about a bathroom stall poem on handjobs.

All music after 1960 is pop music. You will never understand any other music than pop music. This is the time you were given. The context surrounding classical will always be lost on you.

But Scruffy does that too?

Holy fuck the fucking madman.

no you fucking brainlet faggot, you are wrong
People listen to innovative music because they dont listen to to the same tune, are you dense?

he has a page with literally hundreds of them. Compiled by himself of course

I like his taste in music, tho

What are you talking about? Is English not your first language?