/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

if you care about either jenny death or scruffles then you are the cancer killing mu

congrats

is that steve bucemi?

>6.5
>Albums are rated on this website as follows: 10=best ever; 9=a masterpiece; 8=buy it now; 7=buy it eventually; 6=buy it if you are a fan
>panned

>>52623421
If you don't care for Scaruffi then you are new, congrats

>>52623402
He said To Be Kind was better than The Seer

>>52623451
Did you read the review?

this is fantastic literature

>>52623477
Scaruffi just sounds like a bitter old man now.

>>52623438
Both were a part of the no-wave scene.

>>52623547
>now

>>52623564
but is it really him?

>>52623607
Yes

>>52623616
damn

Rarely do I read a Scaruffi review and agree with it.

This is one of those rare occasions.

scaruffi is a goddamn moron

proof: read any of his philosophic or political articles

>>52623451
>The album is often annoyingly redundant and predictable, but then again those are precisely the main qualities that one admires in wallpaper and in supermarket muzak.

>The album is often annoyingly redundant and predictable, but then again those are precisely the main qualities that one admires in wallpaper and in supermarket muzak.
top kek

>Nonetheless, the Swans remain unrecognizable
>the Swans
>the
Dropped.

GIra would love this if it were made by anyone other than Swans or older.

He's just upset because he prefers old swans and doesn't dig this as much lol

wonder what he'll say about RAM or Field Of Reeds

>>52623784
This image is a fantastic meme
We're only a few days into 2015 and there are already so many memes :^)

>>52623830
Gira made this.

>>52623784
scaruffi's been into the swans since before you were born, tripcunt

i don't recognize over half these artists. this guy knows his shit

>will become more and more pessimistic as he gets older.

Yes, because Gira was a goddamn ray of sunshine up until recently.

>>52624033
(not true, by the way)

>>52623402
This guy is a fucking hack, he obviously is an old fuck who shows favoritism to music from 50 years ago. Why does he never give anything above an 8?

>>52624234
its all part of a grand conspiracy to piss you off of course

>>52624234
>Why does he never give anything above an 8?
(not true, by the way)

>>52623402
>6/10
>panned
thats "must listen if you're a fan" by scaruffi's standards

Also when he did his review for The Seer he spent a good portion of it being "annoyed that swans was only JUST getting attention as a band" and later said it was too late because it's for their more uninteresting stuff.

Now opinions are opnions but letting outside factors influence how you feel about an album is kind of unprofessional. I feel like Scaruffi purposely rates their new albums lower than their old as to say "i've been a fan longer than you, you bandwagoners"

I thought it would be some stereotypical death metal album.

Little did I know it was probably one of the best I've heard

>(note for the younger generations: no, your parents were not listening to this "stuff", they were listening to Filth and Cop, much darker "stuff").
this reads like an edgy wrong generation teenager

>>52623438
Steve was involved in no-wave cinema. I don't really have an opinion of the guy, but I think it's pretty cool.

>>52624368
my parents were listening to the carpenters and simon&garfunkel

my parents were lame-o

>>52624368
I think he kind of is. He hasn't rated any album released after the year 2000 higher than an 8 (but correct me if I'm wrong).

>>52624368

It's exactly a "music used to be BETTER" statement. He definitely has disdain for newer music.

>>52624421
have one on me is the sole example of an 8.5

the fact that he compared anything on this album to Animal Collective shows he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about

>>52624421
gave joanna newsom an 8.5

he gave an explantion as to why he hadnt given out a 9+ since the 90s, but i cant find it because his site is a fucking labyrinth

>>52623421
mu is already kill
RIP /mu/
2009-2014

i can't wait the butthurt that will accompany his inevitable 4/10 benji review

>>52624506
yeah it was something along the lines of "because opinions"

all you faggots complaining about his ratings regardless of how much you disagree with them or how uninformed they might be are pathetic

hes just some old italian guy with an archaic website

>>52624517
This guy gets it. Let's pray for a rebirth.

>>52624560
>yeah it was something along the lines of "because opinions"
no it wasnt it but i'll find it soon

>scaruffi
C'mon guys, he's never been relevant. The dude has a very narrow definition on what is considered music within the context of art, and he acts as if he's the authority on what is quality and what isn't.

The only times he is referenced are when a buttmad autist needs to justify his opinion, and when he's being mocked.

He's a music historian that possesses an infatuation with his own opinion.

>>52624560
i respect the taste of old people who invented the internet more than young anons who bullshit all day

>>52624517
>>52624577

/mu/ was never good

>>52624607
Yes, but it was better and, more importantly, frequently entertaining.

Here it is:

Why have your ratings of rock album steadily declined over the decades?

- It is unfair to compare an album of the 1960s with an album of the 1990s (or, worse, later). In the old days it was expensive to make an album, hence musicians would make one only when they had a lot of material and could select the best of the best. The vast majority of their output was left unreleased. As the cost of making a disc decreased, musicians started releasing everything they compose. Inevitably, the average quality of an album has decreased.

-When a new genre/style/discipline is created (as it was in the 1960s), pretty much everybody is doing something original and influential that will be remembered for decades or centuries. The generations who come afterwards are not as lucky: whatever they do it is likely to evoke something that was already done a generation or two earlier. Therefore their output sounds less exciting to the listeners of the previous generations.

Combine these two points and you get the explanation to why you don't hear a 9/10 anymore these days.

-It is not even clear why there should be albums at all anymore. In the age of the download, why should artists release music in units of roughly 45 minutes? Just because in the 190s that was the format that made sense for the technology available at the time (the 33 RPM long-playing record)? It will eventually become meaningless to rate an "album" because the "album" in most cases is just an artificial marketing tool. Very few "albums" are designed to be such (and they are usually called "concept albums"). The main reason to still group songs together is that they are recorded at the same studios during the same period by the same group of musicians. That too is likely to change in the age of digital recording.


-----------

>>52624601
scaruffi pls

>>52624649
he must not be familiar with vapourwave :&)

>>52624649

Might as well accompany this picture with that.

>>52624689
he thinks the beatles and pink floyd are overrated though

>>52624649
it's too bad too because the 3 minute pop song in a vacuum is basically the worst kind of music on earth

it requires the bolting to a concept album and many such songs to have any listening value at all in the slightest

>>52624707

I know, but the attitude is all the same. Guy has a legit "music used to be real, now it's shitty and fake" attitude.

>>52624649
>only concept albums are made with order and flow of songs in mind
What a retard.

>>52624649
>album is outdated
>it's a glorified marketing
>ease of production and distribution makes music less interesting by default

How can any man be so out of touch with the media that he claims to have knowledge on? Is this how monks felt when the printing press was invented?

>>52623402
>6.5
>pan
Granted, some parts of the review are very negative. However, the review isn't entirely negative and this is the highest Scaruffi has ever rated a 21st century post-reunion album.

>>52623402
Considering how he wasn't keen on The Seer I'm surprised he rated To Be Kind this highly.

>>52624722
he said "usually" and he is correct, as most bands dont take these things into much consideration.

>>52624416
Your parents had better taste than you do.

>>52624710

i think he means music now should be like a super long Mp3 file, or like one really long song or piece

>>52624764
Most do, even before the idea of concept albums many artists thought about their track order. Bob Dylan apparently spent two days listening to all the possible track combinations on Highway 61 Revisited.

>>52624770
i listen to godflesh and shit&shine

my parents are finished

>>52623402
You have to keep in mind that Scaruffi is pessimistic against 21st century albums, especially 21st century albums made by reformed bands. A 6.5 is a fucking great score by his standards.

>>52624368
Scaruffi considers Korn, Tool, Marilyn Manson, Slipknot and Fear Factory some of the best metal bands ever and pinnacles of "darker" stuff, so of course he would think the edgiest Swans albums are also the best

ITT: butthurt teenagers

"I often read reviews of albums by major artists (this pretty much only happens with major artists) that ask the reader to listen "several times" to the album: at first, it may sound like the album is mediocre, but, upon repeated listening, one is supposed to realize that it is actually a great album. I have nothing to object to the method. I simply wonder if those same critics use the same method when judging the album of a less publicized artist, or if they just toss the album in the garbage can after not even finishing the first listen; because, if you listen to every album over and over again, it is likely that you'll fall in love with pretty much any piece of music ever recorded. It's a phenomenon similar to "imprinting", whereby a cub recognizes as its "mother" anyone who sticks around long enough in the very early stage of its life. If you listen to an album often enough, you will eventually recognize it as an indispensable piece of music, especially if, at the same time, you neglect the vast majority of contemporary recordings. "

Sometimes scaruffi is right

>>52624797
joanna newsom's latest got 8.5/10, released in 2010

>>52624764
I'd like to know where he's getting his information from. I'm sure not all bands/musicians take that kind of stuff into consideration (and albums by top 40 musicians almost never) but if he's going to claim that "most" don't I'd like to see his evidence for that.

>there are people who think Scaruffi is not satirizing music critics and he's actually serious

>>52624819
But that's the only 21st century album that has ever gotten a score higher than an 8.0 from him. He used to give out 8.5s and 9.0s a lot back in the 60s-90s.

>>52624873
hardly a lot

in reality theres only a large handful of albums out of all his reviews that have scored 8+

hes just reviewed a lot more albums from mid 20th century, because they are evidently a lot more albums than 14 years into the 21st century

also the age of those albums gives time for reflection as well

ahahhhahhahah
so many faggots giving a fuck about somr internet faggot.
go suck marcels dick, bitches.
accept being cancer.
die soon.
stop posting.

>>52624839
You must be thinking of christgau

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg90/grades-90s.php

how long until swans tailored beatles copy pasta

>>52624902
>in reality theres only a large handful of albums out of all his reviews that have scored 8+
14 albums from the 60s received 8+s

23 albums from the 70s received 8+s

19 albums from the 80s received 8+s

24 albums from the 90s received 8+s

0 albums from the 00s received 8+s

1 album from the 10s received an 8+

>>52624873
This could be said of many, many reviewers and publications.

Look at p4k for example, compare the amount of 10s they've given to 21st century albums with the amount they give to reissues.

>>52624961
but hes given four of their albums an 8/10, which is a score he rarely gives

he obviously thinks swans are great, he just doesnt personally enjoy their recent work as opposed to earlier releases

>>52624942

Jesus the website is even worse

>>52624649
This is idiotic. Back when production was an expensive and involved process, many artists relied heavily on record label support. This pressured them to appeal to labels; tailoring their sound to be much more marketable and accessible. To state that only quality music was produced is an extreme fallacy of logic.

Also, the audience of that era was typically limited to what was mass-marketed and easily obtained, limiting the variety and quantity of media that was available for consumption. No doubt this had an affect on musicians of the era, because most of their influences were limited to what you could hear on the radio or buy at local record stores.

We live in the digital revolution. Artists can afford create and produce art without relying on significant financial backing, and consumers can easily access an extremely broad selection of available music.

Scaruffi is a nostalgic dinosaur and an immeasurable faget..

>>52624805
I don't agree with him, for over a year I was basically forced to listen to the radio in the background while at work (the station that only plays current hits) and I've heard some of those terrible Bruno Mars songs for example over a 100 times probably and they only got worse and more annoying with every listen

>>52624982
Didn't Ys Score 8+?

>>52625030
It got an 8/10. I dunno if that guy meant 8.5 and up when he said "8+"

>>52625030
8

>>52625030
Nope, Have One On Me scored an 8+

>>52624993
They both probably just searched for the most simple and basic html tutorial possible that covers only the very basic tags and never moved past that. I doubt they actually paid somebody to make that for them.

hey now, fuck swans
old hat SHIT

ol' piero just gave a death metal album an 8/10
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol8/pyrrhon.html

http://pyrrhonband.bandcamp.com/album/the-mother-of-virtues

>>52625047
Hi, >>52624982 here. I meant 8.5 and up when I said 8+

>Bring The Sun/ Toussaint L'Ouverture (34:05), a Pink Floyd-ian rock opera about the hero of Haiti's independence war
Pink Floyd never did such horrible French vocals

I still think TBK is album of the year ;_;

>>52625125
I agree.
>tfw because Fantano and pitchfork praised To Be Kind /mu/ now hates it and Swans threads are full of shitposting

>>52623402
I don't disagree with the review, but scruffy's scores are so weird. I've seen him give albums rave reviews in text and give them 6 and 6.5.

>>52625067
About time.

You guys have to take Piero with a pinch of salt.

Surely if you've read more than just the Beatles copypasta, you'd realise he puts a large emphasis on experimentation and creativity, especially within a bands discography.

Honestly I think he has some awful thinking at times, but at other times I think he makes great sense. Imo, people just dislike him because he writes very bluntly, instead of the political correctness and inoffensive 'reviews' of mainstream media.

>>52625199
yes he's a nice alternative

steve buscemi a meth addict

>>52624072
kek

>>52623421
Scaruffi is actually a solid critic. Just like every other critic, the views in his work are subjective, but he covers a whole lot of content and seems completely immune to hype. The only two other critics I can think of that do this are Christgau and Autothrall.

>>52625125
Eh it's pretty good. It's overrated by the critics and the fanboys, but completely underrated by the contrarians.

>>52625334
But correctly rated by you. Convenient

>>52625351
Well yeah, of course I stand behind my opinion. It's obviously just my personal impression of the album, but I'm sure you have your own personal impression of it as well...

>>52625296
The only question I have is like... how well does he digest everything? I agree with >>52624805 but only to a certain point - he's got so, so, SO many albums, films, and books that he's given opinions on, I really can't believe that he has really been able to give a numerical value to everything.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong.

>>52625296
>seems completely immune to hype
I don't know how you can say this when right there in the To Be Kind review he talks about "the era of Animal Collective (seven years too late)". Not saying that there's anything wrong with responding to hype, but Scruffles is definitely directly influenced.

>>52625606
He acknowledges hype, but he doesn't seem to let it impact his judgement of the music. (e.g. he gave MBDTF a good review but acknowledged that the reason it was so critically successful was that it was accessible music made by a trendy guy)

>>52625580
Yeah, but a lot of the time, he only briefly covers the music:
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol8/nightbri.html

damn gira huge. what a fucking scary dude, a real badass. his life is awesome. tfw im a loser.

>>52625738
i met him at a swans show and he's not huge at all