Why Scaruffi's Infamous Beatles Rant Makes No Sense

[@duke86fan]

The fact that so many people still name Drain Gang "the greatest or most significant or most influential" 108 mics-core ever only tells you how far 108 Mics still is from becoming a serious art. Fantano fans have long recognized that the greatest artists of all time are Death Grips and Swans, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Rickthelai viewers rank the highly controversial Julia Holter over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. 108 Mics fans are still blinded by the memes; Drain Gang was talked about more than everyone else (not true, by the way), therefore it must have been the greatest. rick the lai fans grow up listening to a lot of indie darlings of the past, Fantano watchers grow up listening to a lot of classics of the past. 108 mics viewers are often totally ignorant of the 108 mics-core of the past, they barely know the highest rankers. No wonder they will think that drain gang did anything worth of being saved

[@meowraiu2]

drain gang

[@gameboycat05]

drain gang

[@cole2714]

You forgot to mention that Scaruffi put his own poetry in his top poetry list.

[@spaperatoreassassino4994]

I even fastly read it (I can speak italian). Do you know when you learn a knew whimsical word and you want to use it at any cost to show other people that you know weird words? The feeling of a person doing this, plus a generically poetic tone and choice of words, and you have a Scaruffi poem

[@tcaw8813]

Chad.

[@PollonPollow]

the self irony of it totally flew over you

[@reginaldcampos5762]

​@@PollonPollowis it an inside joke? Because this context makes it look really bad.

[@n.f.7342]

I just too gave a fast read and it's not bad, in my opinion

[@frenandin]

Alternate title for this video: entry level /mu/tant struggles with being a Scarufi drone

[@dryjohnson21]

You could take that statement two different ways but sure

[@zweePOP]

this but unironically

[@thegreatestguitaristonmars3608]

"The critic is the real artist" might means that your persona,your background, your vision of the world, your capacity for emotions, even your ideology, all that you are is what the art you come through is filtered from. Which it means that the value you give art is subjective and the music you listen to it takes the shape of your subjective experience One of Scaruffi's books is in fact called "A History of Rock Music". Meaning that there can be more histories and more points of views. Personally, thanks to Scaruffi I had the fortune to know so many great bands that I would not even know the existence otherwise. If it wasn't for HIS history of rock music now I would have given for granted that the peak of rock music is The Beatles, Guns n Roses, Nirvana, Pink Floyd (all bands that I love) and I wouldn't have considered going searching further. Apart all that, I agree with you about the analysis of the Beatles. I think that it sounds pretty malevolent and even approximative in many parts

[@juyhhkjitth9245]

Scaruffi unironically has very good taste.

[@captainmoondog1947]

if you're a doomer and stereotypical contrary dude, then yeah

[@juyhhkjitth9245]

@@captainmoondog1947 wrong

[@captainmoondog1947]

@@juyhhkjitth9245 dude... his valid reasons to include industrial, power electronic, experimental, avant folk, art punk TO a Rock List is because "he likes it"

[@Ryguzapi]

​@@captainmoondog1947what does that have to do with his taste?

[@isarel5999]

Tpab 6.5: (respect for posting such a hot take tho)

[@mostlytranslucent]

Great video, earned a sub. I'm a card-carrying Piero stan due to his site turning me onto so much good shit, but your breakdown was fair and on-point. My take: It's a shame his Beatles article is so memey and infamous. It foregrounds the least likeable parts of his work, and I think that means lots of people will miss the really interesting and valuable alternative canon he's outlined. I think music fandom and criticism generally would be better if Scaruffi's faves were widely listened to. At the very least more listeners would have a better sense of how far the artistic form can be and has been pushed.

[@Marco_Venieri]

but the list of the best albums will remain the best, with the truly best albums

[@adnanomeragic9597]

I think a lot of people like me during the early 2010's were just blown away from scaruffi. Getting into music at such a young age on the internet phased me for this awkward, edgy ego of patrician-ism that served as a way to demonstrate my complex-superiority to my peers who were out having fun doing teenage things, while i was stuck on the internet cultivating "culture." It started into dad-rock and being born in the wrong generation. Then finding out about p4k and getting into "you probably haven't heard this band before, they're indie" and shitting on dad rock. Then it was needledrop, wow he's really deep underground indie. And finally finding RYM and scaruffi. Oh boy, those indie kids definitely have no idea what they're talking about. Thinking they know real underground music, bet they don't even know Robert Wyatt those plebs. And because of that, scaruffi has this special place in my heart. I still am excited for his latest reviews, even when I disagree with him. This man's personality will always be something I look forward to in music criticism. And I weirdly have more of an appreciation for his take than say pitchfork. I guess the same way someone from pitchfork wouldn't care about a rolling stone review. That level of elitism never truly went away even if I think i'm self-aware of my own hypocrisy. weird observation of being a scaruffi fan: Scaruffi is extremely biased to hip hop but weirdly progressive in acclaiming female-artists compared to his counter-parts. Sure it's cool for p4k to give women bnm now, but scaruffi was doing that back in 96 when p4k and rolling stones entire list were dominated by men so ig i'm trying to say there is merit in scaruffi as a journalist. He was ahead of some his cohorts that look very progressive now.

[@aidenbarbour6337]

this comment is as comprehensive of the scaruffi experience as scaruffi is of music lol, great stuff. I relate a lot with these sentiments

[@evolutionaryfield4091]

Because he’s always been on his own thing, p4k is toxic

[@myneighborburrito]

I'm not a music scholar by any means, but I am a big Beatles fan, and I'd just like to point out that it's kind of ironic that Scaruffi slagged the Beatles so hard when Velvet Underground is his second favorite artist. Specifically because it turns out that John Cale was actually a fan of Revolver and some other Beatles tracks. As he once admitted, he tended to appreciate the brilliance of the Beatles but because he wanted to maintain appearances, he often preferred to side with the Rolling Stones in front of Reed, because they were darker and edgier. My source is an article from Far Out Magazine called "John Cale discusses the song that sold him and Lou Reed on The Beatles," although I think them saying Lou Reed was sold on the Beatles is blatant revisionism. Still, it does include some choice quotes from Cale. Great video! :)

[@xayoribangs2449]

this goes much deeper and is more well researched than i initially expected. good job man

[@internetazzhole7592]

Oh hey a video about scaruffi. I wonder if they are going to talk about the 4000 bands in his guide or how he groups up artists by geography and genre. Wait no. It's another video about that one article. Where to, (Chuck) 108 Mics "Does the world really need [one more] more of [video essays], so that the grand total goes from one million to one million and one?"

[@wolfalbion1185]

19:23 if you're not italian or can't read italian you're missing out on half of the fun here. at the bottom of the page he defines himself as "ultimo idiota in un'era di geni ", "the last idiot in an era of geniuses". i... think i agree with this definition of himself. great video.

[@gabrielegagliardi3956]

I've discovered scaruffi's site in 2004 and it really shaped my musical taste. I was mainly into grunge as a teenager but Piero quoted so many obscure bands that I was mesmerized.

[@BreakthroughGD]

20:37 He writes in the article: 'They pursued the mirage of the "rave-up" with the hard riff of Day Tripper (borrowed from Watch Your Step of bluesman Bobby Parker), a pathetic response to Satisfaction by the Stones and You Really Got Me by the Kinks.'

[@shacharh5470]

I also like Cpt. Beefheart more than the Beatles. But I still like the Beatles.

[@darodaro379]

This is one of the most clever videos I have ever seen here on youtube,. you presented your arguments incredibly well. although I am a huge beatles fan, i can understand Scaruffi's point. However like you said, it's just a rant that makes no sense, it's just a well organized paragraph with no content. Still, like you said, I'm fond of Scaruffi, even when his opnions make my blood boil, I still like to read his articles. He's a strange little old man who you just can't hate. Also, about Sgt. Pepper, the fact that many books still name that album as the "first concept album of all time" only tells you how far concept albums are from becoming a serious art. For real tho, I don't think there is an actual concept on that album apart from the two first tracks, it's hard for me to consider ir a concept album. And yes, thank you for mention Rubber Sould and Wee Small Hours

[@gunnarkarlgunnarsson2775]

Scaruffi is the greatest music critic ever. I have him to thank for discovering probably 90% of my favourite post-77 albums/artists. But he is definitely biased when it comes to the Beatles. He uses unfair comparison and he reaches quite a lot. Like how he claims that the backwards guitars og Rain are possibly inspired by Eight miles high and the the sitar is possibly inspired by See my friends. These are just guesses, he is desperatly trying to downplay everything they did. It's not like the backwards guitars or sitar usage are that big of a deal anyway. Unfair comparisons when He constantly complains that the Beatles were not creating 20 minutes of noise when practically nobody was doing that except for Red Crayola and Velvet underground. Other 60's acts don't get this treatment, Dylan, Stones, Who, Kinks, Byrds... Dylan does not get dismisses because his music lacks all avant-garde elements. Then we have some weird statements like how one of the first songs of the Beach boys was a Chuck Berry cover so one of the first Beatle songs had to be a Chuck Berry cover... Seriously what song is he talking about here? Roll over Beethoven on their second album? Was the Rolling stones version of Carol also them trying to copying the Beach Boys? He is trying to create a connection where there is none. He claims that Revolver was 1000 years to late. Sure Dylan and Zappa were ahead of the curve when it came to creating an album as a concept but what about the other 66 releases? Aftermath, Face to face, Roger the engineer, Fifth dimension, Love, A quick one etc. There is no way that Revolver is to late comparing to other 1966 albums. He claims that every song and album they released was following a much better song/album from other artists. Forget Strawberry field forever and Tomorrow never knows (no Virgin forest is not better than Tomorrow never knows), where is the much more striking predecessor to I want to hold your hand? Hi rating are awful. Sure giving a 10/10 to albums like Please please me and Beatles for sale is an insult to rock music but a 3/10? Similar or worse than albums by Britney Spears and Backstreet boys? How is Please please me worse that the Searchers and Gerry and the Pacemakers debuts?

[@doverbeachxyz]

"greatest music critic ever" Does this even mean something?

[@Tore1960]

La critica sui Beatles non potrebbe essere giustificata a livello assoluto (come qualsiasi opinione) ma potrebbe comunque essere giustificabile. Se non altro in misura maggiore di quella ipotetica (ma non fatta) su altri gruppi/artisti e perché comunque perchè avente una sua coerenza all'interno dei parametri presi da Scaruffi per giudicare in maniera positiva o negativa chi li capita sotto le sue grinfie. Quindi, in base a questi parametri, ha cercato e trovato argomentazioni contro i Beatles e diversi loro album che sono se non condivisibili perlomeno sono comprensibili in base a detti parametri. Il cercare e trovare delle obiezioni a singole asserzioni non cambia di una virgola le basi fondamentali della sua poco considerazione verso i Beatles.

[@gioCTV]

on the Chuck Berry thing: I think Scaruffi was referring to the bass line in I Saw Her Standing There which Paul ADMITTEDLY lifted from Berry's I'm Talking About You

[@reginaldcampos5762]

​@@gioCTVthey are nearly identical, but not quite. I dont have a problem with people copying parts of songs. Everyone will do it eventually. As long as the finished product is pretty different, then im fine.

[@n.f.7342]

he also completely ignores the impact they had on the rock scene (virtually creating it) in their early career

[@khawlskater]

the only reason thats scaruffi is so memed is because millennials around the 2000s felt inferior after seeing scaruffi's honesty and him not comforming to the weirdly obsessive over-positive aspect of pop culture which has by now been adopted by the similarly egotistical yet incurious present day music fans. millennials, instead of encouraging open conversations about music, instead went into a knee-jerk reaction.

[@khawlskater]

millennials reduced good music to "gems" and "scarufficore" or "rymcore" effectifly destroying everything beautiful about music disscussion.

[@Dawn95284]

Scaruffi is a pretentious clown which is why he was memed so much.

[@Dawn95284]

It's impossible and useless to have a meaningful musical discussion with someone who views music as a tool to make themselves look special and unique. Completely embarrassing.

[@CraftDayFriends]

I think you make some valid points and it also made me come up with some more counterarguments to his article. Oddly enough it has also given me a bigger appreciation for Scaruffi that I didn't have. Thank you for your opinion

[@petourium]

was beethoven actually controversial for being deaf? 😳

[@classicpinball9873]

I haven't had /mus/ or scaruffi or fantano or anything of the sort on my mind for the past 6 months and nothing of value was lost

[@unlocktheautism9748]

Wow bro you're so cool.

[@classicpinball9873]

@@unlocktheautism9748 its a breathe of fresh air really

[@douglas8604]

Scaruffi might have gotten Bach and Beethoven confused. He's the guy classical musicians tend to idolize, he was (mostly) forgotten by the general public until he was revived by Mendehlssohn in the 19th century, and the image and prestige around him are much greater now than it had ever been when he was alive.

[@valeriopezzuto3382]

Scaruffi: a critic who has the courage to express his own subjective opinions: so brave. You: a critic who criticizes the subjective opinions of another critic: not so smart, nor brave.

[@Dawn95284]

This comment is beyond idiotic 😂

[@valeriopezzuto3382]

@Dawn95284 ok, and you wasted your time commenting on it. Have a nice day bro

[@mardok7335]

Sui beatles concordo in gran parte con Scaruffi. Ricordo che inizialmente furono appoggiati e lanciati dai produttori per la loro personalità, per come si comportavano nelle interviste, per come attiravano l'attenzione con simpatia e positività, la musica passava in secondo piano. Le prime canzoni andavano bene per i ragazzini che di musica non ne avevano mai sentita. Dalla loro c'è da segnalare l'invenzione di bellissime canzoni intramontabili in pochi anni, ma Scaruffi premia e segnala le loro perle, a partire da Michelle e Girl contenute in Rubber Soul. Scaruffi critica l'osannazione incondizionata per un gruppo che non ha fatto chissà quale rivoluzione musicale perchè si limita a parlare di musica. Il mercato, l'industria musicale che è stata stravolta e rinnovata con i Beatles è lasciata fuori dalla sua analisi. Trovo che sia una posizione intellettualmente libera e onesta

[@sopmach]

great video :) my greatest anxiety source when reading that article was the fact that he simply wouldn't acknowledge the beatles' third era. luckily, however, the text after the 2010 note does do it a little justice. he goes as far as to call penny lane and strawberry fields forever masterpieces, which was really surprising. either way, i really liked the article despite having a love/hate relationship with many of the claims made. such an enjoyable read and such a well put stream of thoughts, even if scaruffi got a bit carried away with his own tone.

[@spaperatoreassassino4994]

I am Italian, and when you read the page with the italian text too I felt like I kinda wanted to help you to enrich your video ahah. Actually this would be interesting because I noticed thaat MANY times in his site the italian column does not say the same things of the english one; sometimes the texts are simply not matching, and sometimes they can be quite different. The Beatles page is one example: the italian text says different things - even if I expect that the ideas he expressed are more or less the same, I don't remember the whole text. I am not a super music expert, so I am not really capable of refuting many of Scaruffi's claims. Nevertheless I have made my personal idea. Sometimes he was useful for me because he's quite encyclopedic, and he made me doubt many claims which are usually made by many people about the grandiosity of many songs or artists which are not THAT important or THAT interesting. But I have to disagree with his way to relate himself with music. It seems like he's not enjoying what he listens, but simply searching for novelties respect to older music. He listens to music the same way he reads a scientific paper, and I think that this drives him to neglect many things which might not be new, but which are still beautiful and meaningful. An example might be Fabrizio De André, which is one of the most important songwriters/poets in Italy. Many people proposed his lyrics for being studied in schools, and his judjement in his career is "meh", probably just because he found in his songs some ideas originally coming from Jaques Brel or Leonard Cohen. De André might not be the most innovative artist of its category, but he's CERTAINLY one of the best, most interesting and poetic of all. The same applies for more trivial things. I wouldn't consider Tom Jones such an interesting "artist" in the creative meaning of the term - I am not even a fan of him - and probably none of his songs are PARTICULARLY innovative, but I think that saying that he's a mediocre singer, like Scaruffi claims, is simple bullshit. Mediocre singers are definitely not able to preserve their voice up to their EIGHTIES like he did. Very interesting video btw, you have a new subscriber

[@valtin2914]

As a historian first is probably right, it might have something to do with him not feeling judgmental in his criteria page, but I think there's more nuance Exemple: His highly appraisal of Nine Inch Nails despise borrowing from older industrial acts: Foetus, Ministry , Throbbing Gristle, Pere Ubu with a electronic edge. It might even be a gap between his taste, in a interview with Robert Wyatt his says Sea Song is his favorite song, but only Alifib and Little Red Riding Hood Hit the Road are in his best songs page. I doubt he doesn't enjoy it specially with his early flowery/philosophical texts over fucking metallica

[@TockTockTock]

Glad I clicked on this video. I've been reading Scaruffi's reviews, etc for almost a decade now but haven't bothered to learn much about him. Didn't know his website has existed in some form since the 80s! I was also surprised by the high quality of such an obscure video, but I guess that's somewhat appropriate given the vid's running theme of "popularity =/= quality." Anyway, while Scaruffi might be an contrarian fuckwaffle with a penchant for exaggeration, he has provided an alternative to more "mainstream" opinions regarding rock, pop, etc. I would never have explored Vampire Rodents or given Twin Infinitives a chance if it wasn't for him.

[@wilburcobb8990]

108 mics is getting more experimental with his style than the beatles

[@citeriorcf]

5:10 all those bands were influenced by The Beatles. Lou Reed didn’t like them supposedly, but John Cale did.

[@duckface524]

the Mothers certainly weren't. or Can i highly doubt were actually influenced by them. also keep in mind that enjoying something and being influenced by it are not the same thing

[@micpoc4597]

The underlying essence of Scaruffi's take on music is that MOST music popular in its era is less worthwhile than (some) music that is less popular. It is a faulty premise that reveals more about Scaruffi's misanthropy than it does his musical insights.

[@essemmetv]

In his infamous "rock encyclopedia" (published in 1995) Scaruffi predicts: "I Radiohead non andranno mai oltre Creep", which means "_Radiohead will never go further than Creep_". Do we need say more?

[@juyhhkjitth9245]

he was right.

[@cloudstrife7566]

​@@juyhhkjitth9245 sure buddy

[@doverbeachxyz]

@@juyhhkjitth9245 except he listed "ok computer" as their best album few years later

[@captainmoondog1947]

@@juyhhkjitth9245 lmaooo they go even further than his favorite albums of all time XDD

[@Kevon420]

Great video. I definitely agree on your take on the article - the concept of it is more of a takedown of Beatlemania and the credit the Beatles get as "the best band ever" when there is a hell of a lot more to rock music than what they did, even from 1965-69 during their prime. I can see how he sees the vastness of popular music (as you say, everything that is not Classical, Jazz, or straight-up capital-E Experimental) and then Rolling Stone says Sgt. Pepper's reigns supreme over *all* of that? Yeah I can see that being seen as ridiculous - even though I have been something of a Beatles fan all my life, I'm also aware enough to know they are not some be-all end-all they can be rated as, even if not explicitly described as. As far as his writing in general, besides the random and baffling errors of The Beatles article he admits to intentionally embellishing in a episode of frustration - I've enjoyed the random ones I have read over the years, like Bob Dylan's (describing Blonde on Blonde as "freeing you from the abysmal constraints of the mind" is maybe silly, but the written word is there to be flowery and I don't disagree that is a place that music can take me.) I think it is too bad he's seen as this meme of a critic because his intense but also somehow detached perspective is refreshing and even illuminating on occasion, even if I disagree or don't care for what he speaks on at times. He sees music as both a very serious art form with tremendous potential but also feels that most of that is not realized and worse, often unrecognized by the masses. His wording can be melodramatic, but his idealism (more or less) is admirable. His article on The Doors, a band that is both popular but also seen as artistically accomplished by him I enjoyed a lot more than The Beatles one. He reminds me a bit of the great film critic Pauline Kael (who is obviously more famous overall, but also brought an unapologetic but passionate force to her writing.) While she might be my favorite critic of all time for any artform, I don't think I have ever read a remotely glowing review for a film by maybe most favorite director Federico Fellini. I still really liked what she had to say about a lot of things, because her writing and perspective really is not like anyone else's, even if I disagreed in the end with some of her takes. Funnily enough, I do think a lot of Scaruffi's writing on Fellini to be pretty good, even if his film section of his website is even messier than the music bit. p.s. his bit about how art is "meant for the critic" - yeah, that does read as fucking stupid but I kind of understand where that *may* be coming from. I suppose for his philosophical-ass, he views art as something meant to be experienced, and without that element of being experienced by anyone, there is a sort of hollowness to it. Without the response from someone, it kind of lacks a humanity or empathy or connection to it. It's like a play that only gets rehearsed behind closed doors, but never played to an audience. His wording of critic is pretentious I guess, but I can kind of unpack the logic there.

[@valtin2914]

I remember Kael citing influence of Broken Blossoms in La Strada in a review of Intolerance so i thought she liked

[@swankm9821]

Those bladee ratings tho..

[@bugman7077]

108 MICROSCOPES GANG CHECK IN HERE, but seriously dude great video as fuckin always, and i gotta say i feel like it’s kind of a music nerd right of passage to go this dude’s site and see your fav album with a 5.5 next to it

[@miguelosvaldofloresdomingu8911]

I'm a huge Beatles fan, i love Elvis and Bowie, and i RESPECT Piero's point of view. I think his arguments are quite good and his point of view is solid, although i don't agree with him. He's has taste and is a man of culture. His only sin is to be a Beatles and Elvis hater.

[@violetto3219]

ian williams is in his top 10 rock guitarists so he's actually never been wrong once

[@wp6007]

Not watching the video, just commenting to tell you that you're completely wrong.

[@user-lg9cf4sw4x]

ok

[@featherycoffee1401]

Aren't you that one guy who said he hated Aphex Twin and then just copy-pasted a scaruffi review when asked why and left refusing to elaborate? Why would you do that? I'm seriously asking

[@tobufi]

off-topic question, but if you were only able to listen to music released in a specific year, what year would you pick and why?

[@108Mics]

hmm good question. I'd probably have to go with either 1994 or 2010. 94 has so many classics in so many genres its actually insane, but 2010 has a lot of my personal favorites. My top 5 albums from each year would be 94: NIN - The Downward Spiral Manic Street Preachers - The Holy Bible Digable Planets - Blowout Comb Mother 2 (EarthBound) OST Palace Brothers - Days in the Wake 10: The Brave Little Abacus - Just Got Back... M.I.A. - MAYA Kemialliset Ystavat - Ullakkopalo Chuck Person - Eccojams Vol 1 James Ferraro - Night Dolls With Hairspray I think all of these albums are 10/10s and there are even more from both years, whereas no other year for me has quite that many albums that I love to that degree. Which year would u pick?

[@tobufi]

@@108Mics My music taste is still expanding, but at the current moment 2007 would probably be my pick; mainly because of Radiohead’s In Rainbows and Battles’ Mirrored.

[@ZeeDDD65]

I'm in love with Twin Infinitives, not gonna lie. Gotta say though, this was a very fair video and I wasn't expecting that. Good work!

[@internetazzhole7592]

Just to double down on being a horrible person. Between 1963 and 1966 rock music took three decisive breaks from the original nature of rock'n'roll: Bob Dylan introduced an explicit socio-political message; British bands such as the Rolling Stones and the Who (the heirs to the "juvenile delinquent" image of the 1950s) indulged in instrumental and vocal mayhem; the Beach Boys, the Beatles and the Byrds focused on studio techniques and eccentric arrangements. Each of them embodied three different ways of using music as a vehicle: the profound bard, the street punk, the sound sculptor. The Rolling Stones and the Who personified an eternal and universal attribute of youth: rebellion. The Beach Boys and the Beatles were as removed as possible from their times (the Vietnam war, the civil-rights movement, the fear of the nuclear holocaust). Bob Dylan was all about his times. Dylan used music as a weapon, the Rolling Stones and the Who used it as an insult, while the Beach Boys and the Beatles were largely indifferent to the ideological turmoil. The convergence of these three wildly different threads yielded the great season of psychedelic music, a genre that reflected the spirit of the time, that experimented with studio sound and that embodied the frustration of the youth. The synthesis of 1966 was fueled by hallucinogens, as if drugs were the natural meeting point of the bard, the punk and the sound sculptor. Most likely, it was a mere coincidence: drugs just happened to represent the unifying call to arms for that generation. It may as well have been something else. Drugs were conveniently available and stood for the opposite of what the hated Establishment stood for (war, bourgeois life, discipline, greed, organized religion, old-fashioned moral values). If one had to pinpoint an event that concretized this historical synthesis, it would have been in may 1966, when Dylan's Blonde on Blonde came out, a double album (already a significant departure from the old format) that had ironically been recorded in Nashville (between october 1965 and march 1966). Until then, rock musicians had all operated within the boundaries of the three-minute melodic song of pop music. After that album's release, only mainstream commercial music would remain anchored to the traditional song format of Tin Pan Alley. Albums with lengthy, free-form "songs" began to flow out of London, New York and Los Angeles: the Fugs' second album with Virgin Forest (recorded in january and released in march, thus actually beating Dylan), Frank Zappa's double-album Freak Out (recorded in march and released in june), the Rolling Stones' Aftermath (recorded in Los Angeles in march), the Velvet Underground's The Velvet Underground & Nico (mostly recorded in april and may), the Who's A Quick One (recorded in the fall), the Doors' first album (recorded in the summer), Love's Da Capo (between summer and fall), etc. Several of them had been recorded at the same time as Dylan's masterpiece, signaling a collective shift away from the pop song. This shift in rock music (grafted onto the historical synthesis of the bard, the punk and the sound sculptor) coincided with the boom of "free jazz". Rock'n'roll had been born at the confluence of blues and country music, but after 1966 blues and country/folk became mere ingredients (two among many) of a much more complex recipe. The lengthy "acid" jams of the Velvet Underground, of Jefferson Airplane, of the Grateful Dead and of Pink Floyd, relied on a loose musical infrastructure that was no longer related to rhythm'n'blues (let alone country music). It was, on the other hand, very similar to the format of jazz music played in the lofts and the clubs that many psychedelic rock musicians attended, and that had rapidly become the second great pillar of the counterculture (the first one being the movement for civil-rights and pacifism). Basically, the indirect influence of free jazz became prominent in rock music during the psychedelic era, fueling its musical revolution and emancipating rock music from its blues foundations. Before 1966 rock music had been more a part of the blues tradition than rockers wanted to admit; after 1966 rock music became more a part of the jazz tradition than rock musicians wanted to admit.

[@GoldLibrary]

To clarify, this is from Scaruffi. And it is certainly the right thing to cite in response to this video.

[@gregoryberrycone]

Scaruffis kind of a zany guy but i still think he has some of the best music taste of any critic. I also really enjoy how he writes about the music he likes, he strikes me as someone with a solid grasp of artistic intent and actually trying to understand difficult music and what its trying to convey. He definitely has some bad takes, but usually even those i find charmingly absurd. He also has pretty good taste in literature which counts for a lot with me

[@jonyone5901]

i love twin infinitives

[@loopdog8710]

This channel deserves soooo many more views

[@Syfoll]

Ooooh boy, really enjoyed the video. Imma come back later to add my own 2 cents, rn I am too scatterbrained. I've long dreamed that one day, if I make youtube videos, I'll combat some of Scaruffi's and Christgau's pretty asinine hot takes. Thanks bro

[@Ddl-jk9pi]

Watched while taking a dump

[@iztauhqang4542]

If you ever revisit Twin Infinitives keep in mind they were heavily influenced by the stones / Jimi Hendrix I like to think of that album as a no wave stones record. But yea even fans of Scaruffi acknowledge his logical fallacies and ego trips I think we just stick around for the sweet underground music recommendations.

[@terryflannigan7546]

Waiting for 108 microscopes to drop 😤

[@dirktyler3643]

I like reading his stuff, if for no other reason but that he reviews tons of acts I've never heard of and therefore can discover some good stuff through him. As for his Beatles review, when first reading it I caught on to much insincerity due to the fact that he has called Neil Diamond and Elton John "melodic geniuses." The Beatles, particularly McCartney, were superior melodicists to Diamond and John, but nowhere does he call the Beatles melodic geniuses. He's a very poseurish uber-nerd with a shallow mind. But still worth reading.

[@gunnarkarlgunnarsson2775]

Like to add that Scaruffi's rant about the power of marketing is simply fiction. Huge marketing campaign will indeed help to make you a superstar but if your music does not hold up or goes downhill then people will loose interest. Just look at the some of the biggest media darlings of the 90's. Spice girls with their "girl power" where everywhere after their debut but faded out soon after their second album. Oasis where the biggest thing ever since the Beatles when they released Be here now but after a while people realised that the album was simply not that good and no amount of marketing was gonna make Standing on shoulders of giants a superhit. So marketing is great to build hype but it's not gonna keep people buying 13 records (+ lots of singles) for 7 years while the band is active and definitely not 50 years after they quit

[@respatoriumx8161]

I went into this video thinking this guy would have at least 400 thousand subs how doesnt he

[@jarrydgasson1802]

This vid earned a sub, great stuff man

[@freakingjames1820]

I thinnk you went to quick on the assumption that he only picked 'easy targets' on his responses to people's reactions on his article. partially understandable but you only went through the english text of that entry (which, yeah, he responds to really stupid and unrealistic claims), doesn't seem like you considered translating the italian text (which are not just the italian version of the english text, it's a whole different section with completely different topics), were he does indeed responds to things which can be seen as relevant and assumptions made by actual beatles fans (he even acknowledges what you previously pointed out about the best sellers and he gives a lot of good examples that do counter the common sense that the beatles were the best sellers), he does come off a bit more egotistical in these but at least to me it is something that clarifies some of his points in the original article. This is not a major point of your video but still, it did bother me a bit when you said The Doors debut didn't make a whole lot of sense in his Top 10 albums, because that's pretty much missing his entire musical criteria. The Doors were a symbol of the social decadence of the 60s in its more or less popular version, He is biased towards music that is subversive, tearing down conventions to develop thought provoking new ideas, That's why they're on his list. Take in consideration Jim Morrison as a vocalist, for the time his type of presence and timbre were unusual, and so were their lyrics, the way they incorporated Organs, the funereal overtones (specially in a song like The End), The way they incorporated mish-mashes of Jazz and Blues and Psychedelic Rock, It's pretty much in line with everything Scaruffi is pandered by.. And this is not his only really mainstream band pick in his top100, There's Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds, there's King Crimson, there's Sonic Youth, there's Bob Dylan, Syd Barrett, Frank Zappa, Patti Smith, Neil Young and so on (even stuff he gave it an 8/10 but are not listed in his top100 such as the Rolling Stones, which he considers one of the greatest british rock bands of the 60s). people seem to stereotype his taste on obscurity and complete unorthodox artists which are pretty niche, that's partially incorrect, he just doesn't consider fame to be something that speaks for one's qualities and musical relevance (and by that he is not implying every mainstream musician isn't important). You just can't threat his rating system in the same way as Fantano, Christgau or Pitchfork. Therefore, when taking this into consideration, most of what he says about most of the artists he talk about make perfect sense (I'm not saying his opinion is correct, but it's in line his criteria, which is something to admire, considering a lot of critics tend to be heavily inconsistent with their criterias, specially someone like Fantano) I also think threating him like a "random 65yo guy" is a bit misleading and some of the other things (like the segment enforcing that a paragraph of his article implied subtle sexism, or when you pointed out the texts about himself written in third person on his website. The guy unironically has agents and people of which help him on the administration of his website, he helped create the internet, I don't think he can be considered a random ass dude) came as in bad taste (I know you're doing it only ironically but still. I'd argue my biggest problem with your video is the presentation, I think you have some good points here and there). His rule of rating only rock albums and leaving out jazz and classical (sometimes even avant-garde) music sure is weird but I really wouldn't by the idea that he does it because he thinks rock fans are stupid (I say this because he also doesn't rate every rock artists either, specially pre-60s artists like Chuck Berry, James Brown, so on), I think he might not give ratings to artists of which he merely thinks it's redundant to give a numerical rating, artists of which are already fairly well documented by everyone and he does not have too much to add on (this is specially the case for Classical music) Last thing I wanna say is that I think when you read his point about Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, you went in with the assumption that he was saying that "jazz critics recognized these obscure musicians as the best from their time" and then you went on to say that this argument would have worked better with Ornette Coleman or Anthony Braxton, which is true, however I don't think he tried to make that case. Rather it seems like he only said they were not the top sellers of their time (which is true, with Duke Ellington you had Frank Sinatra in the mainstream spotlight and with Coltrane you had the british invasion and country artists which were getting more exposure commercially than him), not that they were quite completely unknown or that they weren't recognized comercially but Jazz Critics still ranked them highly. (I agree though that him trying to use Tim Buckley as the rock equivalent of that concept is misleading though)

[@Gabriel_707]

I agree with you, mostly. What’s funny is that at least half of the albums in Scaruffi's top ever rock album list are not innovative at all. The might be unusual, but not innovative. I listened to them all. That's not coherent with what he thinks he is important in music, which is debatable even besides his incoherence. I do agree though that publicizing lesser know albums is a good thing that he does. He is a mixed bag I would say.

[@riley6171]

great video, you really did your research

[@reubengoddard2742]

.....When I saw this uploaded I assumed this was gonna be a MAD long vidya about Mr. Scruff.....

[@reubengoddard2742]

I did not read the title properly...

[@friedrich7891]

The problem I have with this video is that Brian Wilson (The Beach Boys) are collateral victims of the topic

[@ealo8747]

Once you said he reviewed TPAB badly I knew everything I needed to know. Love your channel! Hardly anyone else does real professional-standard videos about the hip hop underground/DIY music in general.

[@Kevon420]

True, one of his few good reviews.

[@ISuckOffCops]

@@Kevon420 bodied

[@terryflannigan7546]

28:49 inferior sheep I just fell out of the Jeep

[@humanbeing2391]

Amazing and inspiring. I’m a musician and this gives me lots of fuel for the imagination, so thank you! 💜

[@wellsshady]

Not a big loss for /mu/sic

[@adnanomeragic9597]

damn, this was amazing. well done.

[@tankeagle1714]

I prefer Richard Benson

[@felipearayaperez2610]

Hey, I just discovered your channel and I'm loving it! Just wondering: have you by any chance shared your rateyourmusic handle, and if not, would you be okay with it? I'd really like being able to check your ratings on albums and stuff, considering we seem to have a similar taste.

[@108Mics]

It’s 2__underscores (spelled with 2 underscores) 😉

[@sjette4199]

content is great, probably one of the best new music youtubers right now and a DRAINER. the intro music just sounds off to me though, would recommend replacing it with splasher (splash her) by cartier'god

[@TheDmolitionMan]

I think you got into some good comebacks, but I'm afraid you missed the mark somewhat because you don't engage with the piece through the "methodology" he is using, which you show in 1:56. He starts criticizing the critics because he thinks that the discussion on the Beatles is the discussion on how they're criticized, because "the critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it". This is not an alien stance in art criticism, you'll find similar positions in many authors; Scaruffi appears to be bombastic in this quote but this is more due to tone than content; after all it's part of his writing style and persona. I don't really like this Beatles piece because he seems to be torn in what is primary in the process of criticism of the Beatles phenomena, the "Beatles themselves", the context in which they were in or the mainstream critics. This is a result of his philosophy (let's call it that) - if the "critic, not the artist" is the cornerstone of art, how to engage, as a critic, in opposition to mainstream criticism if not through the art? How can you refer to the "intrinsic value" of a work of art if "the value of art depends on the value of the art critic"? For not solving this contradiction his piece appears rambly and with a lot of back and forths (this issue becomes more evident later on), but opens up a discussion of his criteria. Without engaging head-on with his philosophy, I think we're only left with condescending marginalia as I believe you did here and there in this video.

[@DaBaby-ft3tf]

Top 5 YT video of all time

[@gustavonecochea3496]

The Beatles' article is the least interesting of Scaruffi's musical opinions tbh. This is the low hanging fruit, the first article you find on his page.

[@thebasedgodmax1163]

great video but I disagree with your notion that those groups were more important than The Beatles. sure, VU, Zappa, Can and so on are important to pushing the boundaries of music, but they are not at all more important to popular music. the average person doesn't know say Can. you can argue you like them more but there's no way you can say say they're more important.

[@Lol-mi2bf]

More important to the development of modern music. Learn to listen

[@thebasedgodmax1163]

@@Lol-mi2bf and that's exactly what I'm responding to. no way in hell is captain Beefheart more important to the development of modern music than the beatles.

[@relahtnelnarF]

​@@thebasedgodmax1163 but he actually is. Cause other artists were doing what the beatles did, while nobody was doing what Beefheart did

[@chrisbarnett5303]

@@relahtnelnarF Nonsense. Who was doing Tomorrow Never Knows at the same time as the Beatles?

[@relahtnelnarF]

@@chrisbarnett5303 i mean, i think it's their best track. But what has it created? Artists had already used eastern style touches in their music

[@gunnarkarlgunnarsson2775]

Like to add one thing.. It's not just the Beatles but most 60's music. Scaruffi simply does not love 60's rock as much as your average critic. The Kinks have 1× 7/10. Led zeppelin, Beach boys and Byrds have 2x 7/10. Cream, Animals, Them, Sonics, Hollies have none above 6/10. You can literally click on random acts from his website and find artist who score higher than those 60 giants. Even the Stones and the Who only manage 1x 8/10 albums. Dylan has 1x 9/10, 1x 8/10, 3x 7/10 and the rest of his entire output is ranked 6/10 or lower

[@adamfindlay7091]

Rants Don't have to make any sense😢

[@fauni3833]

Can you do a video on Samatary and ego mackey and on hyperpop please

[@mercurydylan899]

No “subtle sexism” there that I can see.

[@海强乔]

scaruffi is the greatest. if you really listen his lists. his aesthetic is impeccable rather than “special”.

[@robertcoley1103]

Watch Howard Goodall's appreciation of The Beatles. It's really very interesting.

[@nicolhaidi]

if only people would listen to some '60s - '70s music (literally ANY artist besides the Beatles) instead of coming up with responses to what Scaruffi wrote, I guarantee they will ultimately agree with him.

[@micpoc4597]

I have. He is wrong. Scaruffi has not changed my opinion. Your guarantee fails.

[@cloudstrife7566]

Scaruffi is just wrong about the beatles, time to wake up lol

[@rflood6771]

I used to visit his site regularly when I started listening to music more seriously. I listened to so much stuff thanks to him, and I feel indebted to him for it. And I still think his page about the Beatles is a crock of shit. Not sure if it is worse than the one about Bowie, but still.

[@reginaldcampos5762]

I have. I still like the Beatles more than most of them. The hatred of pop music is inane.

[@evolutionaryfield4091]

Good video but the Beatles footage was hard to watch with all that head bobbing

[@EdwardAveyard]

I like how he rated Type O Negative's "Slow, Deep and Hard" as the best metal album ever. I like a lot of Type O Negative, but that's not the favourite of most fans. Scaruffi also sees the album as "racist, sexist and Nazi" (the second song, fair enough). He didn't take any points off for that.

[@luke9947]

I think it’s their best album by far. And i usually don’t agree with Scaruffi.

[@EdwardAveyard]

@Luke99 It's good but I like "Bloody Kisses" best.

[@tobiasmoretti6043]

I always thought the Beatles were overrated, Scaruffi only confirmed it to me in a more detailed and harsh way.

[@captainmoondog1947]

when some people said "SCARUFFI THE BEST CRITIC", well... 1. He doesn't even consider a critic 2. His criteria is based on how difficult and experimental is the listen, really bad choice on how ambiguous and limitless the concept of music can be 3. His texts about Jazz music history is garbage, to the point that the dude sounds really racist 4. His politics opinions are really bad, just search "Why I voted against Gay Marriage", and you'll find many crazy questions that he brings to the table 5. He directly associate ROCK with "Music that I like", the opposite of being music historian

[@The-df6xu]

you should make a vid on semetary

[@dryjohnson21]

Opinions, amiright?!?!

[@HEWHOTAWNS]

never cared for scaruffi soley because of the critic is the real artist quote. is he taking the piss? does he really believe that? honestly like wtf the man staring through the window of the bakery is not doing more work than the baker.

[@julyccg117]

All of this because he trashed one of the most overrated bands of the history(because people says "the Beatles invented everything" when they didn't invent nothing, they just copied or borrowed inventions from other less known musicians and make those inventions known to the mainstream. Yes, they were good composing 2 minutes pop ditties for their time but nothing else.) People just talk about that article because ""he was rude"" when I think he was very polite, he was more ""rude"" with Radiohead or David Bowie but at least I don't see Bowie and Radiohead fans crying about that. There are more interesting things on Scaruffi music section like the entries about Robert Wyatt, Van der graff generator, Amon Dull 2, Faust, Can, Pere Ubu, etc but oh no! he doesn't like the Beatles what a tragedy!

[@cloudstrife7566]

Scaruffis just wrong dude

[@reginaldcampos5762]

Theres a stupid overintellectualization of, frankly, irrational hatred for pop music. Many highly rated artists love the Beatles, so are they wrong? Your opinion on the Beatles is that they are overrated, but how is that so? What is your metric of overrated? I dont think anyone can objectively claim such a thing. You might not connect with the Beatles, but that doesnt mean they're bad. You're just butthurt that your opinion on the Beatles and Scaruffi was challenged. You cant take that people like the Beatles more than your artists. Your response to this video is evident that you feel you're right and everyone is wrong and you dont like the fact that someone challenged your opinion. Youre not that special. It is not stupid to hate the Beatles, but personally i think no music is bad. Absolutely none. And i love the Beatles. Tell me I'm an idiot for liking them. And the reason this video was made was because of the copypasta. There isnt a copypasta about Bowie or Radiohead. However, there's an agenda against the Beatles from psuedo-intellectuals who think theyre bad. Popular doesnt mean bad. Get that through your head. The Beatles are not overrated.

[@julyccg117]

@@reginaldcampos5762 I can just say that the Beatles were Mediocre musicians because they couldn't play more than 3 chords. And that's a fact

[@julyccg117]

@@reginaldcampos5762 there were several pop bands on the 60s that played the same 3 chords and catchy-refrains. So, what was unique about the Beatles?

[@reginaldcampos5762]

@julyccg117 okay? Does that make their music bad? They didn't know music theory, so they often had really odd time signatures, like with the song "Good Morning, Good Morning," but Ringo is consistently able to keep track of them. Seems he's pretty competent. Paul and Lennon could play a couple instruments pretty well for people who weren't specialized in them. Most of their talent is in writing, in my view, but I wouldn't say they're bad or even mediocre musicians. I'll say they're a little above par and good enough for what they do.

[@fernando-f6y8b]

If you are so convinced that scaruffi is not right and erase the indisputable contribution of a lot of musicians that at least for me, are far above the beatles, I recommend you to write a book, not just a video with your personal opinions, so we learn once and for all that these guys were extraterrestrials and place them on an eternal altar.

[@TheLucario123ful]

You don't need an essay to say that The Beatles are pure utter shit, the music says it all.

[@thebasedgodmax1163]

you're so interesting and unique dude

[@cloudstrife7566]

I bet you only listen to artists with less than 100 monthly listeners

[@luke9947]

Oh so edgy

[@reginaldcampos5762]

I have no idea why people hate the Beatles. Did you go through their greatest hits and say "this is overrated, so all of the rest of their music is bad, too"?

[@worstie]

music is subjective...

[@thegreatestguitaristonmars3608]

History of music isn't

[@user-wo5tc9ux7u]

velvet underground aren't obscure

[@jesuacodemo7858]

Piero is the best rock critic, not everyone understands his criticism

[@micpoc4597]

Though Christgau is more widely known, Scaruffi is easily the worst rock critic of note... which may be giving him more credit than he deserves.

[@jakel4316]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Piero Scarrufi

[@Rumham666]

Tremendous

[@rupertmonroesr.3517]

yessir

[@markhedman1884]

I have read Scaruffi on the Beatles, and listened to this video. Scaruffi does have some interesting things to say. I enjoyed his categorizing songs into genres. I have started to read comments on the internet that address and answer point by point his criticisms, by people who are more knowledgeable than I. I am surprised that Beatles are still discussed, played, and dissected, even years after Scaruffi wrote. Time usually sifts out the bad after 50 years. But the interest in the Beatles continue, and the fact that they have stood the test of time indicates there is something wrong with his analysis. I think what's going here in that society, culture, civilization needs standards, classics that are well-known, that are a common set of knowledge, that the masses can understand, to aid in communication. The Beatles maybe weren't necessarily the best or the first or greatest or the most influential, but their songs sold well enough to be popular, were broad enough in their appeal, were good enough as music and lyrics to meet the requirements of becoming a body of work that could become a canon, or standards, or classics for pop music. In this case, one band had enough hits that were known worldwide, they only last a few years rather than decades, they showed development in those few years, and they had some impact on culture beyond their music. This makes them worthy of study and yet limited enough to fit a college semester. It is likely that the forces of society are at play here, bigger than the Beatles, that lift them up to canon status, because society needs it.

[@ionlyknow2055]

Your the fucking best.

[@Revolver9]

Beatles are bad, commercial, fast food of rock music.

[@dlink4300]

it's ironic that you use the name of one of their albums as nickname.

[@citeriorcf]

Ok zoomer

[@MikeyStrutter]

Exactly like McDonald's, sometimes you go to the Drive Thru and get some burger and fries, and that's ok. But imagine thinking their cheeseburger is the best food on the planet...

[@maddoxsane4946]

Music critics lol

[@236problems]

hello /mu/

[@psquare1374]

Nice video and all, but the fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

[@robertokinks7251]

still today ...2024...who the heck is piro scaruffi compared to the Beatles?

[@electrictundra678]

don’t worry just listen to some more music you’ll get it eventually. trust me

[@dannycifelli3579]

Better see this shit get more views (ps this @musicfeedcritic)

[@zigotina]

tim buckley is great but saying that he is a better artist than the beatles is laughable

[@stefano4170]

Beatles were good,but he was sharply better. Less accessible doesn't mean worse. His music was infinitely more ingenious and complex,a mix of various genres and styles