Can we all agree that a 6.5 score from scaruffi is indicative of a good album? Anything below 6.5 is actually bad

Can we all agree that a 6.5 score from scaruffi is indicative of a good album? Anything below 6.5 is actually bad

Attached: 43AB9969-5C99-414A-82E5-76A8451C977D.jpg (209x204, 7.38K)

>Can we all agree
no

Attached: anon....webm (670x476, 1.28M)

>6
>bad
No. Scaruffi actually uses scores properly and doesn't inflate them, so even a 6 is worth listening.

no because the beatles’ best albums are below a 6.5

How do you retards figure that from 1 to 10 a 6 is bad?

scaruffi changes his ratings on albums all the time. how can anyone trust his opinion?

Imagine being such a pleb that your favorite album got below a 7 from Scaruffi

Attached: sistine.jpg (540x540, 45.21K)

maybe listen to the albums he’s given a 6 to and you’ll figure it out you megaretard nigger

That only makes me trust his opinion even more, imagine not being able to admit your own mistakes.

Anything he gives a 7 or more to, a normal critic would rate as excellent or a classic. So I would only listen to those.

He never actually said that Beatles are bad, he said they are overrated

>But the third part of the Trilogy, Big Bubble (Ralph, 1985), turns out to be one of their most experimental and forward-looking works, and is among the most innovative works of the vocal avant-garde of all time.
>The fact that such a dramatic work actually originates from a culture of parody of popular genres, that is, the quintessence of the gnomic subculture of our times, adds layers of post-modern meaning to the whole operation.
>Not only is it one of the maximum works of the Residents, but it will remain as one of the forerunners of the neo- and post-industrial sound. At the same time, it constitutes a link between expressionist theater, post-minimalist art-performance, opera and rock music.
>7/10

Attached: huh.jpg (490x425, 36.67K)

Vince knows exactly what he's doing and it's making me go fucking insane

See when you actually read his reviews, you'll soon realize his 7s are fucking great, which means 6s are indeed good albums.

>Scaruffi actually uses scores properly and doesn't inflate them

no, he rates everything 1.5 points lower to seem like he has really high standards. His rating system isn't linear at all an it makes no sense.

by that logic if he rated albums normally he would have about 40-50 10.5/10s

yes but their best albums are still rated below a 6.5 by him

No, cope more.

what the fuck are you talking about

>scaruffi drones

stfu

>What is 9 + 1.5 ?

It triggers so many people that he does it this way, but it is so much better than giving 70 things a 10/10 rating like most people do.

Unless an album is a masterpiece people shit on it here. It's stupid... no in between

im pretty sure 5 means average quality aka kinda boring.

Sgt Pepper is a 7

imagine being such a pleb that your favorite album got reviewed by scruffi

Attached: 1513796736650.jpg (1280x720, 32.91K)

He gave Mark of The Mole the same rating yet wrote like 2 sentences about it.

I know, that's why I'm so fucking confused.

bruh my favorite album is bootleg mixtape from an underground Kyrgyzstan post-punk revival band. no one will find it! I'm so patrician, hehe...

I haven't listened to anything but Belarusian garage and prog rock from Bandcamp for 6 years now.

Attached: 1494573403154.jpg (675x450, 42.21K)

he has maybe reviewed about half of this chart that a fellow mutant made

Attached: 1587563645604.png (2500x10000, 3.98M)

hate this brand of burying your head in the sand
the norm is to inflate the average to 6 or 7 when rating stuff out of 10, you know this yet you’re playing dumb to call other people dumb