Scaruffi vs. Beatles - please do all of your fighting here

  • I haven't made a new list in the last 4 months that hasn't degenerated into a stupid Beatles vs. Scaruffi battle. I couldn't care less who is right, an obscure elitist music critic, or a radio-humping conformist. So, in the interest of the rest of my lists being taken seriously, and in the hopes of people actually discussing, you know, WHAT THE LIST IS ACTUALLY ABOUT, I'm delegating all Beatles versus Scaruffi "debates" to take place here.
  • (Thanks for the lovely idea, jim!)

I'll start: BEATLES ROXXORSSSZZZ!1!!!1 Scarufffi suxxorrzzz!

Uh uh U just gay! Scaruffi is like OMG!

I think a lot of people just got pwned.

Hopefully :D

In your critique of The Beatles (which proves nothing, except that you have no life and probably rape children), you ignore several important facts:
1)The Beatles influenced every band that came after them.
2)Beethoven's 9th symphony was directly copied from scribbling in the margins of John Lennon's 3rd grade math notebook.
3)The Beatles invented music.
4)The Theory of Special Relativity was derived from the chorus of "I am the Walrus." Note that the term "eggman" contains the letters e and m. It is no coincedence that both letters are present in Einstein's mass-energy equivalence equation (E=MC2) - The Beatles were the true innovators, and I find it insulting that credit is not given where credit is due. By disliking The Beatles, you are disliking the progress of civilization.
5)The Beatles can fly and breathe underwater, and they save babies from fires. You don't love The Beatles? Well, that means you LOVE KILLING BABIES!!!

You're wrong, for the following reasons:
1)Scaruffi didn't just invent music, he invented CIVILIZATION, without which The Beatles could not have invented music.
2)It doesn't matter that The Beatles invented special relativity and helped advance science, because Scaruffi IS science.
3)Scaruffi has an extra limb dedicated only to saving babies, and so do all of his favorite songs.
4)Scaruffi created the universe using only his list of top 100 rock albums and Captain Beefheart's spleen.
5)Scaruffi makes shoes for orphans.

really? nah, i don/t believe you. ok, maybe some of it could be true. but, come on, do you really think he makes shoes, let alone shoes for orphans? i think you went to far with #5. i want some sources. so, because #5 is wrong, everything else that you have said must be wrong. but it sounds true. i"m in a pickle; good thing i^m hungry or i*d be fucked. hehehe, can_not be that that! yer wrong. i know yer wrong. you could be right though. mmmmmmm, what a waste of time!!!! i would not have it any other way. @;-) have a great day in cAnAdA. as for the rest of your life, well thats for the other people that greet you to take care of. i wish only one day at a time dammit and i aint gonna bu'ge pon dat!

Also, more specifically, the Beatles actually have some songs that alter chord structures. None of them had ever been thought of before by any of the Beatles. One of them even ends with a different one than it began. Amazingly enough, they managed to influence Mozart to try this in his music some 150 years prior, and then on down the line through Beethoven and hundreds of other composers before them. They were remarkable. Revolution 9 also influenced Stockhausen by being processed through a Lennon-invented time warp speaker 12-string recording clock device 12 years before it was written. And they invented heavy metal 1.5 years after Cream and Hendrix but before Hendrix realized that they'd invented what he'd already done. On top of that, they were the first band to release an album titled "Revolver", and were also the first band to title themselves "The Beatles". Firearms and insects were influenced by this. They were also a pop band that made rock music as well as a rock band that made pop music, inventing a new genre of music called pop/rock/rock/pop.

AfterHours is completely wrong. All you Beatles fans should listen to Scaruffi's favorite albums instead because they're the most emotional things ever. Listening to these albums is actually way better than having a life because while life can often contain unemotional experiences, Scaruffi's albums will assault you with emotion so powerful that if you listen to these albums enough times, you will actually be able to experience not only every emotion, but every experience that every artist had. Listening to Blonde on Blonde will actually make your fans mad at you for going electric. Listening to Rock Bottom will actually cause you to get into a serious injury and fall in love with Alfreda Benge. Listening to The Doors will actually make you addicted to heroin. Et cetera.

Just listen to some of the most emotionally profound words ever spoken in rock music:

"When Big Joan sets up, her hands are too small. She's too fat to go out in the daylight, so she rolls around all night."

"This is a happy song, 'cause I want cancer of everything. Yeah, right."

"Life stinks, I said I'm seeing pink, I said I can't wink. I can't blink. I said I like the Kinks cuz I need a drink. I can't think cuz I like the Kinks."

"She's busy sucking on my ding-dong."

Yeah, they might not sound that great on paper, but all rock lyrics are bad so no one should ever pay attention to them. It doesn't matter what people sing, because verbal communication doesn't matter, especially when you're an Italian critic who doesn't understand English very well. They could be singing gibberish for all I care, and they often do, but it's still great as long as they're doing it emotionally.

Oh, and even though emotional resonance is a highly subjective quality, the great thing is that EVERYONE AGREES WHAT THE MOST EMOTIONAL ROCK ALBUMS ARE. Sure, you may listen to "I'm Waiting for the Man" off VU & Nico and feel like Lou Reed is actually so emotionless that he can barely even change the pitch of his voice. You are of course wrong. This is one of the most emotional fucking songs ever. If you don't hear it, you should probably listen to it more. And maybe you listen to Suicide's "Cheree" and feel that whispering breathily doesn't count as having emotion. Again, wrong; you might want to try listening to more accessible albums before you get into such a complex song.

Of course, it really just is too bad that the Beatles never really used their talents to the fullest extent. They made some great songs, but they lack what it takes to make a truly emotional song or album: length. With only a few exceptions, all of their songs are under six minutes long. Truly the mark of a terrible band. You see, the artists who are the most emotional like to emote for really long stretches of time. That's why the best songs are usually around twenty minutes long, because not only is it important for the music to be emotional, it's also important for it to be overblown. Hell, all albums should be like Irrlicht, which is about the entire universe forming, developing, deteriorating, and exploding all in three lengthy tracks.

That's also how you know this is a great post. It's gone on far too long. Good night, heathen Beatle lovers.

LOL ( :

I second your lol.

This is deluded! (i sang that to you in a breathily whisper so you must approve)
You are entitled to your beliefs but the points you made are just absurd!

Im not really against the guy you clearly worship but it seems to me that most of his followers are deluded, and that tells me all i need to know.
Im not really a fan of the beatles either but they remain to be the best selling band of all time, and that also tells me all i need to know.

All this it really worth our time and effort? No matter what a beatles fan says to a 'Scarufi-ist'...youre not gonna covert them into a fan, and vice versa.
Scaruffi followers should respect the beatles achievements and the fans should open their minds.

AJ is not a Scaruffist, the above post is a joke, as are all the above ones. Both sides just parodied the usual arguments.

As a matter of fact, all of you are wrong. The Kinks invented heavy metal.

Beefheart is the greatest musician ever, and Trout Mask Replica is the greatest album ever, and if you don't agree you either didn't pay much attention to it while listening to it, or paid too much attention. And let's not forget, The Velvet Underground was the most influential, therefore the greatest, band ever.

The Beatles' lyrics weren't as complex and profound as their far superior contemporaries'. Compare this (by the Beatles):

We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine, yellow submarine.

to this (by the Velvet Underground):

She's busy sucking on my ding-dong.

The latter is an incredibly profound line which reveals the Velvet Underground's deep understanding of lust, human desire and sexuality. The former is a relatively childish line about wishful thinking and dreams and shows how repetitive and formatted their songs were.

Let's take another example:

All the children sing, hey, Bungalow Bill, what did you kill, Bungalow Bill?

Compare it to this incredibly emotional line by Beefheart:

A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?

The latter's tone is that of a man reduced to insanity by society and his desire to get understood by the society, his fellow people, to feel like an important, and not a worthless, person, who is not just dismissed as useless, valueless waste. The former, a comparatively emotionless line, shows that The Beatles were not interested in emotion, only in getting children (read: young girls who were stupid enough to fall under their spell) to sing along to their simple and plain lines which were rightly deemed insignificant and mediocre by their contemporaries.

Note to the inevitable Beatles' fan entourage: I am simply poking fun. Don't take me too seriously. Feel free to clown all of my favorite artists and albums. ( :

"Lorca is unlistenable, Twin Infinitives sounds like my garbage disposal, etc..."

haha, Twin Infinitives does sound like my garbage disposal...i should remember to keep my ears away from it while it is running...seriously!

oh yeah, Beethoven barks! tag, yer it!

Parable of Arable Land sounds like a bunch of dying school children, but the crazed orchestral crescendos from A Day in the Life are absolute genius because they were composed by Beatles and Parable was composed by Crayons.

red Krayons! who uses red anyhow? everyone knows that you cannot get anything done without "phantom," or at little greeeeen (or maybe some fuschia). plus, greeeeen and possibly fuschia, and absolutely "phantom," do not harm as many school children as red. and lets face it, children are our future! who else will buy our melodic masterpieces in droves? but its the mongoose that will get ya!

Yes, gotta fear the mongoose...

You just gave me like 6 LOLs in a row. Hear that ladies? This man can give you multiples!

LMFAO!!! these arguments are hilarious

there is only one truth that i think i know, that someone once read in a book somewhere, dictated by someone who once walked somewhere to someone's house who was not at home, but had left a note on the door in case anyone was looking for them, which was nailed by that same individual who twice winked their left eye while chanting the hours of light for a person unwilling to cold the toad that rode near a place, witch once had a tree growing out of its ceiling that coined the phrase "black lilacs bury in divide a ruin of guilded taint, we spill forever and tomorrow for treasure" that goes on to be, and must be or else i should get yer money t' 'ine: you!, my squabbling hellun sword, re 'pproximately, 'bhorrantly, 'bnoxiously, 'gregiously, 'uperficially wrong!

Damn, I was going to say that.

Feif is so predictable...

So if I like the Beatles I'm a radio-humping conformist?

That alone doesn't make you a radio-humping conformist, but I saw what you were doing with that Walkman last night. And let me say I am intrigued.

Ringo invented radio-humping via a leslie speaker

you forgot the leslie speaker, and the name leslie, and the name speaker, and invented...and's a chicken and the tortoise thing....

... but I saw what you were doing with that Walkman last night. And let me say I am intrigued.

I don't want to sound like spamming but LMAO!

.... yes

the lists end up as discussions of scaruffi because he is mentioned in the topic of the lists

is there a way to filter out the word 'beatles' when browsing the net? i'm sick of them. and sick of their fans.

But I gotta say, I really do miss fanofthefab4...he brought fan-man-ship to a whole new level. It was astonishing. The most emotional listologist of all time. At least a 9.75/10.

The key is connecting to the otherworldly stream of conscious diatribes, wherein the formation of the Beatle universe collides and explodes into a manic enigma straddling the line between absolute love and absolute hate.

'But I gotta say, I really do miss fanofthefab4...he brought fan-man-ship to a whole new level. It was astonishing. The most emotional listologist of all time. At least a 9.75/10.'

Really? I'd say after over 200+ listens (reads?) he diminished slightly just a teensy bit.

Obviously, you just don't 'get it'. I suggest using a high definition monitor.

:) hehe

My personal favorite fanofthefab4 quote:
"The Beatles worked hard to get where they got, they played for 2 years staight for 8 hours a night in the sleazy strip clubs of Hamburg Germany, wearing tight leather pants and jackets, smoking, cursing and hitting each other on stage taking speed pills just to stay awake and going to bed with many young women groupies."

"At least a 9.75/10."


Ooh but I think he would cringe to see the Scaruffian system of ranking applied to him. =)

Now this is a funny fucking thread.

I just finished researching the Googolian terms "Beatles" "Scaruffi" and "Greatest Rock Albums" and found some truly interesting stuff. It seems neither Scaruffists nor Beatlemaniacs are correct. The greatest albums of all times were put out by Journey, Styx, Aerosmith, The Cars and the Beastie Boys. These tremendously influential bands managed to combine the emotional complexity of the former with the creative listenability of the latter to create an art form that lasted at least twenty minutes, perahps even a half hour. So I would recommend as 9.789362 out of 10 Journey's seminal work "Arrival", the Cars classic "Door to Door" Styx masterwork "Kilroy Was Here" and just about everything ever released by Aerosmith (except for the all-too-poppy "Dream On" and "Walk This Way") and of course the entire Beastie Boys catalogue.

Finally, the most influential band ever has got to be SugarHill Gang. Not only did they invent Rap throuth the first-of-it's kind use of the word "Rapper" but also predated gang(sta) rap be an entire generation. Not only that, but the use of "Hibbie Hibbie de Hip Hip Hop You Don't Stop" created the entire Hip Hop genre as well. If you don't believe me just turn on your radio. Then cringe.....

Here is a scholarly paper on The Beatles that might upset these people.

There's a better argument against some of scaruffi's claims in a listology article. Can't remember the name of it. I find it easier to find holes in this scholarly article than in scaruffis.

The article in the link is a good argument that "beatlesque" songs should be avoided, except for xtc (I doubt this was their intent)

The only upsetting thing is that i don't know what synecdotic and a few other words mean. I'm not sure that they *are* words. But then again this is a scholarly work, so it's supposed to be meaningless.

Some of those sentences could have come straight from the postmodernism generator.

What did you think of the article? There are no specifics about scaruffi's claims, so i dont know what to make of it.

This i dont agree with-: "so-called “Beatles-style”, a style all musicians will be dealing with, sooner or later and with rare exceptions."

the latest from scaruffi on the beatles from the revised 2009 version of his book. not as much vitriol anymore...


"The Beatles (2), thanks to the creativity of their producer George Martin (who was for them what Brian Wilson was for the Beach Boys), popularized the new styles that were emerging from the underground. They began with effervescent party-tunes such as Love Me Do (1962), A Hard Day's Night (1964), I Feel Fine (1964) and Help (1965), but their melodic genius truly blossomed with the sophisticated slow ballads of Yesterday (1965), Michelle (1965), We Can Work It Out (1965) and Eleanor Rigby (1966), while Penny Lane (1967) topped everything else in terms of harmony. Heralded by the proto-psychedelic pastiche of Tomorrow Never Knows (1966) for sitar, organ drones and backward guitar, their best albums, Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (feb/mar 1967 - jun 1967) and Abbey Road ( apr/aug 1969 - sep 1969), were tours de force of studio arrangement that further enhanced their melodic talent by employing everything from the symphonic orchestra to tape loops. The double album The Beatles (jul/oct 1968 - nov 1968) showed how neo-classical, psychedelic, music-hall, blues and folk music could coexist and complement each other in the ditty-oriented context of pop music."

I can personally understand the argument that the Beatles were not the greatest band of all time. Having said that, there is room for a balanced argument. For instance, my recent reading of Turn! Turn! Turn! about folk-rock made it clear that the primary movers transitioning rock'n'roll and folk to "folk-rock" (from which was spun hard rock and psychedelia and the thousands styles we now have) were Dylan (obviously) and the Byrds. And what band most inspired the folk purists to pick up an electric guitar, including Roger McGuinn. Yup, you guessed it. The book also shows how the Beatles stood out from the crowd in making every album so different - no artist had done that before, covering so many styles. Yes of course we can agree that no musician in the Beatles played as well as Hendrix or Jeff Beck, but since when does that matter when we evaluate the Sex Pistols? An element of sound in the Beatles never discussed by Scaruffi (whose criticisms of the Beatles I mostly agree with) is Lennon's voice. That sneering semi-screamed vocal married to often innocent pop actually pointed to a darker potential in rock. I don't know why so many of you miss that point when discussing the musical merits or demerits of the Beatles. It is true they lagged behind Dylan and the bigger psychedelic experiments of Love, the Dead, the Floyd, the Deviants, etc, but they were certainly very much a part of their time as well, and trying hard to push the envelope (without ever getting too experimental, it is true, and obvious). So balance is important here. Calling Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road their best albums is I think reasonable. They did use Eastern influences on some tracks early in the history of rock (I said tracks, not entire albums) at the same time as did Brian Jones (on whole albums) - Tomorrow Never Knows blew a lot of minds. A conversation with an ethnomusicologist recently led to his statement that the Beatles invented post-modernism in music. We will remain in a love hate relationship with the Beatles. But that is true of so many artists we listen to. But we can still sit back and just dig the sounds which at times are arrestingly rich, even going back to the album Hard Day's Night! One final point, when Scaruffi mentions early progenitors of the marriage between folk and rock (as happening around 1965) he does not mention the Beatles among those progenitors. John Lennon himself was playing skiffle, which was an English accoustic folk music, in Liverpool before he met McCartney (and on the day he met McCartney in fact). The Beatles married the rawness of that folk music with electric instruments as far back as 1963. When the ears of numerous American folkies perked up upon hearing the Beatles on the radio in 1963 (a year before Beatlemania) it was precisely that marriage that they heard which gave them the ideas they were to apply in marrying their own folk (which admittedly was more protest-oriented, just as Dylan's was more poetic) with electric instrumentation.

One of the things I dislike about blind Scaruffi haters is that they act as if Scaruffi hates the Beatles...he doesn't, he simply thinks they're highly overrated.

Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road both received a 7/10 out of 10 from him, which is not that bad. In addition, he makes a list for the best songs of each year; "She Loves You," "I Want to Hold Your Hand," "Penny Lane," "Hello, Goodbye," and "A Day in the Life" have all ranked on his lists of the best songs of their respective year.

Case in point: Scaruffi does not hate the Beatles.

He kind of does, though: consider his article on them. And yes, Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road are rated 7/10, but look at his ratings of the other albums: 5/10 for Revolver (and Rubber Soul, though that's not very surprising)! Of the early albums, 5/10 for A Hard Day's Night is the only one I'd say doesn't seem harsh to me. Compare these ratings to his ratings of Byrds and Kinks albums, for starters.