u/IMAOOFINGBLOCK

I know this is not exactly the most original Fantano critique in the world. “Fantano is contrarian,” “Fantano rage-baits,” “Fantano’s politics affect his reviews,” etc. has basically been reheated online more times than a sad gas station burrito.

But I’ve watched his content for years, not just casually, and I feel like there is a pattern in how he presents himself that bothers me more over time.

To be clear, I’m not saying he is never right. He has put people onto great music. He has defended artists and genres that deserved more attention. I don’t think every negative review from him is “bait,” and I don’t think artists are automatically above criticism just because their work is personal.

But the recurring issue, to me, is that he often wants the benefits of being provocative without accepting the emotional or reputational consequences of provoking people.

He will frame things in the harshest, most inflammatory way possible, then act surprised or offended when people respond emotionally. The Halsey review is probably the clearest recent example. You can dislike The Great Impersonator. You can criticize the songwriting, the production, the concept, the references, all of it. But calling an album built around illness, chemo, mortality, motherhood, and fear of dying “main character syndrome” is such a needlessly smug way to frame it. It turns personal pain into a character flaw. Then when people react to that framing, suddenly the conversation becomes “people are too sensitive” or “they care more about the review than the album.”

That is the part I dislike. Not the negative score by itself. The framing.

I see a similar problem with the Marty Supreme review. Again, he is allowed to dislike the movie. Nobody has to like something just because the critical consensus is positive. But that review felt less like “I understood what this was going for and rejected it” and more like “I wanted the movie to morally instruct me in a cleaner way, and because it didn’t, I’m treating that as a failure.” The whole complaint about Marty not being punished enough or the movie “rewarding” him felt like a very flat reading of a messy character study. It reminded me of the same issue I sometimes have with his music reviews: if the work does not perform its intent in a way he personally finds satisfying, he sometimes talks like the intent itself barely exists.

Then there is the contrarian scoring pattern. Yes, taste is subjective. Yes, his scores are his opinion. But it is hard not to notice how often his most infamous takes land directly opposite the broader reception. Yeezus is one of the most acclaimed rap albums of the 2010s, and he gave it a famously lukewarm score. Because the Internet has become a beloved, ambitious cult favorite, and he was cold on it. Meanwhile, he has given surprisingly positive scores to projects that a lot of online music spaces treat as shallow, obnoxious, or disposable, like Lil Pump’s self-titled tape or Sexyy Red’s Hood Hottest Princess.

Again, he is allowed to like those albums. I’m not saying “popular opinion equals correct opinion.” But when the pattern repeats for years, it starts to feel less like brave independent criticism and more like a brand: disagree loudly, make the score memorable, let the discourse do free promo, then roll your eyes when people take the bait.

His political lens also feels inconsistent to me. He presents himself as very left-wing, and a lot of his audience defends him on that basis. But then there is the whole thatistheplan era, the Sam Hyde interview, and the old edgelord internet-humor ecosystem he was comfortable participating in. I’m not saying people can’t grow or move away from old internet garbage. They can, and they should. But it feels strange to act like everyone is being unfair for remembering it, especially when his whole job is judging artists’ public output, context, messaging, and presentation.

The “songs that agree with him politically” thing also bugs me. Sometimes when a song parrots his worldview, he seems much more forgiving of clunky writing, weak execution, or preachy delivery. Meanwhile, if something is emotionally messy in a way he does not respect, he can become ruthless. That creates the impression that some artists get graded on craft, while others get bonus points for saying the correct thing.

And honestly, without a prepared review structure in front of him, especially on streams, he sometimes comes across way more arrogant and dismissive than his main-channel critic persona suggests. That part is more subjective, I admit. It is a vibe, not a spreadsheet. But after years of watching him, the vibe matters.

The biggest pattern I see is this:

Fantano roasts people, turns the harshness into entertainment, benefits from the backlash, then acts like the backlash is proof everyone else is unreasonable.

That is what annoys me.

If you make your living being blunt, inflammatory, funny, dismissive, sarcastic, and sometimes cruel, you do not also get to act shocked when people respond to the cruelty part. You can be a harsh critic, or you can be the misunderstood victim of everyone else’s sensitivity. Trying to be both all the time is where it starts feeling fake to me.

I’m not posting this because I think everyone needs to agree. I know a lot of people here like him, and I get why. He is influential for a reason. But I do think there is a difference between having unpopular opinions and cultivating a persona where outrage becomes part of the product.

After years of watching him, I don’t think the issue is that he “has bad opinions.” Everyone does. The issue is that his whole critical persona often depends on acting above the discourse while constantly feeding it.

That contradiction is what I find exhausting.