I'll be on vacation tomorrow :cool:
btw I'd suggest you stick around on sputnik for an excellent 'tallica review coming from me. It'll be brilliant.

I smell a flame-fest. Pink floyd is one thing, but a negative Metallica review can be fatal.

scratch that, forgot reviews have to approved first . So no more review of metallica's infamous "tr00 kvlt metal m/" album...for now...

Album Rating: 5.0

This is a terrible review. It's not that I don't respect the score (I don't agree, though). The author attempts to pass off several things as fact, when they certainly aren't.



"Nothing like this had been seen before; a rock album that wanted to be jazz, but still knew that it was a rock album at heart."



That is not even close to be true. There were many rock-jazz fusion albums before Dark Side of the Moon. For example, listen to the Soft Machine's self-titled debut (sometimes called Volume One). It's exactly what you describe Dark Side as. And it came 5 years earlier. But that's just one example.



"This leaves the album as something of a historical footnote, and its probably better left as such."



That is not true -- Dark Side is not left as a historical footnote in any way, shape, or form. You are deciding that it is outdated and is historical footnot, which is it is not. On the other hand, King Crimson may be considered a historicial footnote when compared to Pink Floyd. In the Court of the Crimson King is a historical footnote when compared to Dark Side of the Moon.



"Yes, the final four tracks are essentially one flowing track, and credit must be given, as Floyd were one of the first to accomplish such a feat in rock."



See the self-titled debut album by the Soft Machine (1968). Each track flows into the next, aside from when the record had to be flipped. See the Soft Machine's Volume Two (1969), which did the same as their first album. See Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967), which is the first record to have a song flow into the next. See the second side of Abbey Road (1969).



Also, I'm surprised that you didn't realize that Dark Side is really one long song. Each track flows into the next. Speak to Me flows in Breathe, which flows into On the Run, which flows into Time, which flows into The Great Gig in the Sky. Flip the record over, and Money flows into Us and Them, which flows into Any Colour You Like, which Flows into Brain Damage, which flows into Eclipse. It's not just the last four tracks.



This Message Edited On 07.28.06This Message Edited On 07.28.06This Message Edited On 07.28.06

Album Rating: 4.0

... Okay. Two factual errors aren't really that justifiable for negging. The third one isn't wrong, he said ONE OF THE FIRST, which in all respects it was.

Album Rating: 5.0

I also thought it was terribly written, though I must be the only one it seems.This Message Edited On 07.28.06

Explain how it is terribly written.

Album Rating: 4.0

It wasn't terribly written really, and I think you're just pissed about the rating is all.

Album Rating: 5.0

Why exactly it is written well? Aside from the issue of facts, it lacks any sort of flow; it's disjointed and jumps around from topic to topic.



I'm not pissed about the rating. I know a lot of people hate this album and Pink Floyd in general.



I'm not arguing his opinon on the album, so why are you arguing with my opinion on his review?

Album Rating: 4.0

Because it's one thing to dislike a review, but to claim it isn't well-written when it obviously is and to give it a negative vote is ridiculous. And of course it goes from topic-to-topic, all reviews do. Otherwise it all about a single topic.

Album Rating: 5.0

In other words, my opinion is wrong? That's a great attitude to have for this kind of site. All right, I can deal with that. Now deal with the fact that I gave a negative vote to the review.This Message Edited On 07.28.06

Album Rating: 4.0

Oh quit being dramatic. No one said you can't have an opinion.

Album Rating: 5.0

I never said anyone wasn't letting me have one. I was just saying that you're telling me that my opinion is wrong.

No we're not.

We're just asking as you to actually support your opinion of his review being terrible.

Album Rating: 4.0

No, not really. I clearly stated you can hate his review. But he writes well, and negging a review should really only be if it is poorly put together and the writer lacks talent, and you can't truly say he isn't a proficient author.



I don't care if you neg it. It's not my review. I'm merely pointing out that you're being rather harsh on it.

Album Rating: 5.0

I already said that it lacks flow and is disjointed, going from topic to topic sporadically.



His lack of knowledge about the topics I brought up earlier, mixed with his bias toward and lack of knowledge of jazz, really undermine the integrity of the review for me. The author loses some credibility when using incorrect facts for part of the basis of a review.



Again, I don't agree with the rating, although I respect it. And I would not give a negative just because of the score.



Now what makes it so well written?This Message Edited On 07.28.06

Album Rating: 4.0

Really, his lack of knowledge of Pink Floyd and Jazz is part of it. It gives it the feel of the average person just checking it out. He does write well, and I really don't think it's as sporadic as you're making it out to be. Having just looked up oyur favorite bands, which are:



Pink Floyd



Syd Barret



Soft Machine



Your credibility for your case is somewhat tarnished, but you still gave reasoning, so :thumb:This Message Edited On 07.28.06

Album Rating: 5.0

I joined this site 30 minutes ago, and I haven't had the time to add a million bands yet. (I don't think I'm going to, either.) I gave up when I searched for Caravan, and only Spirit Caravan came up.

Album Rating: 5.0

Everthing Kaleidoscope has said has made complete sense. Also, he has supported his opinion plenty. Everybody calm down.

Album Rating: 3.0

Yeah and don't get banned.