I don't know about this, but how come there are reviews of an album that isn't out yet? I know maybe you can listen to it in a website or something, but the thing is, we have a lot of very short reviews of POS Scarsick coming from guests who I think are just trying to be the "first" to review an album even before it is available to most of us. Besides, shouldn't reviews be made only from actually released records so that sound quality, and every last minute addition by the band or the label or whatver change it may happen will be heard? Today we have three consecutive reviews of that album, all of them short, don't say anything with a real meaning, just trying to "show off" how quick they were to listen to POS' new. I have yet to read a review by a collaborator, then I would trust. But in the case of an album not-yet-released, with no collaborator-reviews available, I just don't trust those short, weak-content reviews.

(I had this post on the "report abuse" thread but someone pointed me in this direction)

Atkingani wrote: Mayhem's review is frozen presently and text was also deleted. The reviewer did that single review in Jan, 2005 and never returned. Chances are it'll be removed permanently.

I think it's just a bad review, if what you posted is the whole thing, then he said nothing about the instrumentality or songs. He simply said buy this, "it r awesome" The only postive trait is that he said "if you like __, then you'll like these guys", but that's what we're arguing about now. Personally I think that's the most credible part of his review.

Tony R wrote: Trickster F. wrote: (how exactly do you do "anti-Christian activity on stage" by the way?) you're too young to have been to a lapdancing club Ivan. I dont think that the reviewer has broken any guidleines though(?)

^mock crucifixions, though Mayhem's anti-Christian activities involced crurch burnings. Plus one member blew his head off and the members made necklaces of pieces of his skull. At least musicmaniac failed to point that out

Melomaniac wrote: Check more of this guy's reviews...  Still nothing about the album.  He has the right not to like Saga, but reviews like this have no point to them.

It would help if you actually read the replies to your posts (stonebeard's in this case)...

mystic fred wrote: i thought Accountants were supposed to be boring? this man knows a good album when he hears it!   (but can't spell)

Angelo wrote: Below is an interesting review. I didn't really feel like posting it as inappropriate (so I put it here instead). How would you folks judge this? PINK FLOYD — Wish You Were Here Review by rabs (Adrian Rabet) Define greatness? In my view the fact that I bought the vinyl of this album on the day it was released and still listen to it now some 31 years later when as a 47 year old Chartered Accountant you think I would know better! Absolutely suberb Posted Friday, November 10, 2006, 11:03 EST | Permanent link

andu wrote: Folly, that was a nice review for Floyd's Division Bell. I share many of your opinions. The trickiest side is your affirmation - Gilmour lacks vision; or at least compared to Waters. I could not confirm or deny that. Just one question though: have you listened to Gilmour's solo album from 1978? How do you find/like it? (Myself I love it and it's one of the closest to my heart. I often find myself singing it's tunes.)

    
Well, now that I got your private message, I cannot say that I've spent much time with Gilmour's '78 album. I own it, but I don't really know it at all. Next chance I get (this weekend), I will listen to it and see what I think. The only one I know well is About Face, which wasn't impressive (except for Murder). As for On an Island, I took three listens and decided I didn't WANT to know it well...

But consider that, and my review didn't consider this (unfortunately), Gilmour probably did have vision up until The Wall or so. However, Division Bell was released 15 YEARS after his first solo album, which I've heard and wouldn't doubt is his best (given my knowledge of the other two). By this time (well, by AMLOR - 9 years later - really) he had lost whatever vision he had. I would have a hard time decrying his vision on, say Dark Side or Wish You Were Here (or my personal favorite, Meddle), but Division Bell shows an utter lack of vision, as does AMLOR, as does On an Island, as does, to a smaller extent, About Face. A string of four albums in a row with little or no vision led me to conclude that he had lost whatever he once had. That said, of those four releases, Division Bell is clearly the best, and, other than maybe, just maybe, About Face, the only one worthy of a three star rating (which from me is not necessarily bad - hell, given the album, a two star review can be good from me). If that made sense (probably not), that ought to explain my position. If not, and you want to understand, PM me, and I'll try to make it make sense.

BTW: I'm glad that you liked my review, my reviewing Pink Floyd seems to bring out my best...:

At last count (I may be forgetting something, though), I've gotten PMs saying nice review for Dark Side, The Final Cut, In London, and now Division Bell. None for any other band though...

Edited by inpraiseoffolly - November 13 2006 at 17:06

Folly, that was a nice review for Floyd's Division Bell. I share many of your opinions. The trickiest side is your affirmation - Gilmour lacks vision; or at least compared to Waters. I could not confirm or deny that. Just one question though: have you listened to Gilmour's solo album from 1978? How do you find/like it? (Myself I love it and it's one of the closest to my heart. I often find myself singing it's tunes.)