CAN bio

This might need to get moved to "report abuse," not sure

http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=667

The bio for Can shows evident bias, including such statements as:

"CAN's music can be difficult to appreciate, yet their albums offer some of the best experimental rock ever recorded" "Most of their albums are great, particularly "Monster Movie", "Soundtracks", "Tago Mago", "Future Days", and "Ege Bamyasi". After "Soon over Babaluma" I'd say forget it as CAN loose there fresh approach for which they were reknown." "Cannibalism 1" is the best CD to buy to first experience the incredible music of CAN.

I really think that the biography ought to focus on facts and information, not someone's opinions.  Between that and the bad spelling and grammar, it really doesn't represent this band very positively

I suspect if we looked around we'd find a lot more bios that are written similarly, but I'm surprised to see it in such a (relatively) high-profile band

Indeed, I have seen such biographies in my journey for Prog and reviewing too.

However, I'm not sure if it's a bad thing. And after all, we can't just delete it if somebody won't write new biography. Take it easy guys, these biographies aren't as bad as some others. I personally do more like more objective ones, but let's respect the work of others, shall we ?

There are worse biographies. Those that has 2-3 lines of text only