DanVerlaine

Unfortunately, "sausalito" has an opinion regime regarding the Beatles; anyone who opposes it is ridiculed. Your perspective is interesting, and I commend the review for its courage. I don't agree on Taxman; for me, it's a good pop-blues, and the lyrics should be read through that ironic vein someone mentioned to you. To me, it deserves a 3. I would give 2 to Love You To and 1 (or even 0 if that were possible) to Yellow Submarine. The joke about Paul's wife is amusing, ahahaha.
Now, Good Day Sunshine is one of those songs where Macca interprets the sunny and optimistic tone in a questionable way, making it synonymous with childishness and banality. However, shortly after, Macca shows all his talent when he remembers he's not 13 anymore and writes a true pop gem that rivals The Fool On The Hill for the title of his best song. 5 stars.
Forgive me, but from how you describe it, I'm afraid you haven't really listened well to Doctor Robert; for me, it’s one of the more interesting tracks on the album, 4 stars, with funny lyrics. I Want To Tell You—that's just filler. If there's a Beatles song that deserves 5 stars, it's Tomorrow Never Knows. The ones you mention came out AFTER that. For a piece from '66, it was definitely not bad. It's important to remember that these were years of unparalleled artistic fervor; there were many bands experimenting or about to do so, revolutionizing music, and a year’s time during that historical period was considerable. Rock music would evolve very quickly; it's possible that more interesting and innovative records came out in 5 months of that unmatched season than in 6-7 years today. If Tomorrow Never Knows were from '69, it would seem insignificant and would need to be downplayed, but for being from '66, it was quite ahead of its time.
In conclusion, I approve of many of the points you make, some I disagree with; at times, you give the impression of not having listened attentively to the album. Moreover, Revolver is often considered one of the greatest albums of all time because if you know a bit about music and have the ears to hear what's around you, it truly is one of the most influential records ever. It's a pity that, for me, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this was a good thing (it depends on which aspect of the album one chose to be influenced by and the artistic caliber of the influenced), and being influential is not a quality in itself. The more notable you are, the more you’ll influence someone (likely Take That have influenced the music of recent years more than Nick Cave). The Beatles' notoriety depends only in part on their artistic merits. It’s an overrated album but deserves 3 stars.

ahahah "essential scuzzy freakbeat sorbet", great!
Buzz the Jerk is probably my favorite.
The review isn't bad, but you made it a bit too straightforward: "cool disco, if you want a rock n roll record with balls listen to this!".
I mean, yours sounds more like an enthusiastic recommendation than a review; I think in the case of albums like this, not very well-known, it would be better to be a little more descriptive to help the internet user form an idea about the Pretty Things.

An extremely important album in the history of rock, and the lyrics are beautiful, but I can't help it; I don't fully enjoy it. I can't appreciate at least 4-5 tracks, and forcing myself to listen at all costs isn't my way of doing things.

Great compilation from another largely unknown '60s group.
It would deserve a 5, but I give it a 4 because I’m a bit snobby about compilations.

Super masterpiece from the late '60s.
Why 4 stars?? I'm saying this in light of the fact that the same author of the review calls it a masterpiece.
Five stars are handed out like candy to the Beatles, and we give this one 4?
Hmm.
R&B and psychedelia, stunning record.

Yes, yes, but I have nothing to object; I understand what you mean and I can agree as well. For me, the Love album is similar in its own way; a piece like AndMoreAgain rides a light and dreamy romanticism that's easily grasped, with lyrics (too often overlooked) that, if we want, are a bit sentimental. I think that you and I agree on the cautious use of the word "psychedelia" in these cases; in both situations, it is, as you say, a "poppettara" psychedelia. Well, I’d say it’s not accurate to say that I dislike almost anything by the Beatles, come on. As for Sardonicus, it's TRUE that it is influenced by the Beatles, but it’s not the only influence; you can find echoes of Barrett's Floyd, the rhythm and blues of the Pretty Things, and I don’t think it’s fair to associate it only with the Beatles—honestly, it doesn’t seem like a Beatles album to me at all. Additionally, the album is marked by clear folk reminiscences and that damned jazzy timbre that I personally find irresistible (I really like jazz). Then, compared to the Beatles, the voices are different, the synthesis among the various instruments is different—there are just different things in the end. I find that Spirit is a band with uncommon class, a class they express even when they decide to make simpler songs, although there are a couple of moments here that I find less convincing. A sunny tone doesn’t necessarily mean banality; I've never thought that. Ah, and I also find that the album has decent lyrics (overall), products of their time, lyrics that, when read today, evoke a kind of tenderness in conveying some of the most representative utopias of that historical phase.

Look at EasyCure, I think it's just a matter of getting on the same page and getting to know each other a bit. In my comments, even when I don't state it explicitly, the "in my humble opinion" or "in my view", "in my modest opinion" are always implied. That little bit of "chitchat" slipped out, let alone if I meant to say that no one can criticize the album negatively. I love pluralism, and when I see all 5s for some albums, I think there's something wrong; you can imagine.
In reality, I was talking to myself because I'm the first to find a thousand flaws in this band (hahaha, a bit of a paradox considering that fans consider them "the perfect band"), but in front of this album, at least I had to surrender and admit, for example to some friends who love the "genre," that it's a valuable album. But it was a heartfelt surrender because, to my own surprise, at times I really, really like this album. They may be a bit cold, they may be a bit pretentious, the singer doesn't convey great emotions, but among the albums of somewhat "cold" bands, a bit pretentious with such singers, this is one of the best I've ever heard. Then I might be wrong... I'm not the oracle of truth, and the albums I haven't listened to in this genre are surely many.

I'm sorry (I'm saying this calmly), but I've been the subject of attacks for saying that Forever Changes is a bit of a crowd-pleaser, and then Pyschopompe here talks about "a bit of a sneaky pop mannerism" and no one has anything to say??
To put it simply, if this is sneaky, in my opinion, Forever Changes is no less so.
Psychompompe expressed himself in that way, he used a questionable expression, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be attacked; I found it amusing, I liked the expression, what's important is to try to understand what one means, and I think Psychompompe got his point across, he just used colloquial language.
If we start counting words between each other, we could write 5 meters of stuff under every review.

Yes, but I bet that when certain things are said about albums by bands you like, you have nothing to say...
I speak for myself; what I say isn’t necessarily right.
I just ask you not to put me in the category of those who idolize virtuosity and technical skill for its own sake.
For me, this is an album that fuses self-indulgence (which is still part of the genre) and inspiration.
I really like Learning To Live, and I find the final part moving.
Beyond this work, they don’t tell me much.
But the point is that just because someone appreciates an album like this doesn’t mean they’re a repressed kid who needs to identify with the phenomenal skill of the Theater to feel more important.
For me, there’s heart in this album; there are emotions.
And if I may say, what many don’t understand is that from a critical standpoint, every album should be judged according to the standards of its own genre.
If you were writing for a magazine, what would you do?
Since you hate the genre, would you dismiss all progressive metal albums?
This is one of the few I like in this genre, and if I evaluate it by comparing it to others in the genre, I think it’s hard not to say it’s at least a good album.
Then again, everyone can think what they want, but sometimes it would simply be more correct to say: I can't stand them, end of story.
Leave those kids who are obsessed with Petrucci alone; what do you care? I look at them with tenderness.

It deserved a few more words.