c'è Banned

shit review for a masterpiece album that I intended to review and that sooner or later will get a worthy review. This review seems like a copy of the previous one with the addition of the suggestions given in the comments to it. Not on par with the debut but still a great album.

Nice review, I won’t rate the album because I don't know it. But who are these Pink Floyd? I don't know. Anyway, it’s nice to know there’s someone reviewing this unknown album, thank you.

And where do we put Supercafone? We absorb culture from America like sponges absorb piss. And then we all pretend to be alternative, right? Just a reminder!

how beautiful this last verse damn

It's you who asked to be shown which parts were taken from Wikipedia. As stated previously, nothing to say about the review.

Is it worth the purchase then?

Perhaps my behavior is a bit exaggerated, but the reviews of "The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn" and especially "In The Court Of The Crimson King" really didn’t sit well with me. Anyway, now that I read that copy-pasting isn’t a common practice, I'm more at ease. At least it has been admitted that this disgrace also affected Uncle Frank, after the late Syd and dear Fripp.

and don’t offend anyone just because you’re in the wrong big time

you're the only fool

Is it a matter of foresight? The difficult judgment is yours (which also rhymes):
Frank Zappa - Wikipedia

Frank Zappa has been honored with:
* two asteroids ("3834 Zappafrank" and "16745 Zappa")
* a gene ("ZapA," the gene of the microbe Proteus mirabilis)
* a jellyfish (Phialella zappai)
* a fish (Zappa confluentus)
* an extinct mollusk (Amauratoma zappa)
* a spider (Pachygnatha zappa, with an abdominal mark resembling Zappa's mustache)
* a motherboard produced by Intel
* a street in Agropoli (SA)
* a song: Smoke On The Water by Deep Purple

No one questions that the review of the album, which is the only thing that matters, is well-written and is the result of an excellent knowledge of Zappa and the album in question. The final curiosities are identical, but I mean identical to Wikipedia. However, they are a little extra, which detracts nothing from the review, but rather adds to it. What is quite different is copying entire parts of a review and passing them off as one's own.