telespallabob

There is, the lineup is certainly top-notch, but it's not worth putting in 2 from Gilmour. Nevertheless, the choices made on the album are mostly correct (there are some exceptions).

The reception isn't bad, the album is stunning.

Mediocre reviews for a big band, it's one of those on my list. Soon I'll write about them too, perhaps about their debut album "Climbing!"

Discreet review, perhaps too brief. I haven't listened to the album, but I appreciate some aspects of the band in question, while other things didn’t impress me much.

A good review, I haven't listened to the album and I feel ignorant in a context that seems of great value.

In the end, this review turned out to be a duplicate (only because Hell got to it first). Here we have a more concise approach (excluding the polemical intro). Anyway, it's not bad.

Welcome to Debaser. The review isn't great. Why? Let's see point by point. 1) The Track-By-Track (I don't agree with the approach but that's less serious), 2) Review is too long, 3) The genres, you've exaggerated on this too, 4) Some mistakes here and there, 5) why did you post the Myspace of the gentleman in question twice? Result: try to pay more attention to these things; after all, it doesn’t seem like you write poorly. You have willingness and a spirit of interest since you presented an almost unknown album (especially to me, who thanks you for the tip).

Is there a genre called Lagna-Rock? And why don't you include Jazz-Rock in the De-Generi? One could get really angry with you, dear Editors. All jokes aside, the review is nice.

What can I say, the review is very personal. You can feel the emotion, almost the embarrassment, in describing an album that clearly made a strong impression on you. At certain moments, overly objective writing doesn't work. Describing moods helps; the important thing is not to overdo it with certain triumphalisms.

welcome to debaser, congratulations