Mr_Iko

You always do this, I thought you were only annoyed with me in your (disgusting) review of Transformer, instead I notice that you've had altercations with half of the users on this site (a bit like what happened to me too...) Even with me, I scientifically criticized your ideas and you, cornered, lashed out at me saying that (even) I AM ENVIOUS and JEALOUS because you write better than me. But you don't know that thanks to my way of writing I earn a living (and quite well, since they pay me about 60 euros an hour including VAT...) Reading what you have to say with someone like CAZ really makes me feel good, because I've never met anyone with more self-irony than him. I thought I was the king of those lacking self-irony, but I yield (with a deep bow) my throne to you. The real arrogant is you. Whether you like it or not, this is the truth. Reread my comments and tell me if I personally offended you. I simply and atomically (meaning referring exclusively to that review) harshly criticized your (crappy) review and you could only do better than whine with the usual (boring) epithets like little professor, know-it-all, smartypants, etc., aided by comments from some of your friends (soputhman, for example). But I notice you always do this... and to think CAZ told me you were an idiot... and to think I didn’t believe it...

Ahhh... damn... True! That was missing (never listened to it, anyway)! ;-)

P.S. I know the background stories and I have read Reed's biography (actually more than once)... I've been told...

I lose anyway, whether I say something or not... when I was born I was 14 (they told me) and I had already missed my first communion and confirmation (with all those gifts...) I couldn’t care less about the judgment of the man from the south (they told me) and I insist on my own judgment: unequivocally a review as bad as it is useless (it seems to me). Well, now I’m leaving you again, I have to go because my yogurt in the fridge is about to expire right now... but not before reminding you how your good-heartedness certainly doesn’t help improve the content of this site that (alas) continues in its slow and inexorable agony. Enjoy the skin flute serenade, all of you.

Last consideration: you didn't even mention Klaus Voormann, who is the same bassist from "John Lennon - Plastic Ono Band"... Talk about precision...

But let’s move on to minor premise number 4: I write worse than you and I'm envious of having found someone who, despite writing better, doesn’t feel the need to showcase their remarkable musical competence and experience. The very fact that you feel compelled to claim you have significant "musical" competence and experience (as it is) raises some doubts for me about the actual reality of this competence of yours (as Gibran said: "if a text requires further explanation or justification or needs to be subsequently validated, it is a sign that it is a weak text"). Anyway, I leave you the throne of "very good," I don't even want to touch it. But, while fully accepting your premises 2 and 4, I conclude that your review (and the subsequent comment directed at me) is subpar because it lacks both an “emotional” meaning and a “didactic” one, even though the completeness of one of the two situations (emotional or didactic) would have negated the necessity of the presence of the other. And if this reasoning is correct, I have nothing else to add, resting in complete tranquility. ComeVolevasiDimostrare.

Minor premise no. 3: you self-reference the review as honest and precise. Beyond the logical inconsistency of valuing one's own work, I can only be hesitant in the face of a "precise" review that speaks little and poorly of the turbulent moment Reed was experiencing due to problems with substance abuse and depression, which culminated in the nihilism of some musical moments but especially in the extraordinary lyricism of that Reed. (Even though in Berlin these tones will be even more pronounced). Moreover, the first solo episode of Reed, which is from the same year and features two members of Yes like Howe and Wakeman, is not even mentioned. And what about not citing Bowie's backing vocals in Perfect Day and Satellite, which (I’m looking at it right now on the DVD...) Reed defines as INCREDIBLE? And if he himself is keen to make that known… But let’s continue with your (presumed) precision. Did you say anything about the cover photo? You don’t know what’s behind it, do you? Did you explain to whom and what Walk on the Wild Side is dedicated (Have you ever heard of Warhol's Factory)? And then, in a precise review, it could be stated that Lou Reed is an artist of the "Fringe" and that this (despite millions of copies) is a "Fringe" record? And what the hell does "Fringe" mean? And what the hell does "glorious past" mean when in '72 Reed had a very brief and not-so-glorious past?

Now I want to try to interpret the syllogism you posted. That is, first I assess your premises (major and minor) namely: 1. Just tribute for a snubbed artist (major premise) 2. epoch-making album (major premise) 3. honest and clear retrospective of an album that you feel is "yours" (minor premise) 4. I am not on your level to refute your review (not minor premise but weakened), from which, arguing somewhat randomly, you draw the conclusion that you have made a review A. Correct B. Pleasant ---> the major premise number 2 is undeniable (I wrote it in my comment...) and proven by the widespread appreciation that the album receives. Let's start with major premise number 1: the Artist is indeed of significance, but it doesn't seem to me that he has been snubbed since there are three (3) other reviews of it. Therefore, this premise is definitely contestable and will inevitably taint the primary conclusion. This is enough for me to deduce that we are not faced with an epichorema also known as armed syllogism or reinforced syllogism.

I stand by my opinion, this review sucks. It doesn’t say anything that hasn’t already been said (and better) in a thousand other reviews.

Look, I have no words. A terrible review for an epochal album. So let me explain. You might have written something that connects with the album, you might have even gotten the dates and names right, but... what does this review contribute? What’s new that can further illuminate the brilliance of this record? What’s the point of this review, then? If "Reviewing -Transformer-, is it possible that no one has done it yet?" hadn’t been for you a predictable rhetorical question but a serious inquiry, your answer would have been something like: "because it takes two big red balls to do it, and many don’t have them..." Dear Francis, if you don’t have exams to take, prepare for the future, or take a nice trip to Chad, Nepal, Kazakhstan, buy yourself a great Hungarian film and learn Hungarian to understand it, find yourself a hobby, maybe even date once in a while, but please... leave bigger things alone. Now that "you’ve been enlightened" and I’ve "taught you," don’t touch my Reed. Please. And then, someone who rambles on about "Grace"... what did you want to achieve? Did you want to compensate? Did you want to say "Grace was a little mistake, but see, I also know cool albums!" Give me a break...