Disappointed by Rolling Stone

today i went into rolling stone magazine web page took look at the reviews and story they had about pink floyd and their work... well i got a really big disappointment at such a great magazine.

the thing is that first i checked the list of albums and saw that most of them werent rated (not even the Wall which i saw it had only 2 stars in RS book of all albums) and PATGOD wasnt even there. Then i saw that TDB and 3 live albums had 2/5 stars, and then saw Final Cut with 5 stars along with DSOTM and WYWH so that made me curious and i went to check the complete review on TFC album and saw, among many things, this:
(these are fragments)

This may be art rock's crowning masterpiece, but it is also something more. With The Final Cut, Pink Floyd caps its career in classic form, and leader Roger Waters–for whom the group has long since become little more than a pseudonym–finally steps out from behind the "Wall" where last we left him. The result is essentially a Roger Waters solo album, and it's a superlative achievement on several levels.

Dismissed in the past as a mere misogynist, a ranting crank, Waters here finds his focus at last, and with it a new humanity.

By comparison, in almost every way, The Wall was only a warm-up.

...the Wall movie, a grotesquely misconceived collaboration between Waters and director Alan Parker, was released to a general thud of incomprehension.

Whether this will be their last album as a group (the official word is no, but Wright is apparently GONE FOR GOOD, and even the faithful Nick Mason relinquishes his drum chair on one cut to session player Andy Newmark) is not as compelling a question as where Waters will go with what appears to be a new-found freedom. He plans to record a solo album for his next project, and one hopes that just the novelty of becoming a full-fledged human will be enough to keep him profitably occupied for many years to come.


This review is by Kurt Loder. Well just have to say that this guy doesnt know a lil bout pink floyd by sayin Rick went out for good and for UNDERRATE AND INSULT the previous work of worlds best band. im sad bout the fact there are people that think the way loder does....
heres the link: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/.../the_final_cut

What do you have to say about this?

Kurt Loder wrote this in april 1983. Remember noone in the press knew anything about the tension between Waters and Wright before the band began recording "The Final Cut".

I'm not very upset about what he writes. I have not the same taste as him about Pink Floyd music, but I think noone has my taste, so it's no reason to judge him badly by that.

maybe youre right about not judging his point of view.. but how could they post a review thats almost contradictorial to all the popular and to the deep opinion about pink floyd... and i also think that he can write what he likes, but without underrating pink floyd... although is HIS opinion is way too controvert...

Maybe he likes to be a little controversial. And controversial journalists helps a magazine or a newspaper to get more readers.

and controversial reviews that go against the pop opinion could make readers change their mind about the magazine... hopefully i havent seen that on any RS magazine

This was actually a positive review printed when the album was released in 1983. I think lots of Pink Floyd fans thought it was nice the album got a good review, even if it was their favourite Floyd album or not.

maybe the fans didnt notice the parts in which loder says that rick left for good and that "even the faithful Nick Mason relinquishes his drum chair on one cut to session player Andy Newmark" which means to me that loder just wanted a to waters to go solo as soon as posible, and keep all credits of a band which was built up by more than 5 men.
Also they missed the awful comment about the movie, whiich to me was great, and the only bad commentary about the film (well NOT literaly) i heard before today was from Roger Waters and was about the acting of Geldof (thats because he didnt kept the leading role, which it would have been great if waters had done it due to story being partly about him and i feel a great motivation and desire of the making of the project from Roger)

so Loder: Absoluteley 100% Waters fan, supporter, and follower.

Well, Kurt Loder gave "Pros and Cons" a really bad review, while he thought "About Face" was a little bit better.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ive just read the pros and cons review !! how this guy contradicts himdself...
first throwing as much flowers as he can to waters and now he says: "First, that the most important musical component of Pink Floyd is actually guitarist David Gilmour "

and you can see when fans puts so much pressure into one and ask for too much and have so high expectations that when the album is finally out fans dont seem to be disappointed by their idols,... but u cant ask for too much and maybe like when the wall was made, that the wall between fans and the band and all that thing...

and to b honest i dont know a f**k about Loder neither his work but of 2 reviews...

if you watch the dvd "THE MAKING OF DARK SIDE OF THE MOON" some thing interesting happens...2 ROLLING STONE contributers NIGEL WILLIAMSON and DAVID FRICKE are big time PF fans...making all positive statements,calling it space rock bacause they made musical sounds that equipment that would be used for was not invented yet... although ALAN PARSONS should get some credit along with the band members...

Biased left-wing publication. I do subscribe to it, however.

Critics are stupid.

I've been many dissapointed on a game review or album review, saying it was good, and it turns out very stupid and pointless.

Why should I go by another mans opinion, anyways? My ears hear and my eyes see, what I want them too.

I could say "Rolling Stone is crap" and leave it at that: it's the cliche response. But I'll try to understand why Loder would love "TFC" and hate "+-HH".

Both Pros and Cons and Final Cut are highly emotional, humanist reactions to what could be perceived as inhumane situations. On an LP record, of which Loder has reviewed thousands, the first thing one notices is whose name is on it, right? Whether or not you can respond to a humanist statement depends a lot on how well you know the human in question. In the case of The Final Cut, Loder was responding to the power of the Pink Floyd image, and after an admittedly bewildering half decade-long barrage of The Wall, the last record with Waters (and you CAN hear that it is the last one with Roger even if you don't know that yet) will sound like a breath of fresh air. When Loder hints that not everyone need be present to capture this power, he is right. The unique character voice hinted at throughout the Wall project finally breaks free in Cut and there is a promise of something greater to come.

The universality of a record like Dark Side of the Moon (which, in my opinion, Alan Parsons gets FAR TOO MUCH credit for) extends into everything with that brand name on it, for better or worse. The same does not apply to work by individual members of that collective, though they may do well to capitalize on its immediate visual associations. What I'm trying to say is that solo albums always have the bar pre-set way too high. Loder must have been expecting something else.

Maybe TFC is just better than +-HH?

Isn't that one of the elements?