1. What gets reviewed? I only review CDs that are in my possession. This means that the number of reviews, bands, albums, videos, etc., is fairly limited - as far as my time and money goes. However, I will try to make the reviews themselves as informative as possible, giving not only my personal impressions, but also some technical information: the date of release, some names of tracks, artists, interesting details, etc., etc.
I also review album collections in MP3 by bands and artists which I consider less important than the ones whose audio CDs are reviewed on the main part of the site.

2. How does the rating system work? The ratings are given on a 1 - 10 scale, as on most record review sites. However, it is absolutely evident that, for example, a Beatles 10 can in no way be the same as, say, an Abba or a Traffic 10. For that reason at the beginning of each set of reviews I am giving a general artist/band rating, based on a 1 - 5 scale. Of course, lots of bands would receive even lower ratings, but no such bands on my site. The band rating depends on quite a few factors, among them (a) the band's originality, (b) the band's longevity, (c) the band's listener-friendliness.
The overall rating of an album is thus represented by the formula "record rating added to band rating". That is, if the Beatles' rating is 5 and the LP Yellow Submarine gets a 5 (as compared to other Beatles' records), its overall rating is 10, etc. In general, the ratings follow my personal tastes. But whenever they stray far too seriously from the general public tastes, I usually make a warning.
ATTENTION ATTENTION: since so much accent is placed on the general Artist/Band rating, the album ratings do NOT necessarily represent 'good' or 'bad' albums. A 10 goes not to a 'great' album, but to a 'best-of-artist' album. That is, I may even give a 10 to a bad album - if I feel this was the poor band's best effort, or if it was their only one. Don't feel disparaged, though: the general band rating usually sorts these things out. Example: Blind Faith gets a rating of 10 since the band Blind Faith only put out one album. The overall rating of Blind Faith the band is 1. 10+1=11 which is a 'just very good' album. This is exactly how I feel about it: good, but nothing spectacular.
For MP3 reviews, ratings are given out in stars, from one to five with intermediate half-stars thrown in for good measure.

3. What's that band rating all about? Many of the flames I receive act as if giving a certain band an overall rating of three or two is a horrible crime; the phrase 'give band/artist so-and-so at least a five' is quite common among the received messages, despite all of its self-contradiction - it's as if somebody said 'this artist is at least the equal of Jesus Christ'. Nope. I must inform you that I love/like most of the bands on this site, except for those that receive a rating of one, and even these have some totally satisfying records. So here's a more detailed explanation:
Five Stars. An ideal band; sure enough, some of its output might be flawed, but it's the highest standard by which I judge everything else. It must meet such an awful lot of selective criteria that only three of the bands in existence (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and the Who) have received this rating; Bob Dylan also passed the plank, although it was a tough choice for me - he's put out quite a solid load of stinkers. Still, the very inhumane strength of his 1965-66 records alone managed to get him through.
Four Stars. An immeasurably great band; don't worry if it hasn't made the biggest grade, because that's something up for the demi-gods to do. If you're looking for unlimited musical and stylistic innovation (the Byrds, the Kinks), awesome musicianship (Cream, Jimi Hendrix), or immaculate songwriting (CCR, John Lennon, Paul McCartney), start right here. Not a lot of people made this grade, either, though.
Three Stars. These bands are rarely as grand, impressive and cathartic as the above-mentioned, but they are still universally significant. As I see it here and now, this place is mostly reserved for extremely innovative bands that didn't always manage to complement the innovations and their, often unique and entirely original, style with fully competent songwriting (Led Zeppelin, Genesis, King Crimson, etc., etc.).
Two Stars. More or less the contrary - bands and artists with, quite often, lots of songwriting talent, but fairly limited in style and rarely innovative in anything. This section contains many names that'll make the biased person cringe - ABBA, Elton John, the Monkees, Rod Stewart - but I could care less; I love these artists' knack for creative, original melodies, and there they'll stay.
One Star. Artists with occasional flashes of brilliance, but which never go far beyond 'cutesy'. For the most part, this is very high quality background music - tunes which can be easily enjoyed but which are more or less useless to listen to with a lot of attention. You can dance or groove to this stuff, but you can't really think about this stuff. Or it's vice versa (as with Pete Townshend): you can think a lot, but you sure don't enjoy the songs for their catchiness or sheer musical power.

4. How are the reviews structured? The reviews are separated into three parts. The biggest one, Album reviews, is dedicated to regular studio/live releases. Hit packages deal with, naturally, greatest hits or such-like compilations. They are not given ratings, because this is simply unfair: it is obvious that most bands' (excluding, maybe, the 5-rated bands) albums should always lose to greatest hits compilations. Finally, there is the video section, which discusses the few videos I have: they too are not given ratings. After all, they are not made (usually) by musicians themselves and even if they are I wouldn't want to rate moving pictures.

5. How are solo careers of ex-band members treated? Originally, I wasn't going to review such things at all; lately, though, I've become convinced that it is not quite right to pay all attention to a certain band and completely neglect the solo efforts of its members. After all, what's in a band name? So it is that after a certain band's set of reviews you'll happen to fall upon a line called 'Appendix: SOLO PROJECTS', where I'll be grouping solo efforts by certain band members, although in this case I never guarantee a complete discography. Also, records reviewed under this section will never get a 'record rating', just an overall one.
Note also that in some cases solo artists receive an entire page of their own. This might be due to several reasons, such as the immensity of a certain artist's catalog (Lou Reed; all of the ex-Beatles), or his vast and significant differencies from his past band (Peter Gabriel; Pete Townshend), or just to the fact that I'd written the page earlier and am too lazy to re-structure it as an appendix (Syd Barrett, John Fogerty). In this case, the solo artist naturally gets an artist rating and record ratings of his own.
Sometimes a certain artist's solo career is so prolific that the appendix becomes larger than the page itself - in these cases, if the artist is not considered enough significant (Paul Simon), I review his stuff on the MP3 page.

6. What are your reviewing principles? This is a question that I get asked quite often, in some form or other. This is, in brief, the model of the reviewing process:
a) I am never biased towards any record or band that I am reviewing. I may be biased towards somebody before reviewing them, based on what few or not few music I've heard, but as soon as I pop the CD into the deck, I'm just worrying about the audio effect;
b) normally, the album gets at least three listens - more if I feel it is more complex and untrivial than usual (Peter Gabriel's Security, for instance, took six listens to appreciate), and less if it is clear to me that it's trivial (Rod Stewart's Camouflage). Live albums usually get just one, maximum two listens - all you got to figure out is how these tracks relate to the studio originals;
c) based on the subjective audio impression, I'm trying to figure out why this album sounds so great or so shitty, including my comments onto the page;
d) from time to time reviews get re-written - some of my old ones, for instance, were far too short and sketchy. Also, I'm human, and may easily change my mind after, say, the tenth listen where I didn't change it after the ninth;
e) I'm not a musician or a specialist in musical theory (I'm a linguist by profession); I don't play any instruments and, while I do know how to tell an A from an E, do not expect any serious insights in the technical side of the reviewed music; for that, please look somewhere else. I only try to follow my emotions and explain what goes on inside my head during the listening process in words. If that sometimes feels dry or pedantic to you, that's not my fault, it's the fault of the English language;
f) Keep in mind that I'm not a rabid fan of any band/artist bar the ones that are rated five stars. This means that my tone there is far less religious and maybe a little bit more offensive sometimes. Therefore, please pay attention to the overall ratings of the records: sometimes a review might seem to be bashing the album (due to some minor problems or some particularly stinkin' track), when in reality I love this album. And also keep in mind that any of the records that are rated from 10 and upwards are worth buying;
g) For more information see the guidelines for posting your comments.

7. Can I E-mail you my comments? YES. This site allows interactivity. You may add your comments either to the opening paragraph (which always ends with the question 'What do you think of artist so-and-so?') or to any album, hit package or video you wish. Just don't forget to mention their title somewhere so I can easily post your message. And please - restrain yourselves from obscenities. I'm willing to post hatemail, but some of the most obscene letters will be mercilessly discarded. Also, I may feel free to publish some kind of answer to your messages if I'm in the mood to object you. So let's all try to be democratic within the limits of decency! For more information, please see the guidelines.

8. Can I write reviews for this site? NO. At least, not for now. It's not that I doubt anybody's possibilities of writing reviews; I actually thought I had none until I tried, so I guess the process is fairly easy. It's just that this site primarily reflects my opinions and tastes - yours might significantly differ from mine, for better or for worse, and the poor listener/reader will be baffled at the disagreements over the ratings and everything. If I ever get tired of the process, I may pass the business on to somebody - right now, I think I'm coping. But feel free to comment on anything. Just don't mail me reviews of albums I don't have (although, wink wink, you might actually mail me albums I don't have).

9. What else does the site offer? Besides the usual sections, you can also check out my general ratings page if you want to secure the best; a complete track listing for all of the songs on reviewed CDs if you're looking for a song title; be sure to check out my new additions and the links page. For some obscure musical philosophy, check out my essay page, but get ready to be bored (did I warn you I'm a really boring guy?) I've also started on a modest rock chronology, which lists all of the records reviewed on here in chronological order, so this is the place to come if you want to check out, say, which of the great psychedelic records came out before Sgt Pepper.
I'm also planning on some stuff other people have done on their sites - like choosing my favourite 'albums of the year', giving a general overview of 60's - early 70's rock, etc., but this will probably take some time, so concentrate on the reviews. So far, I've only put up a list of some of the most exceptional (revolutionary, quintessential, best, etc.) albums for each band, which can be accessed here. And, meanwhile, you can also check out my musical creed and see for yourself whether this will or won't turn you off further reading.

10. What exactly, how, and how fast are you reviewing? At the present time my CD collection includes about 800 units, and it's growing - this stuff is addictive. However, don't expect me to review everything you could dream of. First of all, I'm not a musician; music is an important, but certainly not the only part of my life. Second, as you may have read in the creed, I am generally just a fan of classic rock which means 60's and first half of the 70's for me - before the onslaught of disco and punk. Third, I'm much more interested in assembling a thorough discography of a particular band/artist instead of diffusing myself over dozens of acts, picking just a couple of hit packages or best albums and ignoring the rest. Most of the acts that I cover are at the least decent and at the most great, so I guess you can find traces of genius even in some of their worst output. Finally, a complete overview of a band just helps one to understand its development and place in history with a lot more accuracy than just picking out the best. In all, I can certainly say that this site is band-oriented rather than album-oriented.
Do not also forget that I live in Russia where purchasing of CDs is an entirely different process from the one in the USA. Imported official releases are usually expensive beyond my purchasing abilities (one per week is an absolute peak for me, and only during 'good times'); so I'm mostly relying on their cheap copies produced in Russia (whether they're pirated or not, I'm not sure: they mostly say 'licensed' on them, but they're real cheap and I have my doubts. Nothing to do, though - either this or nothing). And, as you may guess, not everything is readily available for me. Any extravagant person out there who'd want to ship his used CDs to Russia? Guess not... Anyway, if you see that a famous artist or band have only got one or two reviewed albums, it most probably means I either haven't yet gotten around to writing all of the reviews or haven't yet had the ability or money to buy all the others. Gimme time!

11. What should I refrain from? PLEASE do NOT address me if you're in for trivia, lyrics, tablature, bootlegs, rarities and stuff like that. I don't know nothing about where to get Watt by Ten Years After or an unofficial video of John Lennon bed-ins in the States or, in fact, anywhere in the world (except Moscow). Requests of such kind only confuse and embarrass me. Almost every CD that I have I got in the Moscow market, and almost every lyrics that I found I found on the Web. Be creative and rely on your own forces. I only give recommendations.