Although I`ve never heard this album all the way through, the tracks I know, such as Fletcher`s Blemish and Virtually pt. 2 sound a bit too busy and dense for my liking. I prefer tracks that you can relax into, like the Third album`s Facelift, with it`s big, bold themes and surging tensions. In comparison, it feels to me that SM are trying -and playing - too hard on this album.
None the less, their instruments still have that special, unmistakable sound and Kings and Queens is a good track, so I`m going with a vote of "Good".

Besides having listened to it all the way through, this is more or less how I felt about it. I don't normally have those feelings but the songs don't really stand out for me as enjoyable (yet). I may pluck tracks from it but I'm not really a fan of the album as a whole. It was good.

Teeth has especially sunk in ... pun intended.

Very good. Still not in the same league asThird IMO. Robert Wyatt had very little to do with the album as Hugh Hopper, Mike Ratledge and Elton Dean took over experimenting with more of free form improvisitional jazz fusion. The Soft's next few albums were a complete let down IMO but Bundles was a great comeback with Allan Holdsworth stepping in on the album.

THIRD is better than FOURTH - but better still is the Peel sessions 2 cd set, which features superior versions - especially the awesome take of "Moon in June". I love the lyrics, which Robert Wyatt largely made up on the spot....



btw does anyone have any opinions about Soft Machine Legacy? I'm thinking of going to see them in June....
Soft Machine Legacy @ Band on the Wall

The main edge Fourth has over Third is that the production is brighter and possesses a lot more depth. Composition-wise, there's a reason why more people listen to Third. :P

However, this is still a really, really strong record that I think everyone with an interest in jazz, Canterbury or just Soft Machine itself should own.