TOP 100 Progressive Music Albums

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 proglamaniac wrote:

Thanks for the welcome.  I've been a non-lurking member of your sister/brother site progressive ears for a few years now, and I've been using progarchives as a reliable resource for prog about the same.  I've learned of many bands and albums from this site that I might not have had progarchives not been here.  I've been a diehard progger since the early 70s when, still in my teens, I was exposed to Genesis, King Crimson, ELP, Yes, and all the great bands that were popular at the time.  And that was notable, because one could hear a track from Yes Fragile on FM one moment, followed by a Black Sabbath or Blue Oyster Cult track and then maybe Foghat or Elton John.  Those days have changed, of course.  Dramatically, and not for the better.  Thank God for the internet, the bridge that connected all of us!

Hello Proglamaniac and welcome to participate, I also been a member of Progressive Ears for many years and my respect for that site is great, but due to my collaboration in Prog Archives plus the "real life" leaves me little time to visit it.

I agree with most of your concepts about the radio days, despite that in Perú Prog was very rarely in the FM. I am a Prog maniac since 1976 and yes Internet has made us realize wer're not so few as most of us once believed. 

I think I understand that many, if not most, of the bands/albums I listed are already reviewed.  It's possible I misunderstood the purpose of a top 100 proto-prog list.  Let's see how close I am...

The purpose of every list is only a reflex of the ratings the reviewers have given to the albums, the fact that an album is N° 1 or 200 doesn't mean it's better or worst, only that more people rated it with a high average.

The purpose of a top 100 genre list, in this case proto-prog, is to list the best 100 albums that genre had to offer.  That seemed pretty clear to me, but by all means correct me if I'm wrong.  If that's the case, and I believe it is, how does 33 of the 100 albums end up coming from one band?  Deep Purple, whom I am a BIG fan (MK II mainly) put out some 4 studio albums and 1 great live album from 1970 to 1974 when Gillan and Glover both left the band before Burn.  That makes 5 albums.

Our top 100 chart has no quality reference purpose, it's only the average of the ratings given by the members and visitors to the albums.
Our site for good or bad is band oriented, in other words a band is located in one sub-genre and all their discography attached to them, that's why you will find Genesis as Symphonic and We Can't Dance included as part of their discography despite it's bland POP.
If we are allowed we will make some changes in Symphonic that will alow to be more clear about the different genres that the bands have crossed.
Deep Purple is a popular band so more people reviews and rates the albums, that's the reason why so many DP albums are in the chart, not because hey are better or worst.
No member, Collaborator, Administrator or even the owners decides which band reach the charts, the position is only the consequence of a complex average of all the ratings given to a determined album. 
The algorithm to calculate the general rating of an album and it's position in the list evaluates different aspects, a rating without review has a very low weight, being that if you don't review and album, we have no way to know if you have really heard it or just a fanboy trying to manipulate the top 100 list (we had many of those  sadly).
A visitor's review has less weight than  a Collaborator's because the site has a special trust for them, the number of reviews has also a weight being that there are albums rated by two or three persons with 5 stars and of course there's no possible trust in an average obtained from such a short number of ratings.
So, there's nothing we can do to change the charts except rating more and higher an album and hope more people does the same, but of course if an atempt to manipulate the charts is discovered, the review and the rating are deleted.

Proto-prog is a sub-genre of progressive rock that generally refers to bands in the late 60s and early 70s that played a more sophisticated rock music but was not necessarily "progressive".  Look anywhere on the 'net and you'll read names like Cressida, Spring, Gracious, Colosseum, Manfred Mann, Gnidrolog, Indian Summer, Still Life, and so many of their kind it's fairly obvious to anyone who takes the time to read up on this early movement (which is generally considered to have had its beginning in Great Britain).

Agree that the notion of Proto Prog is a bit obscure in Prog Archives, but M@X constant changes are done to improve it plus the work that the Collaborators and Administratord also make, will help to improve constantly the site.

It's also important to notice that most sub-genres have a team in charge of it, like my team does with Symphonic, but Proto Prog has not a team in charge yet, so the amount of work in this sub-genre is smaller than in others.

Well being that we have different sub-genres, the location of the bands is different here like in the case of the ones you mention:

Cressida is in Symphonic: Post 70's and the most suitable genre is Symph
Spring is in Art Rock: Because the definition of this sub-genre has changed from being an eqyivalent to what we call Prog Related to the actual http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=3 if the Proto Prog definition doesn't change, I will probably ask the Art Rock Team this band for Symphonic.
Gracious is in Symphonic for the same reason as Cressida.
Colosseum is in Jazz/Fusion
Manfred Mann is in Art Rock: I believe it should be in Prog Related, not Prog but almost in short terms, but it's not my call
Gnidrolog is in Art Rock and I agree in this case.
Indian Summer is in Art Rock and I'm not familiar with them so I can't give an opinion.
Still Life idem as previous but I agree with you, if it wasn't for the date of the release, this one could be a clear case of Proto Prog
So maybe our perspective is different but all this bands are included.

BTW: Ghost Riider and Micky formed one of the most recent teams in charge of Art Rock and you will  surely see changes soon.

Not one of those bands or their albums are mentioned in the top 100 proto-prog list, yet Deep Purple has 33, only a handful of which were actually recorded before 1972!  They had 3 or 4 albums before 1970 and another 3 or 4 after, which in my count comes to 8 at the most, not 33.  How many reviews do you suggest I read before that improbable figure begins to make sense?  Or is it because the other 28 Deep Purple albums that make up the bulk of that list aren't reviewed that qualifies them for inclusion?  If that's a primary criteria, then wouldn't the Carpenters or Blood, Sweat & Tears be on that list, since they have not been reviewed?

I think you don't know that the site decides which bands go to a determined sub-genre, Carpenters are not in the data base of Prog Archives, so they could never appear in a chart.

Check: http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=37 and you will see which bands are included by Prog Archives until today in Proto Prog, no other band or album by a different band can be rated as a proto Prrog album (This list will grow).

Proto-Prog bands/artists list

Bands
Country

BAKERLOO
United Kingdom

BEATLES, THE
United Kingdom

BROWN BAND, THE ARTHUR
United Kingdom

COLLECTORS, THE
Canada

DEEP PURPLE
United Kingdom

DOORS, THE
United States

GILES GILES & FRIPP
United Kingdom

GODS, THE
United Kingdom

H.P. LOVECRAFT
United States

IRON BUTTERFLY
United States

IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY
United States

JEFFERSON AIRPLANE
United States

KALEIDOSCOPE / FAIRFIELD PARLOUR
United Kingdom

MÁQUINA!
Spain

PAN & REGALIZ 
Spain

PROCOL HARUM
United Kingdom

QUIET WORLD
United Kingdom

SALAMANDER
United Kingdom

SPIRIT
United States

SWEEt**tER
United States

TOUCH
United States

VANILLA FUDGE
United States

Admittedly, I'm not the most tactful person on the planet and for that I'm truly sorry.  I don't wake up each morning thinking of ways to piss people off.  The only reason I joined this forum was from shock.  You guys can run your site any way you like, but if want input from folks who might know a thing or two about the whole genre of progressive rock music, I'm available and I'd love to share what I know.  After consuming prog ravenously for over 35 years, I might just know a thing or two.

By the contrary, the opinions help us improve.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

Maybe you can explain to me why Deep Purple has 33 albums in this list and classic proto-prog bands like Cressida, Gracious or Spring have 0.  Please explain to me how a live album by DP recorded in 2001 qualifies as proto, when a classic album by Still Life recorded in 1971 on the Vertigo label does not.  Hey, I'm not trying to crap in your corn flakes here.  I guess I could have tempered my comments a bit so I didn't sound like I thought the people who created the list were idiots.  I'm sure there's a good reason.  I just didn't see one at the time.  But I'm all ears.

Again, because the charts are only a reflex of how many people have given high ratings to a determined album of our data base, here's no explanation for so many DP albums, we include the complete discography of the band and the people rate them.

For example, my team is in charge of Symphonic, most of us believe HYBRIS should be in the top 10 if not in the top 5 (It's lower in the chart), but there's not a thing we can do because the system adds the ratings, uses the  algorithm  and gives a cold number and an average that has not necesarilly relation with the quality of the album.

The chart only says that more people believes Closre to the Edge deserves 5 stars.

Enlighten me.  This might be fun.  Or maybe you'll tell me that David Bowie's latest album is proto-prog, and I'll just go find another forum to join.  It's no sweat off my balls.

Bowie is not in the site

Oh, I almost forgot.  Web is actually Samurai, they just changed their name. While they may be the same band with a new name, Brainchild has nothing to do with Greenslade.  Lennie Wright of Web and Samurai did produce Brainchild's album, which explains why they share a similar sound/style, not to mention the album cover design too.  But Dave Lawson left Samurai to form his own band: Greenslade.  So, saying that covering Greenslade amounts to covering Samurai or that covering Samurai is the equivalent to covering Brainchild is like saying Allan Holdsworth is Canterbury because he played on a couple albums with Bill Bruford, who happened to play with National Health and Gong for a short time.  Rich Wakeman was a guest keyboardist on a couple Black Sabbath albums, so does that make him a metal keyboardist?

This site is pretty new, dates from 2004, and some bands were added by members who made a bio without verifying it, that's why the addition of bands has been restricted to special collaborators and higher ranks.

Last year in May we were one of the first teams to check band by band all the database (In our case the original 519 bands of Symphonic), after several months we retired 150 bands (Sent them to other sub-genres) and asked for 30 or 40 bands to be added to Symphonic, still we're making bios of almost unknown bands that we have to research, sometimes buying the albums, but this is not an easy work, it takes time, but don't worry, each day will be better.

BTW: Where did you found this info, I checked the small but accurate bio of Samurai by Sean and the excellent bio of Greenslade by Erik and this is not mentioned.

If you read it in a review in the front page, this is responsability of the reviewer.

Keep proggin

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 13 2007 at 01:28

TOP 100 Progressive Music Albums

Proto-Prog bands/artists list

SPLIT ENZ "Split Enz" ratings distribution