What about a new rating method?

Hi everybody,
I was wondering about the rating system on this site...
I find more and more evident a distortion in the ratings, because of two different aspects of evaluating music...
The original 5 stars rating was probably ment for historical records, as the site, in the beginning, was about prog music, which was originally a late sixties and first half seventies kind of music...Then the british revived it in the 80's, then prog metal appeared in the nineties...and so on. What's my point?
Well, I find more and more difficult to give ratings because of the two aspects: historical importance (the original 5 star method and description attached to it) and quality of the record itself !
An exemple: in my opinion the last Dream Theater output is an excellent record for the music, but absolutely NOT from an historical point of view! (no improvements)
So, it's  a 1 star, meaning just for completists of prog, or a 5 star as good production of today's prog ???
My proposition: 2 different ratings, 1 for quality, 1 for prog-related importance.
Alternate proposition: 2 main historical sections, f.e. split at 1980
And your ideas? Maybe we can find a better way together...

I dissaprove with:

 - the idea that 5 stars go for historical records; they go for the music, which a reviewer think it's marvellous; there's lesser impact regarding the period of progressive rock and its strength in recognized value, though you can admit, from time to time, that the 70s were a bit center for valorous prog
  - the idea that historical importance can't blend with the quality of the record; moreover, the sheer idea of giving an album a rate only because of its place in prog rock is very risky and un-recommended
  - the two main historical sections, by which the classic progressive rock movement gets monumentally recognized (or rather disjointed); if we're talking progressive rock, we should consider everything that's been adopted as progressive rock, to this day, without focusing much on encouraging a best period; or, anyway, without having major "period slices" in mind (alone "style slices", which result in genres and orientations)

I would like for a review to think of how good and how prog quintessential an album is, but I wouldn't force a separate perception for them.

Vompatti wrote: The only problem I see with the current rating system is that 5-star records are "masterpieces of progressive music", which seems to imply that you shouldn't give 5 stars to a prog-related or proto-prog album unless you think it's proggy enough to be called a prog masterpiece.

This is exactly why I only gave WHO'S NEXT four stars, even though it's one of my favourite albums and better (in my view) than (the still wonderful) QUADROPHENIA which got five stars, just because it's proggier.

I believe an half -star system would be enough, or we could let it be as it is. There will be allways someone who wont like the rating system, because its not perfect enough. I think its useful as it is now. Let it be... like John Lennon use to say.

This reminds me of something I've been thinking about. It would be cool if users could not only rate an album ("how good is it?") but also to assess its relevance ("how important is it?"). Most artists which have been active for a long time have phases which they're not really proud of ... and those albums are clearly not as important as those which the artist recorded at his/her/their peak of creativity.

There is a thread running about why you listen to prog. My answer was along the lines of 'I like this music and it just happens to be called Prog' or words to that effect. A view shared by a few others.