On my behalf, I can say that I agree with the "genre" and most of its acts. However, seeing, as stated above, that "prog-related doesn't mean progressive rock", then why, regardless of their value as music pieces, do we have Prog-Related albums in the Top 100/250/500? In my view, only strictly progressive rock album ratings should be accounted for the rankings, which do more than indulge our Prog rivalries - they are a source of information and recomendation to outsiders. Sure, there are no PR albums in the first 40, but we can find several starting from nº 41 on, starting with Deep Purple's "Made in Japan".

 

What are your thoughts on this? We can all agree that there are PR albums we might enjoy more than full-blown classic Prog-Albums. But should they count in a list that clearly states in its title "TOP 100 Progressive Music Albums"?

 

Many people, including myself, agree that there isn't a "Prog Related" genre. However, in this site it gets the same treatment: it is up there in the frontpage along with Canterbury, Italian, Symphonic, &c. It has its own page like the other well defined genres, a "20-best" just like the rest, and from there arises the confusion.

 

It's not as simple as creating a separate rating list. It is more about creating a separate rating SYSTEM. Another source of greater confusion is the above-mentioned problem of the use of a formulaic rating system. While I believe a non-prog album CAN be an excellent adition to a Prog collection (just recently did it to Blackfield), it should be impossible for all to consider them "masterpieces" of a genre they don't belong to. But if a "prog-related" album reecks perfection in someone's view, like "Argus" does in my eyes, it's hard for you to rate it lower than you think it deserves. 

 

And now a story:

 

When I arrived at these Archives and Forum, a couple of years ago (when Art Rock was taking in most of current PR bands and there was even a "genre" called Progressive POP) I wondered if bands like Purple and Queen could be added in a special page of "honorary mentions" (mentions consisting more of albums, rather than bands) - which would be a lot diferent than the current status. Yet another problem with Prog-Related is the freedom of adition. I was one of many who pushed for Queen and Deep Purple to be added to the Archives, but only because of their first albums.

 

The problem lies in the completionists (which have their undeniable value) that add to the band's discography with a series of non-prog records. For instance, it is still my opinion that only the first four Deep Purple albums should be listed; an example of correct non-completionism is my own compatriot José Cid, who has a long recording career but has only two albums listed (I suppose the reason for this lies in the fact that not many completionists observe his case; and the one who, like me, notice the lack of albums, do nothing to complete it because they know they don't belong to this site).

 

I firmly believe that, in theory, the above-exposed solution of a separate page and rating system for "honorary mentions" could do the trick of adding to the info in the Archives, serve as recomendation, but not get entwined in the web of "real" (if one can consider it that way) Progressive Rock. But, like I say, it's all theory, I have absolutely no idea of the feasability of this "project". We could use some expert feedback on that.   

 

By excluding prog related bands from the chart, you potentially exclude prog albums.

 

Mike has long advocated classifying individual albums, and that is something mailto:M@x - M@x has as one of his intentions for the site.

 

As far as 5 star ratings are concerned, if an album is not prog, it should not be rated as a "Masterpiece of prog". But as they say, you can lead a horse to water.....