5 stars for prog-related?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=60732
Printed Date: April 24 2024 at 06:11
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 5 stars for prog-related?
Posted By: SentimentalMercenary
Subject: 5 stars for prog-related?
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 09:39
|
Provided the ratings system could be adjusted accordingly, should the ratings system be adjusted to allow for a maximum of 4 stars in the prog-related genre?
My guess is that prog purists would say yes and most others would say no, but I may be totally wrong. Add your thoughts if you have any! ------------- Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell. - Karl Popper |
Replies:
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 09:47
Five stars for Prog Related means something different. 
------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 18:40
|
No, prog related albums can be better than prog albums or worse then them. The rating system guides prospective buyers and people whi want to know more about an artist. When a prog-related artist has 5 stars, we're telling that person that the album is a masterpiece worthy of checking out, as deserving of that as a full-prog album.
Maybe the explanation about what constitutes a 5-star album should be changed, though. Delete the "prog" of the definition. Then it fits even prog-related albums. That wouldn't harm the prog orientation of this website, it would just make the ratings clearer. ------------- 
|
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 18:42
Check again, T, it changed to 'rock' without 'prog'. I just figured it out when trying to discuss something similar about this with Tony, John (EM) I think came and told me the new definition. So you're not alone on knowing it recently |
The T wrote:Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 18:49
|
Absolutely not. Even if I were to decide on a lower rating for any album because it is not prog (a term open to interpretation), there are albums in Prog Related by bands/artists that I definitely consider to be Prog (or more loosely, progressive rock).
------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 18:49
|
^ it was me Pablo - and I asked M@X to change it. I'm in favour of having the word "Prog" removed from all star-rating definitions for all genres - if the band is Prog enough to be added to a genre, then that should be enough and all albums should be judged as pieces of music, not as to whether they are pieces of Progressive Music or not. ------------- What? |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 18:56
|
Why shouldn't you be able to give a prog related album a 5? Just because it's not full-fledged prog doesn't mean it can't be a masterpiece.
-------------  Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 18:56
In the second I saw you were the last poster from this thread, I remembered you were the one  And I agree on the removal of Prog in all definitions, or maybe we could choose aside from the star, between Prog and Rock(Pop, blues, etc), though maybe that's more complicated and inefficent. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 19:01
I'm in favour of having the term "Prog" removed from the site altogether.  ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 19:08
I'll remove it one letter at a time ... of course that would make you "e" and your nick would be "Lan"
------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 19:11
For clarification for those too busy to look:
 Essential: a masterpiece of rock music Excellent addition to any rock music collection Good, but non-essential Collectors/fans only  Poor. Only for completionists...Prog Related and Proto Prog albums are not rated as PROG albums so you can award 5-stars to Kate Bush's "The Kick Inside" with a clear conscience.
------------- What? |
Posted By: Figglesnout
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 19:11
|
Definitely not. ------------- I'm a reasonable man, get off my case |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 19:30
no I couldn't get behind that -- if it just read 'a masterpiece of music' or of 'rock music', it might seem presumptuous, plus it would diminish our identity |
Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 19:32
|
No way. Some prog-related albums are, as was previously said, better than some prog albums.
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 20:24
 -------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 20:47
I have to say it. I really don't like the change as it's limited to rock music. Why not get rid of the rock criterion? One of my favourite albums in the archives is Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain, but that is not rock, so according to the guidelines I could only rate it 3 or under.  Non-rock music is not getting a fair shake.------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 20:59
Hold on Logan, anything can be a great addition to a rock or prog collection. Personally I think having some Sun Ra or Les Baxter is an excellent addition to any collection, rock, prog or otherwise, easy 4 stars. Can a Herbie Hancock album be a prog-rock masterpioece? I think if it uses electronic amplified instruments and amped drums, yes. If it is one of his more jazz albums, 4 is as high as she goes. In other words the incredible Speak Like a Child gets 4, but Crossings gets 5, although on a jazz site they would both get 5s. That's how I see it. |
Posted By: SentimentalMercenary
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 21:38
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_County_%28song%29#Song_Structure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_County_(song)#Song_Structure
------------- Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell. - Karl Popper |
Posted By: SentimentalMercenary
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 21:45
In other words, could a Kate Bush album be as good as, say, Selling England by the Pound per this site's system of values? ------------- Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell. - Karl Popper |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 21:46
Now I just looked at a prog-related album...and it still has the prog in place. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 21:48
It strikes me as a a kind of stone-age rock elitism. ;) But I'm fine with rating as you say. I'd get rid of the rock descriptor from the categories, but... Even if one does interpret it that way (and I think many would see it differently if they cared enough to care about the descriptions), it's totally unnecessary to have the rock descriptor, and could cause confusion. Aside from jazz, we have folk, as well as more academic music etc recordings. More important to the ratings to me than getting rid of the word progressive from the Prog-Related and Proto ratings system would be getting rid of the word rock. I wouldn't mind if it was masterpiece of progressive music. Right now, for instance, with the changes to PR and PP (removing the word progressive) it looks to me like it's fine to rate non-Prog rock albums 5, but if it's non-Prog and non-rock albums I should not rate it so highly (I don't know how many non-rock albums there in those categories, but as way of example) . I expect that others would see it the same way. That to me seems wrong and misguided. Instead of using miles Davis or ones included in Prog categories, it would've ben better for me to use an artist/band in Proto-Prog or Prog Related (though I don't like the rock criterion for ANY category -- Aranis ain't rock really even if it's included as RIO -- I still think it should be here as it has a rock influence and CAN rock). A lot of Electronic Prog isn't exactly rock either. Incidentally, at least Hancock's Crossings is true Prog I would say. Okay. since Dean was talking specifically about Prog-Related artists and Proto-Prog ones, I should use some ones from those categories, but I'd have to think of non-rock album examples from those categories by bands that had a progressive rock (of whatever variety) phase. *Looks through PP* Hmmm.... Should be quite few Prog Related and Proto Prog ones that didn't start out doing rock -- or rock and roll. (must be quite a few folk ones), but my brain is frazzled. Anyway, no time for research, but I would say that early jazz albums of artists included here are essential to the jazz-rock fusion aficionado, but not essential to any rock collection, progressive or otherwise. It's not really relevant to a rock collection because, it not being rock. it would not be part of the rock collection itself, even if it wiull be relevant to the lperson who has a rock collection. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Essential: a masterpiece of rock music
Excellent addition to any rock music collection
Good, but non-essential
Collectors/fans only 
Poor. Only for completionists
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 25 2009 at 21:50
|
And really isn't this a progressive rock archives? Not a rock archives. I don't see how changing it to pure rock is any better for the site. Sure, you're not calling it prog (which is a good thing) in the rating area (and thus not calling it prog by rating either), but if this is truely a prog-rock resource shouldn't the prog play an important part in the rating given? ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 02:15
|
If Bon Jovi ever get into the Archives then go ahead, however he/they won't be getting in just because they made a 10minute song. The criteria for inclusion won't change.
Hounds of Love and Aerial probably get close to SEbtP for song structure, music-complexity and musicianship and surpass it in lyric-writing IMO. Those two albums could stand their ground as Prog albums anyway, so whether they are as "good" is purely personal preference.
Which one?
Do people take heed of the start-rating descriptions anyway? Do the people who rated Kind Of Blue with 4 and 5 stars really think it is Prog and Rock? What about all the people who rate Invisible Touch with 4 & 5 stars? If an artist only released one album, then can that album ever be awarded a 1-star rating or 2-star rating? Why do so many people think a 3-star rating means the album isn't that good? By the rating system 95% of the albums here should be "good but not essential"? How can anyone who is not expert in all the subgenres rate any album as 4 or 5 star? How can anyone who is not a "fan" of particular genre award a 1 or 2 star rating in that genre? It is pretty clear that many, many people do not rate to the literal intepretation of the descriptions, but to whether they like the album or not. ------------- What? |
Non-rock music is not getting a fair shake.Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 03:03
| I don't usually choose music on PA according to the rating, I go buy number of votes, which usually is the highest rating anyway. I'm sure there is a lot of different criteria people have when reviewing an album, so the rating itself is ambiguous unless you read the review. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 03:36
Of course, Dean, and I mentioned Electronic Prog and Aranis, a chamber music group in avant, as examples in my post to John. One can extend it to folk and various more "academic music" albums in the archives. As for metal, I think of that as a sub-category of rock, but that's by-the-by. Using Miles Davis' album was merely an example. As I said in my last post, since it grew out of your mentioning the PP and PR ratings descriptions, as well as you mentioning removing progressive from all categories, I should really focus on those "less Prog" categories (though I still think that the rock reference is less than ideal when one has so much non-rock, or less rock, music in different categories). I wish I hadn't used an example of an album of an artist in a Prog category, but it was the first to spring to mind. I wouldn't rate Sketches of Spain with a five because it's not Prog (Progressive Rock) in any form. Instead, I'd rate Miles Davis relevant albums higher. If I were to rate a band in a Prog category's two albums, both I like equally but one is Progressive Rock and one rock but not Prog, I would rate the Prog one higher to highlight it. The same rules likely would apply for me for it not being Prog as it not being rock at all. Never mind the less rock categories for the examples as I think we would all take the nature of a category into account provided we're knowledgeable enough. Not everyone understands that, though, so I think the descriptions should be as clear as possible. We also have the issue that we don't all agree on what is Prog, or even Prog-related of course. Basically, my problem is with being able to rate non-Prog music (as it's often referred to here) high even though it's not Prog (using the PP and PR categories as a guide), but it may appear to someone that if an album in, say, Prog Related, is not Prog (and I consider various albums there to be full-fledged Prog) one can rate it five, but if it's not only not Prog but not rock, one should rate it lower. Now, and I'm half-asleep, where I see a problem with thinking that, say, a non-Prog but rock or rock related, and a non-rock album of equal quality should be rated the same (if of equal perceived quality) is because it's far more likely that such a band would have got in on its rock albums -- therefore the rock one is more relevant to the site, and one will find the, at least, quasi-prog or proto prog traits in the rock album, since you can't have true Prog without the rock element (though that rock element need not be that strong or obvious). I think we have a lot of rock-related music in Progressive Electronic. Now let's imagine that we have a band in Prog-Related that started off pure country then went electric, and this is where I must illustrate an important flip-side to part of what I was thinking. Taking the rating description literally Ultimately, our ratings could be expected to reflect, to an extent, ion what we think could be of particular interest to those who use PA. I consider Manset's Le Morte d'Orion (an artist in Prog Related) to be Prog, and even if I considered his later stuff to be equally good, I would not rate it as highly because I'd rather highlight the album that should be of interest to people here. I understand the usefulness of keeping the rock descriptor -- to lessen more people from rating highly albums of the type that are not so relevant to the site, or their category -- for instance instance, a pure folk album with no rock elements in Prog Folk, but I still find it potentially misleading and not correct (exact) enough. That there are categories where the rock element can be far less important in gaining inclusion for a band or artist only makes that feeling stronger. Or something like that... Just thinking, and almost snoring, out loud. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 03:39
|
Anything added to PA deserves to be rated for its quality and not for how progressive it is. An inclusion on PA means that the artist has passed an evaluation test and therefore per PA definition is prog or prog related. That artist and the output of that artist should as a consequense of that inclusion be treated equal to everything else included on PA. Rate by quality and not level of progressiveness.
If thereīs something I loathe itīs to read reviews where people write that they are going to give a low rating because the album really isnīt prog or really doesnīt belong on PA because itīs not prog. If you feel that some prog-related album deserves a 5 star rating by all means give that album a 5 star rating. Just donīt abuse the 5 star ratings and give all albums you review 5 stars. Now thatīs common sense and normal respect for your fellow PA members. ------------- http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - Metal Music Archives https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: b_olariu
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 06:22
|
No, 5 stars is also fair for prog-related material
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 06:28
|
this seems a case about worrying about the temperature of the babies bath water... after they have already sh*t in it...
the ratings here are completely useless... .write reviews instead.... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 07:57
|
I welcome the changes to the ratings descriptions as they go some way towards promoting 'organic' brilliance over 'brilliance with additives'
------------- 
|
Posted By: TheSubhuman
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 08:07
|
You know what, every time I see a thread like this, I can't help thinking of the adepts of a religious cult trying to keep heretic influences away. For crying out loud, all other prog websites have oodles of reviews of albums that do not qualify as prog (at least not 100%), and would not dream of having 'ghetto' ratings or definitions for any of them. If you don't believe me, have a look at the likes of ProgressiveEars or Sea of Tranquillity, to name but two. This obsession with not allowing anything 'non-prog' contaminate the purity of the site is ridiculous, as well as detrimental - there was nothing like that in the Seventies that you love so much. As far as I am concerned, I would NEVER write any review for a site that forced me to rate a prog-related album lower than a prog one - especially an album that is widely recognised as a masterpiece. But then, fanaticism has never been my thing. |
Posted By: UMUR
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 08:27
Amen ------------- http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - Metal Music Archives https://rateyourmusic.com/~UMUR" rel="nofollow - UMUR on RYM |
Posted By: SentimentalMercenary
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 09:03
I am not advocating a particular position here, even though I may have a slight preference. I am merely investigating on an issue that I find a bit puzzling.
I am 100% in agreement with your first paragraph. It makes perfect sense. Once an artist has met the threshold for inclusion in PA, we consider his/her work prog-related and thus, he/she is to be rated under the same system.
Your second paragraph reaches to the "cultism" phenomenom that is often met in progressive music circles and which is denounced in a post below. I am only halfway behind it. Only for the sake of this discussion, allow me to use Beethoven's Symphony no.9 as a perfect instance of a widely known musical masterpiece. I think (personal feeling) that many pundits would agree that since the modern era, most (if not all) that's been produced in music pales in comparison to this work of art with regard to complexity, composition, etc. Now, if those pundits would then disagree to rate on the same level/scale works done by Black Sabbath, Queen or Iron Maiden, should we accuse them of some illegitimate cultism?
There is something special in prog music that has us all gathered here and that we all (?) regret that so many people have yet to discover or understand. Is it not a denial of this "something special" that we shall work with a system that holds as the same ordinary rock and prog rock?
Thanks for you input by the way. Appreciated. ------------- Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell. - Karl Popper |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 09:13
I'll be honest in I liked the old rating system. In my interpretation, a prog-related album could not be a 5-star album because by PA definitions, an album from a prog-related artist was not a prog rock album and thus could not be a prog rock masterpiece. Just because it wasn't prog rock didn't mean that it couldn't qualify as a 4-star album, because there certainly could be non-prog albums that were an excellent addtion to any prog rock collection. The newer separate rating system for prog-related albums means that I will have to go back and change a couple of my reviews or delete them entirely since they were written with the old rating system in place.  Oh well, it is what it is. Good thing that I don't have 2000 reviews that are now wrong because of this change.  ------------- 
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 10:22
|
I did like the old way myself... but oh well. TImes change... best way to tell you are getting old is when you start bitching about the way things used to be
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 11:14
In my view, Wishbone Ash's "Argus" is at least as good as several of the "best" prog albums. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 12:26
Where it gets really confused, though, is that an album by an artist in Prog-Related can be considered Prog. In the case of Manset, for instance, he was moved to Prog-Related because he was only deemed to have one Prog album, and some prog-related material on others. One could consider Wishbone Ash's Argus Prog, and mnay consider albums by Alan Parsons Project Prog. Various bands have been moved out of Prog-Related into Prog categories (particularly Crossover I think). It's not an artist that is Prog, it's music that is, and what is Prog and not Prog can be subject to individual interpretation/ biases. If albums were tagged Prog rather than artists, it would clear up some confusion. I'm also wary of the non-Prog/ Prog divide that some people place on albums and bands in the archives. It's often Prog by degree, and much of that depends on individual perception. I don't exactly think of Prog-Related as a non-Prog category, more a lesser Prog category. My big problem with the original proposal is that I expect we would find a system where it would not be posible to rate any album in Prog-Related five stars, but I think that we should, at the least, be able to rate albums that we think are Prog in Prog-Related five stars.
One thing that we should not confuse is progressive (adjective) and Prog (noun). Prog need not be progressive, and non-Prog can be very progressive. I actually factor in progressiveness as a sign of quality or virtue. I'd be more likely to rate an innovative album higher than a cliché Prog-by-number albums. I'd like a system here similar to Prog-Freak where ratings consider various qualities (I haven't been using progfreak for it because, admittedly, I'm more interesting in exploring the notions than applying them). One of those could be progressiveness/innovation, another could be Prog by degree. It could include technicality, complexity and compositional skill, historical importance, enjoyment factor, production, how well it compares to others in the category etc. One could have five or ten fields with ten points points for each criterion to consider then divide it and round up or down, or something like that. Yeah, maybe that would be over-analysing music but I think it would provide a better framwork for rating than what we have. ------------- Just a fanboy passin' through. |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 23:52
I'm not going to erase any of this...just address the points to me.
For which albums...I'm just going down the list of recent reviews on the PR page. So far I've looked at Gilmour's On A Island, Steve Vai's Fire Garden, Vangelis' Albedo 0.39, Sabbeth's Live At Last, Wishbone Ash's Argus...Perhaps I'm just looking in the wrong spot? (I'm looking all the way at the bottom of the page where the star distrobution/meanins are)
As for your other point, I agree that people don't read the meanings and if they do completely ignore them. I'm guilty of this too, I'm sure. Perhaps its because theres alot of discontinuty between the meanings. I mean theres much ground between excellent addition to a prog rock collection and, simply, good. For one, the top two specify prog rock by name and the other three disregard it completely. (Should we just assume the words prog-rock should appear in the definitions?) Ditto between Good and Collectors/Fans only. What about average albums?
Perhaps there should be definition changes in general, not just to the PR/PP sections. I'm not an expert on rating things (on any site) but I would think that rating things according to how much that individual likes that specific thing would be the general rule of thumb. AKA there wouldn't be this system like we have here that emphsizes essentialness and the like. (Although admittedly I kind of like our system here, I just wished it was adhered too more often.)
Though theres probably nothing to be done about people ignoring the details, even if the site makes it blatenly obvious what each mean, people will still assume what they want about it. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 26 2009 at 23:54
|
Also, a side question:
Was there a thread saying that there was a change of definition for the PR/PP albums? ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 03:50
Yes, it was in the post where M@X announce a number of changes to the system such as the change in review weighting for non-collabs and the removal of weightings on ratings-only for collabs. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: August 27 2009 at 04:02
One of the problems with any textual definition is that a) it is open to interpretation and b) it may lose meaning in translation completely for non-English speakers. I'm sure some of our serial-raters cannot read the defs anyway and just rate 1-5 on whether they like it or not. ------------- What? |
Posted By: topofsm
Date Posted: August 28 2009 at 01:07
|
I think it shouldn't be capped, five stars meaning something different in PR aside, because some users may believe that some PR albums actually qualify as prog. -------------  |
Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: August 31 2009 at 10:09
Agreed. A band's classification is based on what they are most known for. It's possible that PR bands have released 100% prog albums. And no one should think something in PR would be a 5 star prog album without reading the reviews first. ------------- Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal. |