Collaborators' Top Albums of 2012

I've used 'Traditional' in the past and had people complaining about it. Can't please every body so bugger it, I'm sticking with vanilla.

I like vanilla. No flavour at all is bland.

People have labeled Genesis has traditional prog. Whatever word appeals to fans most,  their style has become more linear when compared to other acts with more interesting styles for me. 

"Traditional" is better, but then that makes it seem like they're not "progressive". Then again, they WERE progressive at the time. So I guess if you mean that for a band releasing albums right now, it might mean they're not very progressive. Dream Theater have definitely mixed it up, for better or worse, since Scenes From A Memory, trying new things and staying mostly current; moving away from their 90s sound that defines many prog-metal bands.

Horizons wrote: I would consider DT to be vanilla prog metal :3

Maybe the 90s albums.

But "vanilla" is used in a derogatory sense. Can't a different term be used? I suppose Symphony X, Queensryche, and Fates Warning fall into that "category"? What about Watchtower?


Edited by darkshade - February 09 2013 at 11:22

sleeper wrote: vanilla Prog Metal

Vanilla is a pretty good flavor, though I like chocolate more.

But help me understand; Dream Theater, Opeth, Riverside, Haken, and Devin Townsend are probably the 5 biggest prog-metal acts on this site, yet they all have their own unique sound, and play a lot more than just prog-metal. Where does the "vanilla" part come in?

timothy leary wrote: Well of course there is no top 50 albums it is the top 100 albums and i think if you look you will find Discipline somewhere around 46th or so.  I was not referring to Opeths album being on the top 100 of all time. I still stand by my opinion that the top 100 albums of the year is a more accurate reference tool than is the collaborators poll. Since it is only an opinion you should treat it as such.

I disagree. If by accurate you mean "catters to the average fan who likes mostly Neo, Symphonic and vanilla Prog Metal" then yes, your probably right. However, have you taken a good look at the tastes of the people we have as collabs on this site? The strength of this list is that it comes from a very diverse selection of people, those whose tastes focus on metal, those on Avant/RIO/Zeul, thos eon Neo and Symphonic etc, etc. If an album scores highly, it's because it appeals to a wide range of people and best yet, as a member of this site, I  know these people, or at least have been here long enough to get an understanding of the kind of music most of them like where as with the top 100 lists most of those ratings  come from random people I know nothing about and may in fact have little to no knowledge of prog or focus on a very small section of it. Given that, I'll trust the collab end of year lists far  more (except when it comes to Steven Wilson, I have an allergic reaction to his music), especially with the last couple of years seeing a lot of neo and symphonic albums receiving a lot of 5 star ratings.

Time changes everything. On the 2010 100 albums of the year   Seventh Wonder #3, Vespero #5

richardh wrote: HolyMoly wrote: Back to the "fanboy" complaint - it does seem as if established and popular prog artists do tend to dominate the rankings.  I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, even if the release by said artist is "substandard" (which is in the eye of the beholder anyway).  For better or worse, the system does reflect the "best" releases, where "best" equals that one deemed best by the most people, i.e. it is a popular choice. I will concede that there may be some "fanboy" voting by people who are lifelong fans of, say, Rush, and any new album of theirs will pretty much get an automatic vote.  I'm not willing to guess as to how often this happens, nor am I willing to doubt any collab's judgment in what they thought was the best of the year.  But the excitement of a new release, especially after a long hiatus, does tend to be reflected in an album's ratings, at least in the short term. This made me think of a point I had on another thread a few weeks ago, as I was lamenting the fact that one year (at maximum) really isn't enough time to develop my "favorites" list of that year.  In a couple of years, I may suddenly realize how good Tea Party's (to use an "underdog" example from this past year) new album is.  But I can't then go back and fix my vote for 2012.  Once the poll's done, it's over, and we're on to a new year.   I tend to take a long time to absorb and truly appreciate and understand prog albums, and often I need several years of perspective to arrive at a judgment which truly reflects how I feel.  Sure, some albums are "instant favorites", but most of them aren't.   I raised this point on a thread and didn't expect much of a response, but several people seemed to agree.    The "Best of (Year)" list would ideally be a cumulative thing, where one's favorites are adjusted and refined over time, rather than judged as "Best" in a much shorter time frame. I realize this would require a lot more work on somebody's part, but if enough people think this way, I'd be glad to put my head together with some others to see what we could do.  If not, no skin off my nose, but I think it's an interesting idea. What you say is quite true of course. My favourite album for 2005 would probably still be Deadwing but Glass Hammers The Inconsolable Secret would now be my second favourite album of that year yet at its time of release I was bitterly disappointed with it mainly because they had taken me out of my comfort zone on the second disc. Of course you also accumulate albums for a year over a period longer than a year. That has to be the main point. I may end up buying albums on that list over the next few years and like them better than my current picks.  Arguably we should not even have a collaborators list anyway. Why is it necessary?

It's not necessary, I guess it's just for fun.  Collabs find it enjoyable, and most find it fun to discuss and ponder the year in review.  It's when we start taking the results overly seriously that things get a bit knotted.  And it is frustrating for our favorite underdog bands that just don't have the established support that bigger names enjoy.  But I still think the tradition and the spirit it engenders is a good one, and gives us more of a community feel.

You're right on the money with your 2005 example too -- the same kind of thing happens to me a lot.

By the way, is the Collab list going to be posted on the PA home page, or at least the album of the year?  Just curious.