Print Page | Close Window

RATING system @ progarchives.com

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=290
Printed Date: August 18 2025 at 01:19
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: RATING system @ progarchives.com
Posted By: M@X
Subject: RATING system @ progarchives.com
Date Posted: March 07 2004 at 20:13

Hi all,

we ( at progarchives.com ) want your opinion on the BEST rating system for   the reviews.

5 stars - Mastepiece, the TOP !

4 stars - ???

3 stars - ???

2 stars - ???

1 star - ???

 

Help us create a better rating system, Thanks

MAX@



-------------
Prog On !



Replies:
Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 07 2004 at 20:47

Max:

Hi.  I understand and appreciate that you need to try to keep the rating system as "simple" as possible, not only for visitors, but also for "technical" reasons.

That said, I feel that a five-star system may not be the most appropriate or relevant one.  As noted in my review of Museo Rosenbach's "Zarathustra," there is SO much "grey area" between "very good" and "masterpiece."

If a "half-star" system is too technically "unwieldy" - and I can see where it might be, given that you would need at least nine "levels" (one star, one-and-a-half stars, two stars, two-and-a-half stars, etc.) - perhaps a seven-tier system would work best:

No stars = Bad: Ignore

1 Star= Maybe Worth A Listen

2 Stars = Average: Overtly Influenced/Not Very Interesting

3 Stars = Good: Some Originality/Interesting

4 Stars = Very Good: Mostly Original/Very Well Executed

5 Stars = Great: Original/Classic

6 Stars = Exceptional: QuintessentialMasterpiece/Must-Have

No system will be "perfect," and I admit that even this system has "flaws."  But I think it's going in the right direction in order to give slightly more "room" for reviewing albums more appropriately.

Thanks for this suggestion thread.  My continued gratitude for your patience, consideration and support!

Peace.



Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 07:08

Great suggestion! Although I would call a 1-star 'bad, not interesting' in this case, because 'maybe worth a listen' sounds like it's actually pretty interesting...

and I also think the term 'Highly Recommended' would be fine too for a six- or seven-star.



Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 08:48
I think the system is more or less adequate maybe you could add a little font of a bomb to indicate something which is so bad that it should be just tossed in the garbage or blasted off into space.


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 12:45

Originally posted by Vibrationbaby Vibrationbaby wrote:

I think the system is more or less adequate maybe you could add a little font of a bomb to indicate something which is so bad that it should be just tossed in the garbage or blasted off into space.

 

Don't you have a better solution ?



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 14:28

Joren: "Highly Recommended" would come where: between "good" and "great," or "great" and "exceptional?"

Vibrationbaby: Holy smokes!  Are you a "blue meanie?"   

Peace.



Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 15:03

5 = Masterpeice/essential

4 = Excellent addition to any prog rock collection

3 = Good but non-essential

2 = Interesting moments but probably only appealing to collectors/fans

1 = Poor.Only for completionists

 



Posted By: Aerandir
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 15:18
I agree with richardh

-------------
That which doesn't kill you, postpones the inevitable


Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 15:29
Originally posted by MAX@ MAX@ wrote:

Originally posted by Vibrationbaby Vibrationbaby wrote:

I think the system is more or less adequate maybe you could add a little font of a bomb to indicate something which is so bad that it should be just tossed in the garbage or blasted off into space.

 

Don't you have a better solution ?

O.K. Maybe that`s going off the deep end a little. How about no stars to indicate an inferior work for that particular artist. I think the 5 star rating system is fine and I think that I get a pretty good idea of how a person feels about a particular work from a combination of what they`ve said in the review itself  and the number of stars they`ve given it out of 5. Why confuse things? I like Richardh`s suggestion for a five star system though.


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 16:06
Fine with me... If you read the review, most of the people explain why they gave a certain amount of stars. I think that is very valuable!


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 16:52

All:

If Richardh's suggestion is to be used - and I agree it is posssibly the best one if the site keeps to a five-star system - then I would expect to see a whole lot less 5-star reviews, though possibly more 4-star reviews.  As I asked on my newest thread re ratings, can one really give "Fugazi" (as good as it may be) the same five stars that are given to "Dark Side of the Moon?"  Indeed, here's a question for the ages: If a newer prog band is clearly "influenced" (let's keep "derivative" out of it) by an early, "essential" prog band, can anything the former does be considered as "essential" as the latter?  For example, since Marillion is clearly influenced by Genesis (and probably would not have existed otherwise), can one give the same five stars to "Misplaced Childhood" that one gives to "Foxtrot?"  Is there not something odd about this?  Just a query for discussion.

Peace.



Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 18:15
I concurwith Maani Maybe I should have given Made In Germany by Amon Duul II only 4 out of 5 stars with this in mind. Maybe we should have a poll on whether or not to adapt richardh`s 5 star system.


Posted By: Glass-Prison
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 19:18
I will have to agree with the notion that not all five star ratings are the same. I see many five star ratings, to the extent that an overwhelming majority of ratings are five star or more (at least from my subjective opinion). I believe, like most people in this thread, that five stars should only be given out to albums with the utmost musical and historical significance. That said, I offer no regret to my five star rating of Caress of Steel.


Posted By: semismart
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 19:44

I've never seen this done but how about letter ratings like grades in school. It might go something like this; S = Superior  , E = Excellent  , VG = Very Good  , G = Good  , A = Average  , F = Fair  , P =Poor.

This gives you seven ratings instead of five and is self descriptive.



-------------
<i>Sports cars</i>, helping ugly men get sex since 1954.


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 22:42
Originally posted by semismart semismart wrote:

I've never seen this done but how about letter ratings like grades in school. It might go something like this; S = Superior  , E = Excellent  , VG = Very Good  , G = Good  , A = Average  , F = Fair  , P =Poor.

This gives you seven ratings instead of five and is self descriptive.

Good point here but we have to live with more than 5000 rating already done with a 1 to 5 scale . How can we radicaly change thoses ratings... Do you have a suggestion ? Thanks



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 22:44

BTW I love the Richardh's solution !

A decision will be taken ... in the next days ...

In the mean time can you help us decide what to do with the already rated CD ?

Downgrade all 5 stars to 4 ?? leave them ? ... any ideas



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: March 08 2004 at 23:57

 Hi guys! I guess its time that I "weighed in" on this issue. I've read both threads on this issue, & had time to reflect upon the many thoughtful viewpoints and suggestions offered here. I've also thought about the current rating system often in the past, when writing reviews.

Ermm I feel that any rating system, where works of art are made to fit into one of 5 (or 6, or 7) qualitative categories, is a somewhat artificial way of looking at things. In art, edges blur -- sometimes, language itself (let alone a numerical scale) is inadequate to express what we "find" there. As others have suggested, it's what the critic writes (rather than "rates") that provides a better description of the music. A rating system could be looked at as being almost like a child's shape-sorting box (imagine five different holes: star, pentagon, square, triangle, circle), except that we have to try to pound an almost infinite variety of shapes (albums) into a very limited number of holes. Edges and subtlety of shape/sound/feel get "rounded off" or lost in translation. What makes a "masterpiece?" How many years old must a recording be to qualify for "classic" status? (Do you hear what I hear? Do you see the colour blue the same way that I do? What past experience do you "bring" to your review? Did one critic first "make out" to the sounds of ELP, while another was kept awake all night by a hated stepfather playing their music at top volume?) Ratings remain highly subjective things. In a detailed review, the words give a better understanding of the writer's individual perspective.

OK, I'll try to be more concrete. I think there are several options for dealing with this complicated issue -- each with advantages and disadvantages. Here are some:

1) Do nothing -- Keep current system PROS: No work required; some like it  CONS: Many reviewers have expressed dissatisfaction; system seems inadequate to express what is meant; differing interpretations of a given rating

2) Adopt a new rating standard (Of those suggested, I like Richardh's idea best, but would also like to add the no-star or "bomb" rating, as Vibe proposed.) PROS: This system could better clarify what a given rating meant. CONS: People will still click on the stars to rate an album without much thought. People (especially non-regular reviewers) tend to review albums that they like. Their thoughts might be along the lines of "I really like this CD. I listen to it a lot! Five stars! Wait, I like this other one a lot too! Five stars!" I doubt that most reviewers will tend to carefully consider the "definition" behind a rating (I'll also bet that if a guy owns five CDs, he'll automatically give his favourite a five-star rating.) Terms in definition hard to define to satisfaction/equal understanding/interpretation of all. What to do with existing reviews

3) New system, plus half stars (Maani has frequently expressed a desire for the half-star increment option, and I've often felt that a given album was, for example "better than a three, but not yet a four." PROS: Will allow for greater accuracy and subtlety of meaning in the numerical system. CONS: Could actually add to confusion; won't necessarily decrease incidence of extreme "end of spectrum" (1 or 5 stars) reviews. Problem of existing reviews remains.

4) Keep "star" rating system (new or old), but let "official" reviewers opt out of the "star system."  (I like this one. I don't like having to use the "star system," and have sometimes wished to change an earlier rating. For example, I gave VDGG's H TO HE  five stars = highest possible rating, but now, after recently hearing more from the band, find that I like PAWN HEARTS better. I can't give 6 stars to PH, so I find myself wanting to take one away from H TO HE, which is still a great album! I would prefer to simply express my preference in words, ala: "I like Pawn Hearts even more than the excellent H to He....") Pros: A "level playing field." Many excellent and informative album (book/concert, etc.) reviews are written without the artificial "rating system" being superimposed upon them. It's all in what the reviewer writes; less likely to produce arguments; doesn't strive to reduce unique works of art to quantifiable "absolutes;" perhaps a "win-win" option. Cons: Not many. Perhaps some readers will be less likely to read "unrated" reviews ( a risk I'm willing to take); casual visitors to the site can still "rate and run" without a review, thus unjustifiedly "skewing" an album's overall rating. (This can be countered by removing the option to rate without reviewing. A minimum-character limit could also be imposed.) Don't need to worry about existing reviews (though I'd like the option to remove/alter my star ratings).

5) Drop the star rating system altogether PROS: Not as radical as it may sound. As I've said, a numerical rating system is not necessary for describing one's reaction to a piece of art. (Imagine using a five-star system to rate paintings! "Oh yeah, Guernica is a four, the Mona Lisa a five, but that Jackson Pollock is only a two." "What does that mean? Who says?"); Fewer arguments; No more "rate it and run" non-reviews; Could make more reviewers more creative and descriptive in their writing.  CONS: In this "post Sesame-Street" age of soundbites, remote controls, fast foods and short attention spans (not to mention worsening reading and writing skills!), people may expect a "star" rating system. We have been conditioned to want "instant gratification." (Many seem to judge an album on the basis of just a listen or two, when often some of the most "lasting" and rewarding art is initially some of the hardest to acquire a taste for.) The average modern music listener (yes, even prog fans) may not read a review that doesn't thus instantly reveal where its writer stands. This might decrease the Archives readership, so is perhaps not a viable option. Problem with existing reviews is removed -- but only if Max can easily remove the stars!

In conclusion: If we can't have/don't like #5, I like option 4 best. I'd love to escape the artificial pressure and constraint of assigning a numerical rating that seeks to compare "apples to oranges," and each album to all others:

Angry"How can you say that Foxtrot is better than Dark Side of the Moon?"

Shocked "I didn't say that! I didn't even mention Dark Side in my Foxtrot review. I really like both albums!"

Angry "Well, two months ago you gave Dark Side four stars, but yesterday you gave Foxtrot five...."

Confused

This is a big issue (for us)! Thanks for hearing me out, prog fans! Smile

 



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 02:25

All:

I would like to piggy-back on some of the comments Peter made, many of which were excellent ().

1.  Re altering past ratings/reviews, there may be a fairly easy solution, if the site administrators can do it technically without too much fuss.  Consider that if you save a modified file (or one with the same name) to your computer, before it will save to the disc it says something like "A file with the same name already exists.  Do you want to overwrite?"  If we were able to "re-access" our reviews, we could (i) change the "stars" used (if desired), and/or (ii) modify the review (Peter and I, among others, have expressed an interest in being able to do this), and then "re-save" it as an "overwrite" of the original review.

Max: Possible?  If so, you could allow everyone to re-access their reviews and make any changes themselves.  (Or perhaps "official" reviewers could be given a way to access their own reviews, while others would be required to get "clearance" from you before doing so.)  If not, the problem of existing reviews remains unanswered.

2.  Half-star system.  Although Peter is correct that this "won't necessarily decrease incidence of extreme 'end of spectrum'" reviews (1 or 5 stars), I think most people would understand it, and use it properly.  Sure, there will always be some people who won't use it properly, but I believe most would.

3.  "Official" Reviewer "Opt-Out."  I actually like this idea alot (although it would not solve the problem regarding reviews by "non-official" reviewers, for which a modified system would still be necessary).  "Official" reviewers could begin their reviews by stating how many stars (or half-stars) they would rate the album.  This gives us greater latitude, and is immediately informative to the reader.  As for whether people would read our reviews if we did not give "stars," if our standing as "official" reviewers does not "interest" them, then simply giving stars won't make much difference.

Re others' ideas, if "forced" to, I would opt for Richardh's before semismart's (no slur on semismart here), but would still opt first for either my 0-6 star system or a half-star system, if either could be instituted with minimal fuss.

Max: I don't envy you right now!

Peace to all.



Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 04:06

I think the possibility to give no stars for very poor would be great!

And about the value of 5 stars: I always see an album in its context. An album from Dream Theater, that gets 3 stars, would have had 2 stars if Yes made, if you know what I mean. I always compare an album to other albums the band recorded. Only when it's excellent, I compare it to great offerings from other bands. I think, now Max has changed 'highly recommended' into 'exceptional/masterpiece' the system seems a bit crooked. I liked the term 'highly recommended' (I gave Doremi Fasol Latido five stars because it is highly recommended when you're a fan of Hawkwind or space rock in general, of course it isn't a masterpiece like Dark Side)

To everybody: Is it so important? If you also read the review, a lot of time the voter explains himself.

Stay cool!



Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 08:36
Hey! It's been changed! 5 stars are 'Highly Recommended' again. Did you do that, Max?


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 08:39

Originally posted by Joren Joren wrote:

Hey! It's been changed! 5 stars are 'Highly Recommended' again. Did you do that, Max?

YES I DID IT !



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 08:41
Well, thanks! It gives me a good feeling that my opinion is so highly appreciated that it is directly changed!


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 08:41

EMAIL FROM Hugues Chantraine

Apparently this credibility thing has been around for a while and this
thread opened was so very instructive and I will be glad to participate.
 As for the stars, OK I understand the point of star rating painting of
Guernica and instant gratification, but we are talking of mass consumption
of music that is not in a museum. Rating an album with stars is not really a problem when guiding newcomers. I am a partisan of the no star or bomb because I creates more room if we are not to install half-stars, but six stars is rather unusual but why not?

Actually a cross between Maani and Richardh might be the solution but for the highly recommended mark it should be aside of the stars because one might recommend to listen to an imperfect album if this one is a very important facet of a band ( a special icon for this could appear beside the star rating enticing to read the text that will come). It is important to talk of originality of the works because it is important that clone bands don't pollute the top ratings and this is why Maani has a good system also.

 On the other hand, this rate and run is polluting some of the stats but do
we need to have ten thousands advice for one single album as it will happen if they are force to give a written advice? Most people giving five stars to
average JT albums , their advice is clearly not really well-advised and I
doubt that the comments will be enlightening although this should certainly
not be a rule and they should be able to give comment if they wish to. Why not separate the confirmed reviewer's advice from the rest of the common mortal's advice. I hate casts (elitists) but not every advice is worthy or even interesting, justified .

A special icon might also appear for a historically important album that
might not be perfect (ex: Vanilla Fudge).

As only imbeciles do not change their mind, I have wished many times to
re-write a text or change a rating and had to ask Max to do it for me and
this has probably caused him more work than he already has. It should be
allowed for confirmed reviewer to change whenever he would feel it
necessary. I first came to this site by chance looking for Harmonium and no sooner was I on it that I could give an advice and a review without any
explanation or introduction. At first , I also did some rate and run because
I figured that Genesis needed no more advice and that everything was or will be said by other reviewers and now sometimes I wish I could go back and erase my rating as I could give thoughtful, funny , or anecdotic text.
I hope you won't have to rewrite all of this on that thread - you might just
forward my mail also.

Hugues Chantraine

 

You can answer to his message in the FORUM

 



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 08:46
Who is he? I've read a lot of his reviews, but he's not participating in the forum. Or is he doing that under another name?


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 10:06
Hugues Chantraine is a reviewer on ProgArchives but cannot access the FORUM for now..



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 14:40
I saw he's been very active . He wrights about ten reviews every week. He must have a very extensive CD-collection!


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 09 2004 at 22:15

All:

Chantraine infers a couple of points that have not been considered.

First, when we rate and review an album, are we doing so by measuring against the band's other albums, or against the entire prog-rock genre as a whole?  The question is rhetorical - but should it be?  I would posit that, if we were reviewing albums against the rest of a band's oeuvre, then a five-star system would work fine.  Indeed, it would force us to truly consider what the band's best work(s)really are.  However, if we are reviewing albums against the entire prog-rock genre, then it is clear that a five-star system is hopelessly limited, if not meaningless.  I have no answers here, just more questions.  (Sorry...)

The second, related, issue is: How do we get reviewers (both "official" ones and others) to really consider an album as measured against the rest of that band's oeuvre?  I bring this up for two reasons.

First, as noted above, this would force reviewers to truly consider which of a particular band's albums really rate high marks: i.e., which are "exceptional" (for the band) and which are not.  Let's take Genesis.  If we were to review all of Genesis' albums against each other, we might not be so quick to give so many albums five stars.  And although it is true that, in this case, we would also have to consider the "Gabriel era v. Collins era" question, I still feel we would all be a bit more cautious in our assessments.

Second, and as a direct result of this - i.e., having to assess a band's albums against each other - we would be forced to re-evaluate albums vis-a-vis the entire prog-rock genre.  The resultant effect would be to make us all think much more clearly about (i) where an album stands within the band's output, and (ii) given that, where that band's best albums stand within the entire prog-rock genre.

Certainly there would still be "debate" about whether, say, Foxtrot is "greater" or "more important" to the band - and the genre - than Selling England or The Lamb.  But I think we would all agree that, if forced to truly assess the entire band's oeuvre, this would mean that, even if all three truly rated 5 stars, then none of the Collins era albums would rate more than four, since even TOTT and WW do not "measure up" to Foxtrot, SE and TL.

Forgive me for the cerebration.  But this entire issue has been plaguing me since early this morning, and I just got home and needed to get it off my chest.

Thanks for the cyberspace psychotherapy...

Peace.



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: March 10 2004 at 01:13

 I still don't really want to award stars at all (the whole concept is fraught with problems for me) -- but I realize that many reviewers find that system useful. Thus, I'd like to see the stars being optional.

Secondly, Maani, if we are comparing a band's album to their other albums, then we couldn't review any one of their albums until we'd heard them all ! This is not practical: goodbye to reviews of newer, obscure acts, and bands that are new to us! I want to review bands/albums that are new to me as well! Have you really thought this through? (Please, no insult intended -- I know that you are an intelligent and sincere fellow!)

I just want to write about the album I've been listening to, as a unit, a piece of music. I don't talk about all of Dickens' novels when I analyze "Great Expectations" (nor have I read them all), nor do I compare it to all Victorian novels (even if I could!) To my mind, to always measure any piece of music against the trail-blazing stuff that was written when the genre was new (and new, and thus more "magical," to us too) is unfair, artificial, and sets a hopelessly high standard for new bands to measure up to. I prefer to think along the lines of "Do I enjoy this music? Do I listen to it by choice, & not merely from a sense of obligation as a reviewer? Why or why not? Who does this band remind me of? Would fans of Tull be likely to enjoy this? Would I have enjoyed this 25-30 years ago?"

There'll always be only one Beethoven's 9th, one Close to the Edge, one Brain Salad Surgery, one Selling England, etc. Of course the great albums made when the genre was young have influenced what has followed -- how could it be otherwise? If newer acts weren't influenced by (or even derivative of) what has gone before, would we even recognize their music as being "Prog?" Must newer prog bands (and I'm still glad that there even are newer prog bands!) "reinvent the wheel" every time they enter a recording studio? Who are we (fans) to hold artists to such impossibly high standards? As soon as a band releases an album that strongly reminds us of a classic, we smugly call it a "clone" and an unoriginal imitation. Yet, if the new disc is completely fresh, we can then say that it's "no Selling England" or even "not really progressive rock." It seems that we have a tendency to want to "have our cake and eat it too." We want progressive rock, we love and revere the old classics, but we insist that new acts sound as little like the old classics as possible -- but not too different, because then it's not "prog!" We are in danger of coming across as "crusty old curmudgeons" who are "stuck in the Seventies!" ("I tell you, you young whippersnappers, music was better in my day! Music was music back then! The new stuff (to paraphrase some reviewers here) is all crap and pale imitation! Why I tell you... blah, blah, blah, blah....")       Do mainstream rock critics constantly hearken back to the rock and roll of the 50s and 60s? Isn't all post-50s rock derivitive of the tunes of that era? Can't truly great albums -- as good (or enjoyable) as those that have preceeded them -- be written any more? Who are we "old farts" to tell a young Dream Theater fan (who has never even heard of, let alone heard the early "prog-metal" bands) that his favourite band will always be second-rate, by virtue of their being 30 years too late for real greatness? (Surprise! We've been "tuned out!")

Frankly (and I'm speaking to everyone here), this debate, and the entire "what is, and what isn't prog" issue tires and bores me. It will never be definitively resolved! It's a matter of opinion and taste. I just want to get back to reviewing the albums that the site's administrators see fit to list, and I want my words, and not someone else's scale, to say what I think about that album. Furthermore, I should not be required to purchase or pirate a band's entire catologue (or, God forbid, every disc here!) before I give my (considered and detailed) opinion of any one album!

Once again, Max and Ron, I ask that you please consider making the rating system optional.

Thanks to all who take the time to read, ponder, and/or respond to this heart-felt "rant."

PS to Maani: As to whether any of Genesis' post-Gabriel albums "measure up" to Foxtrot, that again is a highly subjective matter of opinion. Can't TOTT and WAW be different, yet just as "good"/enjoyable? (I stand by my Wind and Wuthering review!) Not all Genesis fans are our age. Some first heard/got into the band with "Trick," and may associate that great disc with a memorable, important period in their lives. What real right do I have to condescendingly pronounce their tastes, or favourite album, to be somehow "inferior" to mine, simply because I was a teen before they were, or because "my" album came out a few years before "theirs?" If "Trick" moves them to tears (the lovely "Ripples" comes to mind), then it has succeeded as a work of art, period. (My humble opinion -- all are free to differ!)



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 10 2004 at 11:28

Peter:

Don't mince words: tell us what you really think!  

I have to meet someone right now, but I'll respond (gently, lovingly) in a little while.

In the meantime, let me just say that your passion is admirable.

Peace.



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: March 10 2004 at 15:49

 Maani: "The Passion of the Peter" ?

Ha! LOL



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 10 2004 at 16:15

Peter:

As Mr. Spock once said to Dr. McCoy: "You really must learn to govern your passions, doctor; they will be your undoing."   Actually, I have thought this out, quite considerably.

In this regard, you make a number of good points, but ultimately misread me.  While it would seem true that in order to compare a band's albums against each other, we would first have to hear them all, there are three mitigators here.  First, my guess is that the majority of visitors have heard all (or at least most) of the albums of the "seminal" prog groups: Crimson, Floyd, Genesis, Yes, Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, ELP, etc.  Thus, it would not be that difficult for most people to  do "intra-group" comparisons.  True, it's possible that even with "seminal" groups, not everyone would agree even on which of their albums are most important; but I'm guessing there would be more agreement than disagreement with those groups.  Second, the vast - vast! - majority of groups on the site have less than a handful of albums, and a great many have only two or three.  Thus, intra-group comparisons would not apply to them.  Third, you and I may not know many of, say, Hawkwind's albums: they have over 100.  But a Hawkwind fan might know all or most of those albums.  Thus, there will always be reviewers who can properly place a group's albums in context with each other, if they take the time to do so.  Indeed, this would be enormously informative to the rest of us, and would be a great service to the site.

Thus, intra-group comparisons - which I maintain would be a good thing to consider - would not mean "goodbye to reviews of newer, obscure acts, and bands that are new to us."  Obviously, we would only be able to review those albums "per se" and, if appropriate, vis-a-vis prog rock as a whole.  And there is, of course, nothing wrong with that - if that is the only way in which we can consider a particular album.  I am merely suggesting that, where we do have the ability to consider an album in an intra-group context as well as a "per se" context, it would be helpful - especially to "newbies" - to do so.

Re your comments about "listening by choice" and "would fans of Tull enjoy this," etc., I am in full agreement.

Re the question of "influence," again I believe I am misread.  I have made quite a few comments in this regard, and stand by my basic philosophy.  Since almost every prog group that appeared after the "seminal" groups was influenced by one or more of those seminal groups, the measure of any later band's "success" for me is determined by how well they "channel" those influences, and arrive at something at least reasonably "new," "original" and/or compelling.  This in no way limits a band's ability to create something "original" from its influences, and I apologize if that is the sense I have been giving.  In this regard, it is not a matter of "reinventing the wheel" or holding later bands to "impossibly high standards."  It is a matter of being honest - as a reviewer - as to what influences are evident, and how well those influences are "filtered."  I am hardly one to call anything a "clone" (though I have been tempted), no matter how minimally a band's influences are channeled; if a group "wears its influences on its sleeve" - overtly, shamelessly, and with little or no attempt to filter them into something even reasonably "new" - then I simply consider that band as having "failed" to be a good prog band, and state that in my reviews.

That said, I try to err on the side of generosity as much as possible.  I may not always give "the benefit of the doubt," but I always try to find something "good" in an album, even if I believe that it is weak and/or derivative overall.

As for being a "crusty old curmudgeon," I am no such thing: I am a crusty young curmudgeon!   Actually, re your query as to whether "truly great albums - as good or enjoyable as those that have preceded them" can be written anymore, I would say "yes" - but that it gets harder and harder to do so.  Yet this is not a "slight" on newer bands.  This dynamic has occurred in every form of music with the possible exception of classical (and it may even be true of classical): that it becomes more and more difficult to find something "new" to say, and we hear more and more reptition of the past.

Re "old farts" telling a young Dream Theater fan that "his favorite band will always be second-rate, by virtue of being 30 years too late for real greatness," I don't think it has to go quite that far.  What we (as "old farts" should be doing, however, is making sure that those young Dream Theater fans know the history of prog so they understand how and where their "favorite" band came from -  in a gentle, loving, informative manner, through our reviews and our comments on discussion threads.  Indeed, I must assume that that is one of the paramount goals of this site - and of our contributions as "official" reviewers.

Finally, as to the Genesis question, this is the only place where I would say that you fall into a trap of your own making.  You suggest that some Genesis fans may have gotten into the band through TOTT or W&W "and may associate that great disc with a memorable, important period of their lives."  As important as "memorable" moments of our lives may be, I'm not sure that they are a proper criterion for reviewing the musical/lyrical/arrangement/production values (much less the "historical" place) of an album.  If the album "rates," it does so whether or not a person "associates" it with some memorable moment in his/her life.  In this regard, I find it hard to equate "memorable moments" with "taste," much less with "greatness."  Yes, "if Trick moves them to tears...then it has succeeded as a work of art."  But we, as reviewers, critique albums based on numerous factors - their "success as a work of art" being only one.

Having said all this, I realize that you were not "attacking" me, and I hope my response has not seemed "defensive."  Rather, my response is meant simply to be observational, and based, as yours is, on MHO.

Peace.



Posted By: Aztech
Date Posted: March 10 2004 at 16:33

Another problem with a 1 to 5 rating or star system in my opinion is that my 2 stars or points might equal your 3 stars or points.I maybe stingy in givings stars/points or too generous.Maybe a word sytem as already mentioned before would be better? here's an off hand suggestion to work on ?

1. Masterpiece= MP

2.Excellent= E

3. Very Good = VG

4.Good= GD

5.OK = OK

6.Borderline = BD

7.Fail= FA

No matter what you use it will obviously always be subjective to the person rating the CD .Thats why the more reviews, the better, because you can make an average of all the ratings posted and also look at the reviews to know why that person rated it a 1 or 5. 

What I hate the most in the reviews are 1 liners like "I hate it, it stinks" or I worship this album, it rules!  Try to tell me in 2 lines or more if possible, why you love or hate it in a constructive fashion with as much detail as possible .I know words are not necessarily easy to describe a music album but it is the best we have short of listening to it. 

The way I use the rating system is ,if more than about 75% of the reviewers reviewed an album 5 or 4 with very little 3 or 2 and they include good descriptions of the type of music on that album. I'm likely to try to find an MP3 and if I like ,I'll go listen to the CD at my prog store and possibly buy it.

My 2 cents ...

 



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: March 10 2004 at 21:38

 Thanks for the reasoned, sincere, and coherent input, Maani and Aztech.

Guys, I'll get back to you on this. (I'm not in serious disagreement with anything that you said.)

 Maani, I will debate a couple of points with you, but not tonight. It takes me hours to write a lengthy rant (or review), and tonight I'm tired, have to light the fire, and pay more attention to my spouse Heartand my pre-reviewing, prog-listening duties. Lucky me! I'm out of here until tomorrow! Um-dee-dum-dee-dum.... 

Have a nice Thursday!

Peter Ying Yang



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: March 12 2004 at 06:40

EMAIL FROM Hugues Chantraine
mailto:[email protected] - [email protected]

Hi, I am sorry that my intervention might have caused ruffled feathers
between two of the most outspoken reviewers but Max had asked my advice thru
e-mail.

A short presentation of who this intruder of me might be: 2/3 Belgian and
1/3 Canadian, I started buying records at the age of 12 in 75 (that makes me
40) and my first three were Crime of the Century, Wish you were here and
Selling England. Not a bad start as you can see, but I listen to a bit of
everything but dislike US Country (Forced-fed in my youth), Motown (a few
notable exceptions, though) and this techno-dance scene as well as
Boys-Girls band and most of what makes up a top 40. One of my definitive all
time top is A Love Supreme from Trane himself, but also sadly the recent
death of Claude Nougaro has reminded me of how musical diversity is the
essential to me. This is one of the reasons why prog is probably my fave
style but in my mind, Jazz-rock is really linked to it also. One of the
reasons why I disregard the 80's is, of course, MTV that took the attention
away from music to privilege this look thing. It was also the period of
those ugly synthesizers that allowed to push a button and dance behind it,
as you became a rock star. I symbolically shut the radio until 89 and
discovered the 60's and early 70's. I have heard over 6000 albums (rough
estimate for I never kept track) and hold absolutely no pride for this
although it does make quite a knowledge as music is my main interest and I
am helpless with an instrument in my hands. Enough of this as you might just
read-up on me in the following weeks.
Bravo Maani for seeing into the way I reason since the beginning of my
discovery of this site but to tell you the truth I thought that was what
everybody did and therefore took no great care into expanding into that
subject . To you and Peter , though , I would like to point out that it is
possible to rate an album of a band without having heard everything from
them. Example : one can judge JT 's Brick without having heard the
thoroughly detestable Under Wraps and the very late DotCom (that I have not
heard yet) but doing the opposite is definitely a problem for one cannot
judge properly the Tramp's Ouvre without those seminal albums of the early
70's and this is why a site such as this one is important - point out the
masterpieces. Rating an album should be optional but is essential (if used
properly) for newcomers to see directly what albums are of importance. I
doubt someone might really research into Yes masterpieces if he starts with
Open your Eyes. But the star system is very limited and as far as I am
concerned the better system is that of Gnosis (but it is not perfect
either - it is maybe too complex) using a non-linear scale from 0 to 15 and
specifying that a maximum rating should be used very sparingly. This is why
also , if you are to take a look into the ratings I have done on this site ,
there is a majority of three and two stars rating and not only because I am
in danger of becoming an old fart (what is a curmudgeon ?) but also of this
historical significance. The fact that Peter said himself "impossibly high
standards" points out a real problem but all I am asking to a newer band is
a bit of personality into their albums (reinventing the wheel is only
possible if personality is present) , clones have no personality and bands
such as Mangala Valis  or Watch (I have seen both of them live) try to
produce the lost album between Cryme and Foxtrot and this in concert is like
impersonation. But I do know  15 year old kids who will not tune out because
if they investigate the music , this is out of open-mindedness but sometimes
their biggest problem is the overall sound-technology of the 60's and 70's.
Thanks for taking the time to read me
Progly yours
Hugh'

P. S. If I really got into Genesis, it is because of TOTT as I owned  SEBTP
for about 18 months and not really enjoyed it until TOTT opened my eyes.

 



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 12 2004 at 12:18

Hugh:

Thank you for your comments.  Just so you are able to get some sleep tonight, you did not cause "ruffled feathers" between Peter and me.  Over the extremely short period of about two months, Peter and I have learned to respect each other in a way that is, at least from my perspective, extraordinary.  We may debate, even "bicker" , occasionally in the threads, but it is all done respectfully, and there is not even a hint of offense, either given or taken.

Just as the debate over how to define "prog" will never be satisfactorily concluded, so too the debate over rating systems will never be concluded to the satisfaction of many people, much less everyone.  As an outgrowth of this, what has become clear in Peter's and my "debate" here is that even the approach to reviewing albums is a subject of some disagreement.  But despite the seemingly "strong" tone that Peter may take (after all, he is, as we have all discovered, a man of great passions... ), we both tacitly understand that we are simply offering opinions, concerns, comments and ideas, and not "quarreling."  Indeed, I think Peter would agree that our doing this is, ultimately, instructive, or at least thought-provoking, for others on the site.

That said, I thank you for your support on the intra-group review issue, which you so cogently pointed out is not always necessary or appropriate, but which can (in those cases in which a reviewer has the time, inclination and/or knowledge) be highly informative to visitors to the site.  I am looking into some way to express this in my reviews; i.e., both how an album "rates" within a band's oeuvre (if the band has more than, say, four albums, and I have either heard, or take the time to hear, most if not all of them) and how it "rates" within the prog genre as a whole.

Peace to all.



Posted By: Aztech
Date Posted: March 12 2004 at 17:52
Originally posted by Peter Rideout Peter Rideout wrote:

 Thanks for the reasoned, sincere, and coherent input, Maani and Aztech.

Guys, I'll get back to you on this. (I'm not in serious disagreement with anything that you said.)

 Peter Ying Yang

You're very welcome Peter.

Incidently your reviews are very well done and I enjoyed reading them.

Its that type of review that gives me enough information to want to go and listen to the band/album reviewed and possibly make me discover something that will bring me musical pleasure for a long time to come.



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: March 14 2004 at 00:10

 Aztech: Thanks for the very nice compliment. If my review inspires one person to try and then enjoy something which also gives me pleasure, then that's a good thing. I also like to include some humour, when appropriate, to make people smile.

Makes the world just a wee bit better...

Hughs: Thanks for the intro to yourself & the thoughts re reviewing. Well stated.

Maani: Thanks for the apt description of the mutual respect & professional admiration with which we regard each other. To disagree/debate can be fun, even, as you say, informative/thought-provoking -- and not just for us.

Re our earlier "conversation," when I wrote about how a person's experiences around the initial hearing of an album can affect that person's opinions of it, I was thinking in particular of reviewers, especially younger ones, who have their feeling thus sub-consciously biased, & are thus more likely to write a glowing review. If "Crest of a Knave" was a young fellow's first Tull album, and associated with good times for him, then I wouldn't say he was wrong to prefer it to Thick as a Brick. I think we all form opinions of the things we encounter at least partly on the basis of our immediate circumstances, that's all I meant. Do you see?

PS: I edited some old reviews. Some lost a star -- none gained! I always consider what you (and others) suggest here....

 PPS: I'm going to give a five-star rating to a newer disc tomorrow! Damn the torpedoes! Onward through the fog! Wink

Until tomorrow, I remain,

P.R.



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: maani
Date Posted: March 14 2004 at 01:45

Peter:

Thank you for your wisdom

The last time I looked (about 1 AM on Sunday), eight out of the ten most recent reviews were all five stars.  This is why the review system has to be changed: it absolutely defies logic that so many albums are "masterpieces," or even "exceptional."  (Yes, I know, the "formal" appellation is "highly recommended," but I think you know what I mean...)

All:

Like Peter, I, too, will be going back and editing some of my old reviews.  In my case, one or two will gain a star, but most will lose one: not because I think those albums are any less good than they were.  But because, in the greater scheme of things, many of my reviews (like many of Peters, I'm sure) were based on a "mistaken" "value system" vis-a-vis the rating system.  Unless and until the system is changed to either (i) accommodate a broader scale, or (ii) allow "official" reviewers to "opt out" of the "star" system, look for my reviews (and, I'm guessing, at least some of Peter's) to be a little more "discerning": still honest, thoughtful and open-minded, but discerning.  [Max: Note that this is not a "threat" or "ultimatum," but simply an "approach" that I believe is more honest and accurate vis-a-vis reviews.]

Peace.



Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 04 2004 at 06:26

What do you guys think of the new rating system ?

Masterpeice/essential
Excellent addition to any prog rock collection
Good but non-essential
collectors/fans only
Poor. Only for completionists
Bad. Do not buy!

Special Thanks to richardh

 based on all your GREAT suggestions ... THANKS



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Velvetclown
Date Posted: May 04 2004 at 08:38
PETER :  hey leave my butt alone

-------------
Billy Connolly
Dream Theater
Terry Gilliam
Hagen Quartet
Jethro Tull
Mike Keneally


Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 04 2004 at 08:41
I like it a lot - those gradings are actually meaningful!!!


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 04 2004 at 15:31
Originally posted by MAX@ MAX@ wrote:

What do you guys think of the new rating system ?

Masterpeice/essential
Excellent addition to any prog rock collection
Good but non-essential
collectors/fans only
Poor. Only for completionists
Bad. Do not buy!

Special Thanks to richardh

 based on all your GREAT suggestions ... THANKS

I almost feel a bit  .

Still It won't stop people giving 5 stars to their favourite albums

 



Posted By: Stormcrow
Date Posted: May 04 2004 at 15:59

Yeah!  But they are my favorite albums because they are really, really good!

But no, I like that setup as well.  "No Stars" is a good idea, even if I don't buy or listen to albums that are a danger of deserving that kind of rating.

Which brings up an idea which is to the point but perhaps not in it's self helpful.....

It goes like this:  I don't shell out the bucks to own a CD unless I have a decent expectation that I'm going to like it.  Ergo, no matter what someone else hearing my CD's would say about them, to my ears and in my opinion I have a great music collection.  So, I don't spend any time at all listening to what "I" think is crep.  So, further, to "Me", ALL of my music collection, which is the only music  I know well enough to review, consists of 3-4-5 star albums "in my opinion".  Thus, I am not capable, for better or for worse, of not rating the music that I know and like higher than music I don't know.

So, if you let anyone (like lil' ol' me) write, review and rate, then I can't see how anything you do can ever completely guarantee a fair, unemotional, completely objective opinion.  All you can do is let the reader compare his opinion with the opinion of the reviewer and then either follow or ignore that reviewer as they match up.

Make any sense at all?  I thought not.  "ZILDJIAN!  TO THE BEAT CAVE!"



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 04 2004 at 16:06
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by MAX@ MAX@ wrote:

What do you guys think of the new rating system ?

Masterpeice/essential
Excellent addition to any prog rock collection
Good but non-essential
collectors/fans only
Poor. Only for completionists
Bad. Do not buy!

Special Thanks to richardh

 based on all your GREAT suggestions ... THANKS

I almost feel a bit  .

Still It won't stop people giving 5 stars to their favourite albums

 

No, why would it? Even the terms used, in this context, are undefined.

What is "essential?" Surely oxygen, food and water, but not a Genesis CD.

Define "masterpiece," please. Now, use that definition to measure these heart-felt works of art made by people completely unknown to us....

An improvement, Rich, and kudos for a thoughtful job, but reviewing and listening remain a subjective, personal thing. Vibe gives a Genesis disc one star, me, five. 1+5 = 6, divide by 2 = 3. Presto! A good, but non-essential album, and we all agree.

See my point? Not an attack on you, just the entire mandatory notion of mathematically rating art. Try it with paintings some time.... 



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: May 05 2004 at 02:50

I think that sometimes it's too easy to give 5 stars when 4 stars would suffice but then I'm as 'guilty' of this as anyone.One of the things that I do that helps (I think) is to review several albums by the same band at the same time.This way you are ranking the bands output and this 'forces' you to consider marking some albums down that you might be tempted to give 4 or 5 stars to.For instance I did most of the IQ back catologue recently and gave 'The Wake' 5 stars but 'Tales From The Lush Attic' only 4 stars.Both are worthy efforts but 'The Wake' has a bit more intensity and stronger songs IMO than 'Tales..'.If I had taken these albums in isolation then I might have given 'Tales' 5 stars as well.Also I gave 'Are You Sitting Comfortably' only 3 stars when I might have easlily given it 4 stars with 'Nomzamo' (not a bad album by any means) only getting 2 stars.I think I'm being fair and hopefully anyone reading these reviews who knows little about IQ will be better informed.



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 05 2004 at 07:17
 Thanks Rich! A thoughtful reply, that makes a lot of sense.

-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 05 2004 at 08:43

Peter,

since you are already help me on this , does the REVIEWS GUIDELINES are still accurate ?

"PROGARCHIVES REVIEWS GUIDELINES"
"Share your musical knowledge and opinions with others, by rating albums and writing reviews."

THESE GUIDELINES are designed to build a comprehensive reference of Progressive Rock (and related) recordings. You have plenty of time to write something for each of the albums about which you know something, so please, try to take your time and write something that increases the usefulness and interest of the information as a reference for other music fans. In addition, the more cds that you can offer an informed opinion about the better, because others can then benefit by finding more new avenues for their musical exploration.

GUIDELINES:
1- Write in "ENGLISH" - Minimum 50 words. Feel free to write something about as many discs as you can.

2- Please try to write in an intelligent manner. Rude language is not appropriate. Please show respect for other reviewers and readers, the bands, and the cd & song titles.
It is assumed that all users (readers & reviewers) will be familiar with these rules, and respect them. Remember, our site is designed to help those looking for something new to listen to.

A special THANKS from Prog Archives to those who have already submitted ratings and reviews!

 

Thanks ...



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 05 2004 at 08:54
Off to work I go -- I'll respond this evening, Max!Smile

-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Aztech
Date Posted: May 05 2004 at 11:47

 

How about half stars ??? Many people have wrote ei: I gave it a 5 star but I really mean 4.5 stars .wouldn't half stars be more accurate.Its the same thing as a 10 point system.

How about in order for people to stop giving a 5 star to their favourite album you could add a symbol "F" for example meaning " One of my favorite albums" and this would make 5 stars more meaningful.... Just some thoughts in hopes of a better system.



Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: May 05 2004 at 11:54

Some interesting comments in this thread. I agree with maani and richardh about 5 stars being over-used. It just debases the ranking system. As maani says, there cannot be so many masterpieces. The word 'masterpiece' must be the most abused and over-used word on this and many other sites.

You can see this 5-star 'inflation' effect on sites such as Amazon: I almost ignore all the 5-star reviews on Amazon now.

MAX@, perhaps you could add some short words to the Reviews Guidelines along the lines of: "Please think carefully about the number of stars you give to an album: it is not helpful to others if you overrate or underrate an album."

 



Posted By: Marcelo
Date Posted: May 05 2004 at 13:57
Fitzcarraldo wrote about Amazon reviews. Well, this is an extremely commercial place, so I'm not sure about ANY review there...


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 05 2004 at 14:47
Originally posted by Fitzcarraldo Fitzcarraldo wrote:

MAX@, perhaps you could add some short words to the Reviews Guidelines along the lines of: "Please think carefully about the number of stars you give to an album: it is not helpful to others if you overrate or underrate an album."

 

Guidelines will be re-think by PETER RIDEOUT , I like your suggestion ...

We'll see in a few days ... and let you guys post comments ...

Thanks 



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 00:20
Originally posted by MAX@ MAX@ wrote:

Originally posted by Fitzcarraldo Fitzcarraldo wrote:

MAX@, perhaps you could add some short words to the Reviews Guidelines along the lines of: "Please think carefully about the number of stars you give to an album: it is not helpful to others if you overrate or underrate an album."

 

Guidelines will be re-think by PETER RIDEOUT , I like your suggestion ...

We'll see in a few days ... and let you guys post comments ...

Thanks 

\

ClapFitz said it well. I have added something similar to the end.



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 00:36

 

Masterpiece/essential
Excellent addition to any prog rock collection
Good, but non-essential
 Collectors/fans only
Poor. Only for completionists
Bad. Do not buy!

 

 

As the above has been used verbatim, some minor spelling & punctuation work is needed. (See modified version above.) "Masterpiece" was spelled incorrectly, and must be fixed. (Remember: "i before e, except after c, or when sounded as "ay," as in neighbour or weigh") I also added a comma, and a capital. Other than that, Rich's original is fine!Thumbs Up

Peter



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 01:12
Originally posted by MAX@ MAX@ wrote:

Peter,

since you are already help me on this , does the REVIEWS GUIDELINES are still accurate ?

(An edited, more concise version follows):

PROGARCHIVES REVIEWS GUIDELINES: 

              1- Write in ENGLISH - Minimum 50 characters. Feel free to review as many discs as you like.

2- Try to write in an intelligent and considerate manner. Rude or insulting language is not appropriate! Show respect for other reviewers and readers, the artists, and the cd and song titles. Please try to write reviews that will be of real use and interest to other progressive music fans, who can then benefit by finding new avenues for their musical exploration.

3- Before assigning a star rating to an album, you should carefully consider what the differing numbers of stars stand for. Please use "zero" and "five star" ratings very sparingly -- most albums you dislike will have at least some positive qualities, and not every album that you enjoy will be a perfect "masterpiece."

THESE GUIDELINES are designed to help us build a comprehensive reference of progressive rock (and related) recordings.  It is assumed that all reviewers will be familiar with these rules, and respect them.

A special THANKS from Prog Archives to those who have already submitted reviews!



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 01:19

Fitzcarraldo said:

Quote Some interesting comments in this thread. I agree with maani and richardh about 5 stars being over-used.

Maybe truth, but read  what it says beside the 5 stars:

 Masterpeice/essential

I believe we're talking about essential albums for a prog' collection, if you don't have at least every Yes release from Yes Album to Relayer, Genesis from Trespass to Wind & Wutherind, Pink Floyd from Piper at the Gates of Dawn to Wish You Were Here, King Crimson from ITCOTCK to Red, Jethro Tull Thick as a Brick, ELP from ELP to Brain Salad Surgery, some Kansas, Renaissance, Gentle Giant, Dream Theater, IQ, Marillion, Pendragon, Uriah Heep, Moody Blues, etc......... You don't have a essential prog' collection

Then how many essential albums are there? I see a lot here.

What we need to do is try leave most subjectivities behind, for example, not recognizing Genesis has at least 3 essential albums is unfair, I don't like (almost hate) any King Crimson album except In The Court of the Crimson King, but I'm sure that Lark's Tongues in Aspic and Red are essential for any prog' collection.

I have more than 800 prog or psychedelic albums and I'm sure that at least 100 are essential for any prog' collection and most of the rest are good additions.

Iván



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 02:08
Originally posted by ivan_2068 ivan_2068 wrote:

Fitzcarraldo said:

Quote Some interesting comments in this thread. I agree with maani and richardh about 5 stars being over-used.

Maybe truth, but read  what it says beside the 5 stars:

 Masterpeice/essential

I believe we're talking about essential albums for a prog' collection, if you don't have at least every Yes release from Yes Album to Relayer, Genesis from Trespass to Wind & Wutherind, Pink Floyd from Piper at the Gates of Dawn to Wish You Were Here, King Crimson from ITCOTCK to Red, Jethro Tull Thick as a Brick, ELP from ELP to Brain Salad Surgery, some Kansas, Renaissance, Gentle Giant, Dream Theater, IQ, Marillion, Pendragon, Uriah Heep, Moody Blues, etc. You don't have a essential prog' collection

Then how many essential albums are there? I see a lot here.

What we need to do is try leave most subjectivities behind, for example, not recognizing Genesis has at least 3 essential albums is unfair, I don't like (almost hate) any King Crimson album except In The Court of the Crimson King, but I'm sure that Lark's Tongues in Aspic and Red are essential for any prog' collection.

I have more than 800 prog or psychedelic albums and I'm sure that at least 100 are essential for any prog' collection and most of the rest are good additions.

Ivᮼ/P>

Smile Ah, but it is a subjective thing -- that's why I don't really care for "one size fits all" (or 16.67%, anyway) "star" rating systems.

Ermm As I've said many times, I prefer just words (my own) to describe an album. My problem is that neither categorical "definition" may really fit what I think of an album. A numerical system implies fixed divisions of quality, whereas I may not think along such rigid lines. No matter what number of stars I assign to a disc, or the descriptors appended to that number, my response to the music will still be subjective. The forced ratings suggest a universal and mathematically precise way of judging art that is just not the reality. Analyzing/responding to art is not a precise thing, simply because each listener is unique. You may hate my "masterpiece," and I, yours.

In the end, the rating assigned to an album is just one more opinion. (Most people will continue to give all albums that they really like the highest rating.) For us to try to agree upon 5 (or 6) ways to look at albums, and to all interpret the descriptors used to do so in the same way, is an exercise in futility, and the unity of vision implied is an illusion. When the words I use to review an album are entirely of my own choosing, I know that I have said what I mean.

Language is an imperfect medium to describe music. (It's like translating poetry from one tongue to another, only worse -- a written description of "Close to the Edge" will never be a substitute for listening to the album, in terms of bestowing understanding of what's on the disc) Still, in my opinion, language beats a six-based numerical system, with someone else's brief descriptors tacked on. A well-written review does not need a numerical "headline" -- the reviewer's own words have already revealed, in a clearer fashion, what he or she thinks of the album.

Smile Still, the "star" system is used here, so I will use it, and I will try to bear in mind the broad intent behind each "star category." (But I still have to interpret that intent....)Confused



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 10:33

Iván, I have to disagree with you about not having an "essential prog collection" if one doesn't have some of the albums you mention.

The definition of 'essential' is subjective, as Peter says. Putting aside Trick Of The Tail - which I bought when it came out and don't care for at all - I only own one Genesis album, and that's by choice. I have listened to all the Genesis albums many times (I know several people who are big fans) but I only own Foxtrot, which would be one of my desert island discs. I just don't like any of the other Genesis albums very much, it's as simple as that. To me, they are not 'essential' and are not in my essential prog collection. My apologies to all you Genesis fans out there - but, in any case, I'm sure I have 'essential' albums that you don't rate at all!

I can say the same thing about Yes and Relayer - there is no way I would ever want to own Relayer. I just don't like it enough to rate it as 'essential' to me. But I don't feel that my collection of 'essential' prog music is incomplete due to its absence.

Now, if you were to replace "essential" with "complete" or "representative" or something like that then I might be more inclined to agree with you.

 



Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 14:59

Quote Now, if you were to replace "essential" with "complete" or "representative" or something like that then I might be more inclined to agree with you.
 

We use two different words, but we mean the same thing Fitzcarraldo, here some examples:

a) Like it or not, Genesis is one of the big 5 prog' bands, if you don't have Trespass in your collection you're missing the most incredibly fast evolution in prog' history, from a band that sounded like the Bee Gees, to a complex and clearly progressive sound.

b) Relayer is not my cup of tea either (the Cha cha cha...cha cha  thing makes me nervous), but this album shows the most complex Yes incarnation, what they were capable to do with an incredibly talented keyboardist like Patrick Moraz and the point where they leaved the symphonic sub-genre in favor of a more experimental sound.

c) As I said it before King Crimson is far from being my favorite band, IMO they sacrificed the sense of melody for a more adventurous sound but they went to far, even though I believe it's essential to have Lark's Tongues in Aspic in order to understand step by step the change from the melodic and symphonic band that released In the Court of the Crimson King   to the complex and some times cold but adventurous band, that dared to release something as hard and elitistic as Thrak.

So we use the expressions essential and complete collection as synonyms.

Peter Rideout said;

Quote  Ah, but it is a subjective thing -- that's why I don't really care for "one size fits all" (or 16.67%, anyway) "star" rating systems.

Of course Peter, and thanks God for the subjectivity, because how boring would the things get if everybody rated the albums in a similar way.

The stars are only a visual aid for the reader of the review, but it's a rigid system, art is not mathematics, so it's not the best option.

The important thing of a review is the concept that the author express in words, as long as he develop this concepts.

I read reviews that just say "This album is a masterpiece, a must have", but the author doesn't tell me which are the strongest points, why does he believes Days of Future Passed is a great album, with which artist or other release can be  compared, etc.

This kind of reviews unless they are about an obvious piece of cheese that doesn't deserve a serious review are useless, and have the same value than a star system, only as a reference.

Quote Smile Still, the "star" system is used here, so I will use it, and I will try to bear in mind the broad intent behind each "star category." (But I still have to interpret that intent....)Confused

Can't agree more with you!!!!

Iván



Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 17:48

MAX@ and Peter,

Bravo re the pop-up reminder about the star rating when doing a review - it really does make one think twice, and is much more of a reminder than having it buried in the guidelines.

 



Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 17:53

We will test it a few days ... and wait the reactions ...

Fitzcarraldo I count 1 POSITIVE FEEDBACK for you. ..

 



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Fitzcarraldo
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 20:44

Yep, but although I bemoaned the overuse of 5 stars, I've already done it twice myself in only a couple of days. And I'm going to have to do it again soon. "Physician, heal thyself"!

It's incredibly difficult not to give an album 5 stars when one really, really likes it and does consider it a 'must have'. Anyway, the pop-up warning will hopefully make me think twice about my choices.

 



Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 06 2004 at 23:33

I will give the results at the end of the month ... comparing the % of 5 stars for the month of APRIL an MAY ...

I did a test .. and for the month of april it is a 40%+ of 5 stars.
For the last week in may it was 23% .. hope to see this drop again !

At the end of the month we will have a better snapshot



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: May 07 2004 at 11:20
Originally posted by Peter Rideout Peter Rideout wrote:

 

Masterpiece/essential
Excellent addition to any prog rock collection
Good, but non-essential
 Collectors/fans only
Poor. Only for completionists
Bad. Do not buy!

 

 

As the above has been used verbatim, some minor spelling & punctuation work is needed. (See modified version above.) "Masterpiece" was spelled incorrectly, and must be fixed. (Remember: "i before e, except after c, or when sounded as "ay," as in neighbour or weigh") I also added a comma, and a capital. Other than that, Rich's original is fine!Thumbs Up

Peter

Peter was right with these corrections, but how come we don't see those terms on the website. I mean, I see the stars, but not the text!

EDIT: I found out you can see the text when you submit a review, but NOT when you're just reading the reviews. Can this be changed?



Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 07 2004 at 21:39

let me check this out JOREN

GOOD POINT



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: May 07 2004 at 21:42
Originally posted by MAX@ MAX@ wrote:

let me check this out JOREN

GOOD POINT

I agree!Thumbs Up



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 08 2004 at 07:11
YES Close to the Edge ratings (76 entries)

Yes - Close to the Edge  CD album cover
Masterpiece/essential (89%)
Excellent addition to any prog rock collection (7%)
Good, but non-essential (0%)
Collectors/fans only (1%)
Poor. Only for completionists (3%)
Bad. Do not buy! (0%)

 

What do you think guys ?



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Hammar
Date Posted: May 08 2004 at 08:56

Masterpiece!! (The rating system and the album!!)

 

 



Posted By: Glass-Prison
Date Posted: May 08 2004 at 10:13
5 stars for the system, and the album.


Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 08 2004 at 16:09
Thanks Guys !

-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: May 09 2004 at 06:37
Thanks for changing that Max!  Great system!


Posted By: Marcelo
Date Posted: May 09 2004 at 13:47
I agree, very nice system, but let me make one suggestion: Some albums (Close To The Edge, i.e.) has a lot of entries, and some of them are bad ratings. There are so many reviews that there's not place to put all of them, but I think that could be interesting for readers to see, at least, one of the "bad" reviews, to know the opposite point of view.


Posted By: Dan Bobrowski
Date Posted: May 09 2004 at 14:25
Looks good, Max. I can live with that.


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: May 09 2004 at 16:19

Originally posted by Marcelo Marcelo wrote:

I agree, very nice system, but let me make one suggestion: Some albums (Close To The Edge, i.e.) has a lot of entries, and some of them are bad ratings. There are so many reviews that there's not place to put all of them, but I think that could be interesting for readers to see, at least, one of the "bad" reviews, to know the opposite point of view.

I don't think that's true. I believe that, in the early days of the website, you could also vote without reviewing. (if I'm right)

EDIT: You can actually still vote for an album without writing a review... just look at this: http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5284 - http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD. asp?cd_id=5284

4 votes, no reviews...



Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 10 2004 at 19:15

You can still do it ...

VOTING only



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Aztech
Date Posted: May 11 2004 at 10:32

I still think half stars would make the rating more precise.

It could be implemented to something like :  

Click on the "  ½ *  "    to add a half star to your rating.

You guys must have read it also alot of people say things like :

Its not really worth a 3 star but I didn't want to give it a 2 but its actually a 2.5 star.



Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: May 11 2004 at 12:43

I like the suggestion of half-stars !

... but the star rating system is really secondary ,
TEXT REVIEWS are available to complete your ratings ...

How about more reviews Aztech
since you are a PROG REVIEWER now ?

 



-------------
Prog On !


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: May 11 2004 at 13:25
I think it wouldn't work to change the system to one with half stars now.. for there already have been written so many reviews without that possibility...


Posted By: Aztech
Date Posted: May 11 2004 at 14:50

Hi Max,

Thanks for listening to my ½* suggestion.

Yeah you're right, I've been a bit busy lately, but i'll try to do a review as soon as possible.



Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: June 11 2004 at 22:47

  Ermm Pertinent thoughts, esp. my comments on p. 1, re your current "5-star" dilemna.

Enjoying my new life,

P.Smile



-------------
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.


Posted By: Cesar Inca
Date Posted: June 11 2004 at 22:52

 

HI, THIS IS CÉSAR INCA.

The 1/2 stars addition is a good idea: simple, but very useful. Would 1/4 and 3/4 be too much?... Just asking. Anyway, the 1/2 stars thing is already a more clarifying factor.

Regards.

 



Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: June 11 2004 at 23:36

I second Cesar's motion, 1/2 stars woud be useful.

Iván



Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: June 12 2004 at 01:00
I like the 1/2 star idea, but as has been said, too many reviews have been written without it.


Posted By: DoomHammer
Date Posted: June 12 2004 at 07:33

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

I like the 1/2 star idea, but as has been said, too many reviews have been written without it.

good point, besides i think what actually causes someone to put 5 star for an album is that it is one of his/her favorites so that he/she likes it so much, people are not looking objectively. so even if 1/2 star is used people will still rate the albums 5 stars as the albums are still their favorites.

admin group should convince people to put 4 stars on RED for example even if it is a favorite because it is not as essential as MEDDLE that deserves 5 stars

i dont know how you can do this, wish you luck

maybe you can add a sixth green (any different colour) star that is only provided for collaborators, and that star means (highly recommended by the archives collaborators) or something...

but then people will think that you are some guys who think their openion is better than others' and deserve a better rating system

OMG... goodluck!!



-------------
when i sell my life story, maybe i should write it first and do the living later 'cause life is so much cleaner on the page


Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: June 12 2004 at 15:38
I don't think that Meddle is more essencial than Red.  In fact, I think Meddle is very overrated.  And I do think Red is essencial.  What's essencial is all a matter of opinion.


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: June 12 2004 at 16:26

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

I like the 1/2 star idea, but as has been said, too many reviews have been written without it.

And THAT's not the only problem, IMO... I don't think one is able to judge an album that well to award half stars... I'm seriously against half stars...

sorry guys



Posted By: DoomHammer
Date Posted: June 12 2004 at 16:40

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

I don't think that Meddle is more essencial than Red.  In fact, I think Meddle is very overrated.  And I do think Red is essencial.  What's essencial is all a matter of opinion.

i think i wrote the word for example in red underlined text to say that i am giving an example, i am not reviewing it is just an EXAMPLE.



-------------
when i sell my life story, maybe i should write it first and do the living later 'cause life is so much cleaner on the page


Posted By: Foxy
Date Posted: June 12 2004 at 19:08
Originally posted by DoomHammer DoomHammer wrote:

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

I don't think that Meddle is more essencial than Red.  In fact, I think Meddle is very overrated.  And I do think Red is essencial.  What's essencial is all a matter of opinion.

i think i wrote the word for example in red underlined text to say that i am giving an example, i am not reviewing it is just an EXAMPLE.

well, it's a bad example, I guess

I do not think that half stars is a good ide either it is actually the same as a 10 star system... 5 satrs is ok, the rest you can put into your review...



Posted By: Scotto'connor
Date Posted: June 14 2004 at 06:30

1 star- the very worst

2 stars- average pop music

3 stars- ok, average prog music

4 stars- very good

5 stars- masterpiece



Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: January 22 2005 at 14:11
In view of the current discussions, and Peter's recent point about the review definition, this old thread is worth reading. It helps to explain "how we got here".


Posted By: Joren
Date Posted: January 22 2005 at 14:14
Originally posted by Joren Joren wrote:

Originally posted by Useful_Idiot Useful_Idiot wrote:

I like the 1/2 star idea, but as has been said, too many reviews have been written without it.

And THAT's not the only problem, IMO... I don't think one is able to judge an album that well to award half stars... I'm seriously against half stars...

sorry guys

O wait

I changed my mind

maybe half stars are not such a bad idea



Posted By: arcer
Date Posted: January 22 2005 at 14:31
whatever system adopted I think the -
masterpiece/essential to any prog collection should
only be at the gift of the admin group or some sort of
consensus.
Masterpiece like genius is an overused epithet.
Personally I can only think of maybe a 15-20 albums
that desertve masterpiece status and that's not
including the ones by band's i don't like that are
considered meisterwerks. I inlcude things like CTTE,
Going for the One. Foxtrot, Selling England, Lamb.
DSOTM, Animals,
I do not include Nursery Cryme, Wish You Were, The
Yes Album, Relayer as for me these are excellent but
not truly outstanding records that approach master
status which for me means a record that is a perfect
articulation of a band's style and importance. These
are the records which every prog fan should have.
By all means have a superb category, 4 or 5 stars,
which would encapsulate a record of artistic triumph
but there will always be someone who gives master
status to everything a band recorded.
Masterpiece is too rarefied a term to be applied
willy-nilly
I'd go for five stars poor to outstanding and then a
separate 'essential purchase' award for truly
seminal albums. I kinda trust the judgement of the
powers that be.
The again it might open a whole other can of worms
where memebrs are submitting threads along the
lines of 'poll to get some crap dream theatre album
badged as a masterpiece' ......


Posted By: tuxon
Date Posted: January 22 2005 at 15:45

I've read this idea before but here comes my 2 cents worth.

 

Add a sixth star.

6 stars: Essential; A masterpiece of progressive rock. (should be very very carefull to give an album such a rating, maybe only for collaborators to give them to ensure the reliability of the source,)

Essential: a masterpiece within the subgenre
Excellent addition to any prog rock collection (35%)
 Good, but non-essential

Collectors/fans only

Poor. Only for completionists
Bad. Do not buy!

 

Like The Six star, also the 0 star should be very carefully considered before assigning it to an album (Maybe collaborator's only)

 

Extra addition: Rate and review The Bands, same system, so we can make our comments on how we see the bands, The review Cert became mad about was because it was about the band as a whole and had nothing to do with the reviewed album, within a Band-rating review it would have made a little sense, of course there should be specific guidelines in how to review a band to avoid spamming and keeping it as objective as possible.

hope these thoughts are worth anything.



-------------
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT


Posted By: Beau Heem
Date Posted: January 22 2005 at 17:17
Some thoughts;


The term 'essential' hides a double meaning, which makes the use of it rather intriguing
essential:
1. completely necessary
2. (showing) the most basic and typical features of smthg

There are lots of albums (and bands, for that matter) that are essential in the second meaning of the term, but there are, IMHO, none whatsoever in the first meaning of the term.

I cannot see why 'essential' in the second meaning of the word would be any better than, say, good addition to any collection. And if 'essential' is used in the first meaning, a collection without such an album wouldn't be a collection at all.

Now, I'm ready to accept that 'essential' is either one or perhaps even a mixture of both of the meanings, but what on earth does it's antonym, 'non-essential' mean? Not necessary? Something that isn't easily qualified as progressive rock?


To say it clearly;

Essential is not a word that could be used describing quality (nor the lack of it), thus being uncomprehendable in a rating system. Omit the word. If possible. Please.
I would suggest a replacement, but cannot come up with anything good enough...

Cheers

-Beau




-------------
--No enemy but time--


Posted By: Eddy
Date Posted: January 22 2005 at 17:34
way to many people give 5 stars way WAY Too fast and easily. when i firwst joined i did that a little bit. BUT thats gotta stop 5 stars are For COMPLETE MASTERPEICES WITH NO FLAWS like ctte and dark side ofd the moon


Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: January 22 2005 at 19:06
Don't meddle with my rating system!


Posted By: gdub411
Date Posted: January 22 2005 at 22:29

I have never seen this very interesting thread before. It is nice to know this was well discussed before the rating system was implemented.

I am sure this is pretty much a closed case these days, but I think Peter had the best idea of giving no actual ratings and therefore the reviewer would be more pressured to write a comprehensive and well thought out review. It is too easy to hand out 5 stars and write 50 words and really hardly touch on the material of the lp.

As far as the unofficial ratings.....save some webspace and throw the whole thing out....I never follow that anyway and I highly doubt anyone else does either.

If not, I think Tuxon's idea is intriguing as well.....

 



Posted By: BebieM
Date Posted: January 23 2005 at 00:53

I'd normally agree, gdub, but i think i need some kind of overview before i read the reviews of an album. I.e. I'm looking for an album of a band that is considered their best, the easiest way to do that is by checking the percentage of 5-star ratings. It would be so much work and time spent to read whole reviews before I know if the record represents the band's most essential work.

I'm not saying that I necessarily need the star-system, but I do need some sort of overview before I read through the reviews.



Posted By: penguindf12
Date Posted: January 23 2005 at 02:18

Right now, I HATE the 5-star system. All the time I find myself giving an album three stars and then saying directly below it in text "this is more like 3.5 stars" or something, because 5 stars is not enough.

Suggestions:

1. Use the 6-star system suggested by maani on the first page of this thread (a long time ago)

2. Use a 1 to 10 star system, no zero stars. As in relation to the current system, 1 would equal 0; 2 would equal 1; 5 would equal 3; 7 would equal 4; and 9 would equal 5. The in-between numbers would work as middle grounds (as half-stars would in my next suggestion), and a 10-star rating would be reserved for a LIMIT of 10 albums per reviewer, thus making it elusive and out-of-the-ordinary (much as 6 stars would be in my first suggestion). If you were looking at a list of albums and saw a 10-star rating, it would be very exemplary and attention would be instantly drawn to it. With our current system, 5 stars has become far too common and if you see a 5-star review, it's nothing special. Having a limit would make reviewers think thrice before they gave the highest rating.

3. Use half-stars. This would function much the same as my second suggestion. This would be on a scale of 0 to 6, with half-steps between each.



Posted By: Lunarscape
Date Posted: January 23 2005 at 09:11

Another form of informing the general public about our opinions on a recording could be, and I said could be, a 4 star system where the TOP albums "Creme de lá Creme" is given 5 stars. The "Near Creme de lá Creme" is 4 stars, the avarage album is 3 stars and the "For Collectors-not that great or whatever low criteria" 2 stars for borderline prog or lousy prog albums.

How do we get there ? There is some consensus on at least 20-30 Essencial Progressive Rock Albums, that would be the 5 stars albums. then again the Less Essencial ones would be 4 stars albums and so on.

In order to make it as fair as possible, eliminating die-hard fans biased opinions, we have more than 5 reviews on most albums here (of the most known at least). The Administration takes over and sums the "stars given" and divide by the amount of reviews. Example : Wish You Were Here - Pink Floyd. The first 10 reviews here on Prog Archives gave them 45 stars which would give them 4,5 "stars" at the avarage. Since the system doesnt accept decimals, we round up the the next whole number where WYWH becomes a 5 star album. If the decimal is 0,4 we round down ! And a subcriteria could be added; if out of 5 reviews, only 2 (less than 50%) gives maximum stars the Administration rounds back. If more than 50% gives maximum, then round up...

Point out 3 other serious and respectable Prog Rock Sites and compare their opinions/Reviews and rating. Add them into the averaging system and voilá.

Which other sites ? I suggest, I said suggest ! DPRP from Holland, Rock Progressivo from Brazil and Gibraltar Encyclopedia of Progressive Rock. An Alternative is Artemiev's Progressive Rock Page from Russia. That way we avoid the midia-Record company biased British and American mainstream prog rock pressure......

A zero star should be avoided out of respect for the musicians that did try to make an album and had the guts to put it out there. Its like voting "0" on your Daily Hottie Amateur Naked Chicks,  Its not fair since she took her clothes off, took the picture and posted it (LOL). No matter how ugly she is, she posted !

___________

Lunar



-------------
Music Is The Soul Bird That Flies In The Immense Heart Of The Listener . . .



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk