Something should be done about reviews!

tuxon wrote: Who cares about the top 100 list

Agreed!!!!!!

 I am sick of those members constantly looking at that list. So much energy wasted on that list. I wish it would get taken away, just to pacify the forum and avoid massive blockvoting to try to get an album up there.

Have some people nothing better to do? Like getting a life......

Edited by Sean Trane

Certif1ed wrote: Excuse me for getting it wrong, but the site is about Prog Rock, isn't it? Or do we not care any more, and anything goes? The 5 star rating is NOT about how much we like the music, MORE it's about how much of a Masterpiece of Progressive Rock it is. The 4 star rating is likewise NOT out of 5, but representative of an Excellent addition to ANY prog music collection. If I've got that wrong, I need new glasses or I'm on the wrong site. Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (31%) Excellent addition to any prog music collection (31%) Good, but non-essential (25%) Collectors/fans only (6%) Poor. Only for completionists (6%)

Let me not go into the theory of sets, but simply ask: is 4 stars essential or non-essential? I suppose  something may be either essential or non-essential, but not both. So, 5 stars is essential ... 3 -- non-essential but good. Is 4 stars non-essential but excellent addition ... ? I believe 2 and 1 stars characterise something non-essential for sure.

sh*te 

 

HaHaHaHa missed me

Reviewers need to review the album in question, and not the band or genre in general.  Of course, DT is an obvious example.  I've seen a couple reviews pop up in the past couple days of SfaM that simple state that it's a horrible album because all this band does is play fast.  This is not a review of SfaM, it is a review of DT (and in fact prog metal in general).  If you dont like a band, don't just go and give their albums bad reviews.  leave that to people who can appreciate the album with an open mind.  'Open mind' doesn't necessarily mean they love the album, but rather that they can give each track a fair review and state their conclusions by citing comparisons with other things (i.e. 'I dont like this track because *intelligent reason*, whereas I prefer the style of *band in same prog sub-genre*).

in short, dont give an album a one star review just because you don't like the band.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Snow Dog wrote: I agree with Certif1ed on this one. Now there's a shocker! In tthe review feel free to say what yiou like about the album, but when assigning stars it is about how "Prog" it is. This is clearly written to be the case on the site as Cert points out! There is no definition of how to quantify prog. You probably can quantify very specific sub genres, Zeuhl for example. But how much Prog Metal are The Gathering? How much Fusion is Zappa? It's just not possible. How about this simple rephrasing of the star ratings: 5 stars: EVERY prog fan must have this album. 4 stars: EVERY fan of the sub genre of the album SHOULD have this. 3 stars: A good album - fans of the band should have this. 2 stars: A mediocre album - FANATIC fans/collectors of the band should have this. 1 star: A bad album - Even hardcore fans of the band don't need this. 0 stars: crap.   If you look at it this way, it's apparent that for albums like Octavarium ratings of 0, 1, 2 and 5 seem totally out of question. Only 3 and 4 seem appropriate. Maybe 2, if you REALLY think that it is one of their worst albums - but it isn't. And at the same time, even if you are a hardcore Dream Theater fan, you have to admit that they didn't rewrite the book of prog with that album, so 4 stars is the best possible rating.

I think the existing ratings say pretty much the same thing, but better - why change what already works?

Your list doesn't take into account how the album fits into the prog genre - after all, we're trying to write reviews that are helpful to prog fans exploring the genre, and it's not helpful to make the ratings more band specific. I could care less about a masterpiece of a band - I want to discover masterpieces and interesting examples of the genre;

A newcomer may not be familiar with every band on the site, so it's helpful to know aspects of the music that might appeal to the "Average Prog Listener". This can be quantified fairly easily by making cursory comparisons to bands that we might expect the "Average Prog Listener" to be familiar with - e.g. "Sounds a bit like early Genesis".

I don't think it's helpful to quantify in terms of subgenres, as I would think that most newcomers are either not familiar with the subgenres, or have ideas of what constitute those subgenres that are very different to others. This is the big problem with subdividing music - people just don't agree on the subcategories.

Personally, I don't recognise most subgenres except where the difference is obvious, e.g. Neo-Prog and Prog Metal - although even Neo-Prog can be indistinguishable from "Classic" Prog in the case of bands like IQ. Much "Krautrock" is so close to psychedelia, much "Canterbury" is so close to fusion and there is so much bleed-over in sub genres that band comparisons become even more helpful in this context.

Obviously we can't measure on a scale of 1 to 10 how proggy an album is, but it's not hard to identify attributes and focus on those - e.g. "The mind-blowing Hammond from 2:20 is topped off nicely with a dash of Mellotron choir and violin, giving a kind of space-folk feel in 11/8". This paints a portrait of a passage of music with "traditional" prog instruments combining to make a fusion of sounds that instantly gives a progressive rock "tang" to the review.

It should be easy to write about the proggy bits - after all, those are why we love the music and don't just listen to pop music. You don't have to get technical, just write about the bits you like, as you hear them.

I think it might be useful to imagine that the reader only knows the main albums in prog - say the top 10 or 20 on the front page.

...just some ideas

Snow Dog wrote: I agree with Certif1ed on this one. Now there's a shocker! In tthe review feel free to say what yiou like about the album, but when assigning stars it is about how "Prog" it is. This is clearly written to be the case on the site as Cert points out!

There is no definition of how to quantify prog. You probably can quantify very specific sub genres, Zeuhl for example. But how much Prog Metal are The Gathering? How much Fusion is Zappa?

It's just not possible.

How about this simple rephrasing of the star ratings:

5 stars: EVERY prog fan must have this album.

4 stars: EVERY fan of the sub genre of the album SHOULD have this.

3 stars: A good album - fans of the band should have this.

2 stars: A mediocre album - FANATIC fans/collectors of the band should have this.

1 star: A bad album - Even hardcore fans of the band don't need this.

0 stars: crap.

 

If you look at it this way, it's apparent that for albums like Octavarium ratings of 0, 1, 2 and 5 seem totally out of question. Only 3 and 4 seem appropriate. Maybe 2, if you REALLY think that it is one of their worst albums - but it isn't. And at the same time, even if you are a hardcore Dream Theater fan, you have to admit that they didn't rewrite the book of prog with that album, so 4 stars is the best possible rating.

Edited by MikeEnRegalia

PROGARCHIVES REVIEWS GUIDELINES:

1 - Write in ENGLISH - Minimum 50 words. 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 shoud 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.

 

This should serve to clarify my point of view without the amibguity