Collaborators' Top Albums of 2012

I consider it to be a masterpiece.

I don't want to hijack the thread, especially ranting about last years list. As I said the format of the poll is awesome and as expected the winners won't meet everyones expectations. So lets hear more opinions and gripes.........

timothy leary wrote: I consider it to be a masterpiece.

"To Shatter All Accord" was my number one for last year.

HolyMoly wrote: I get a little confused when people complain a lot about "popular" stuff making the top 10, and lesser-known but just as good stuff not making the top 10.  By my reckoning, if the lesser known stuff were more popular, then it would naturally rise up in the polls.  But it isn't, so fewer people vote for it.  It turns into a chicken/egg thing.   We don't operate outside of natural physics and social dynamics here. Should some less popular stuff be more popular?  Sure.  Everything should be more popular.  But it can't. This post is blowing my mind.

I went back and looked and I did have the Discipline album as number 1 and the Opeth album as number 2 in 2011.

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

Back to the "fanboy" complaint - it does seem as if established and popular prog artists do tend to dominate the rankings.  I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, even if the release by said artist is "substandard" (which is in the eye of the beholder anyway).  For better or worse, the system does reflect the "best" releases, where "best" equals that one deemed best by the most people, i.e. it is a popular choice.

I will concede that there may be some "fanboy" voting by people who are lifelong fans of, say, Rush, and any new album of theirs will pretty much get an automatic vote.  I'm not willing to guess as to how often this happens, nor am I willing to doubt any collab's judgment in what they thought was the best of the year.  But the excitement of a new release, especially after a long hiatus, does tend to be reflected in an album's ratings, at least in the short term.

This made me think of a point I had on another thread a few weeks ago, as I was lamenting the fact that one year (at maximum) really isn't enough time to develop my "favorites" list of that year.  In a couple of years, I may suddenly realize how good Tea Party's (to use an "underdog" example from this past year) new album is.  But I can't then go back and fix my vote for 2012.  Once the poll's done, it's over, and we're on to a new year.   I tend to take a long time to absorb and truly appreciate and understand prog albums, and often I need several years of perspective to arrive at a judgment which truly reflects how I feel.  Sure, some albums are "instant favorites", but most of them aren't.   I raised this point on a thread and didn't expect much of a response, but several people seemed to agree.    The "Best of (Year)" list would ideally be a cumulative thing, where one's favorites are adjusted and refined over time, rather than judged as "Best" in a much shorter time frame.

I realize this would require a lot more work on somebody's part, but if enough people think this way, I'd be glad to put my head together with some others to see what we could do.  If not, no skin off my nose, but I think it's an interesting idea.


Edited by HolyMoly - February 07 2013 at 10:03

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

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

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

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

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