Bern wrote: Good Idea! Maybe we could just change the top 100 of best albums for the top 100 of Best (most popular) bands. That way, we would automatically have 100 different bands.

I don't agree with that because it tells us nothing of the quailty of particular albums.  I do think that there should be a place you can click on the top 100 to change it to "one album per band" mode (but with a better name).

Phobos

Isn't this what "Top 200", "Top 500", and "Top 100 Progressive Music Albums By Genre" are all for? This seems like welfare for bands which are far less popular then what is already in the Top 100. If you want something on this site you can already find it, so why change? Variety is at all of our fingertips, try by genre or top 500. There's nothing "Top" about censorship.

Have you seen this Progressive Poll

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com - http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com

(Note King Crimson ITCOTCK at Number One and Leftoverture at twenty)

BaldFriede wrote: el böthy wrote: I don´t think it´s a good idea...the top 100 should be about best albums, not about putting 100 bands together...this way Yes or Genesis, which both have at least 5 excellent albums should leave 4 behind so we can put Styx in? jejeje I don´t think so... But that's just my point. I definitely do not believe that only 6 or 7 bands made the best albums; but because some of these bands made one or two albums that are really excellent the rest of their albums get voted up their too by shere automatism, although they don't deserve it. There are a lot of better albums out there than the more mediocre works of these artists that just have a big lobby. And I don't think we will get Styx in there that way. We currently have more than 2300 artists in the database; that should somehow be represented in the top 100.

"I definitely do not believe that only 6 or 7 bands made teh best albums..."

Most people (including me) don't either but eventually you make a list so big (See "Top 500") that this no longer matters and everyone is happy. This new idea of yours seems okay for people who can't already find what they want, but I'd say to them that they need to get suggestions, look at genres and figure out what they truly like instead of leeching off of 100 albums.

The collective wisdom of everyone is far greater then that of the individual. Yours and my opinions on what albums should be included in the Top 100 list is only a tiny portion of how we think it should be. Obviously no one agrees, and obviously we can all pick how many stars for every single one of those albums, so to say your way is best only suites you and not the majority. Create a poll.

A true Top 100 list based on ratings (as it is now) is one of the only few ways to create something that reflects everyone's opinions.

Once again, I disagree with the order and how many albums from certain bands are up there but that is the choice everyone is given to vote the way they do. I suppose that's freedom or something? You won't hear me say the list isn't flawed to pieces though, but the initial idea of ratings and no limitations I feel works best for a "Top" album list.

I've come to realize there's a ton of great albums not represented on the Top 100, but there are a billion ways to figure out about those artists. I spent some time going through the entire site (as much as I could), but if an album doesn't have the ratings to climb why should it be there? If I can find what I want (which is very often more obscure than the Top 100 list) why can't other people?

I've come up with one more thing.

Make a list of best bands, not best albums to go right under or above the Top 100 album list. This way all the somewhat unknown gems of the past four decades can "surface" or whatever you want to call it.

Hierophant wrote: The Ryan wrote: the Top 100, but there are a billion ways to figure out about those artists. I spent some time going through the entire site (as much as I could), but if an album doesn't have the ratings to climb why should it be there? If I can find what I want (which is very often more obscure than the Top 100 list) why can't other people? People need to quit making threads about Genesis, ELP, Rush, and YES and start exposing more obscure bands that NEED to be exposed. There are plenty of "advanced" listeners on this site who just aren't sharing their knowledge with others. This is why we have 1000 threads about whether or not Genesis was overrated or how new bands "can never be like the old ones" because we talk about the SAME FOUR BANDS OVER AND OVER AGAIN

It's peoples own choice, you can't make them like the same obscure things you do. I've learned that lesson many-a-time in my own personal life. I am not a veteran of this website, yet I get around. I hear lots of strange and crazy sounds here, not just Genesis and Yes. If people want to talk about Genesis and Yes all day I'm not going to stop them. Also see my last response in large font, stop complaining about albums please.

A top 100 list is never going to expose "obscure bands".

Find another solution.

Hierophant wrote: The Ryan wrote: Hierophant wrote: The Ryan wrote: the Top 100, but there are a billion ways to figure out about those artists. I spent some time going through the entire site (as much as I could), but if an album doesn't have the ratings to climb why should it be there? If I can find what I want (which is very often more obscure than the Top 100 list) why can't other people? People need to quit making threads about Genesis, ELP, Rush, and YES and start exposing more obscure bands that NEED to be exposed. There are plenty of "advanced" listeners on this site who just aren't sharing their knowledge with others. This is why we have 1000 threads about whether or not Genesis was overrated or how new bands "can never be like the old ones" because we talk about the SAME FOUR BANDS OVER AND OVER AGAIN It's peoples own choice, you can't make them like the same obscure things you do. I've learned that lesson many-a-time in my own personal life. I am not a veteran of this website, yet I get around. I hear lots of strange and crazy sounds here, not just Genesis and Yes. If people want to talk about Genesis and Yes all day I'm not going to stop them. Also see my last response in large font, stop complaining about albums please. A top 100 list is not going to expose "obscure bands". Find another solution. Exactly my point. People need to stop blaming the "system" and start doing something about it. Your favorite obscure bands not getting any recognition? Make threads about them. Share what you know.

What are you talking to me for? Whether I am or am not a part of the problem, I didn't start this topic OR even complain about the list of albums. I stand by what I said, and don't disagree with the idea that obscure bands need to be shared.

They need two lists, one for CD`s (keep it the same as it is) and another for each bands average (A band can only be mentioned on this list once and its based on culminating the entire body of work they have done then working out the average % they scored from their reviewer CD ratings. This will allow a fairer over view of many more other worthy bands that tend to get buried down the bottom , keep it as still a top 100 just like is done with the CD list.     

The idea behind this concept is to try and implement a system that works in a symbiosis , so one can keep the other in check

Hope it helps

Hierophant wrote: Exactly my point. People need to stop blaming the "system" and start doing something about it. Your favorite obscure bands not getting any recognition? Make threads about them. Share what you know.

 I did more than creating threads ... I created my own music website.

And there I will add charts that are like BaldFriede suggested. These are the charts that I will implement:

• Best Band (judged by their best album)
• Best Band (judged by their 2 best albums)
• Best Band (judged by their 3 best albums)

Those lists will be much more useful for finding new bands for advanced listeners than the current list. Of course the classic "best album" list is useful too ... it's nice to look at and it's a good start for newbies. But as soon as you "drill down" to the genre lists the "best album" approach is not really useful anymore, because the top positions are simply clogged with the numerous albums of the established genre "giants" with 5 or more albums from each artist.

White Feather wrote: They need two lists, one for CD`s (keep it the same as it is) and another for each bands average (A band can only be mentioned on this list once and its based on culminating the entire body of work they have done then working out the average % they scored from their reviewer CD ratings. This will allow a fairer over view of many more other worthy bands that tend to get buried down the bottom , keep it as still a top 100 just like is done with the CD list.      The idea behind this concept is to try and implement a system that works in a symbiosis , so one can keep the other in check Hope it helps

That  systen has one small problem: Bands which had a "hot phase" of creativity and only produced mediocre albums afterwards would be seriously punished. I think that only the best albums of a band should be considered when calculating the average.

Hierophant wrote: People need to quit making threads about Genesis, ELP, Rush, and YES and start exposing more obscure bands that NEED to be exposed. There are plenty of "advanced" listeners on this site who just aren't sharing their knowledge with others. This is why we have 1000 threads about whether or not Genesis was overrated or how new bands "can never be like the old ones" because we talk about the SAME FOUR BANDS OVER AND OVER AGAIN

Yes there a re many threads like that and I simply ignore them and go into more interesting or relevant ones.

That is also whay I made up a thread for this kind of thing (I Recommend... ).