or something like that.

 

 

 

And if it is, then it doesn't matter what the genre is.

I love prog, because that type of music stirs my emotions, but not all prog is good, and there are many other genres I enjoy too.

 

But I suppose on this site, being, as it is, a prog site, the music will be judged on its proggishness at the end of the day.

 

I can't stand acts like Brittany Spears, but, if she ever produced a song or album that I did like, I would admit it, I wouldn't hide it.

 

It all depends on the quality of the music, not the 'designer label' or 'genre tag'.

 

Stating the attitude to the music/album/band/artist, one asks himself the first question. But, writing a review for the PA site, and giving album a certain number of stars, according to the certain site's guide-lines, one should ask the second question.

 

I could not agree more. It seems insane to vote an album down because it's not viewed as particularly progressive.

Well get real - if the albums included on this site, there is something progressively related regarding it, however tenuous, at least in the eyes of those who allowed the artist in - even prog related. To vote down, as an example, "Revolver" just because the reviewer excludes the albums prog qualities (whether they exist or not) is, in my eyes, madness. It also gives a false impression when looking at reviews stats. That is, if you take any creedence by these things, which I have to say I don't. But some will!

If it's on here then please review independently. The trouble is, some do it like I propose and some take the "how prog is it?" approach. Perhaps, for consistency, the moderators shpould take a lead and clarify the voting/review score procedure to encompass this?

 

It's only an idea.

Barla wrote: Snow Dog wrote: I think in a Prog site the proggyness of the music is very important if you are recomending albums or not. Even the star system here is technically judged by progressivness so I don't know what else you would expect really? Does the "proggyness" really care (except that the reader is a close minded)? After all, when you're reviewing the music, you're judging its QUALITY, not its "proggyness" (or at least I think it should be like that), am I right?

 

As others pointed, this is a prog site. Should you be on Rate Yor Music, then rating on "progginess" might be somewhat shocking.  But here, wxe are looking at prog music, searching, investigating, digging it out from the ground etc...

 

So judging on the music's prog criterias (this is what's meant by proggyness I suppose) is not only valid, but also a facor in the music's quality.

 

Albeit be noted that proggyness is not the main criteria in the quality of a music, not even a major one, but it has full rights to be judged upon the citerias that the site had decided as progressive and therefore why the albuml is in the first place in its database

 

 

 

 

 

 

darkmatter wrote: I judge music on it's quality, regardless of what it is.  Good music is always good music.

 

and prog is not always synomym of quality either.

 

 

As others pointed, this is a prog site. Should you be on Rate Yor Music, then rating on "progginess" might be somewhat shocking.  But here, wxe are looking at prog music, searching, investigating, digging it out from the ground etc...

 

So judging on the music's prog criterias (this is what's meant by proggyness I suppose) is not only valid, but also a facor in the music's quality.

 

 

 

It's entirely up to who adds artists on to Progarchives. If all agree that the music's not progressive - what the on earth is the artist doing on here in the first place? Surely the sole criteria should be voting on the albums that are listed here. (That's all we can do anyway).

There are lots of artists on Progarchives that I, personally, do not consider even remotely prog - even some of the more reverred ones. That's my opinion but it would, however,  affect my rating if reviewing one of their releases.

Glueman wrote: Sean Trane wrote:     As others pointed, this is a prog site. Should you be on Rate Yor Music, then rating on "progginess" might be somewhat shocking.  But here, wxe are looking at prog music, searching, investigating, digging it out from the ground etc...   So judging on the music's prog criterias (this is what's meant by proggyness I suppose) is not only valid, but also a facor in the music's quality.       It's entirely up to who adds artists on to Progarchives. If all agree that the music's not progressive - what the on earth is the artist doing on here in the first place? Surely the sole criteria should be voting on the albums that are listed here. (That's all we can do anyway). There are lots of artists on Progarchives that I, personally, do not consider even remotely prog - even some of the more reverred ones. That's my opinion but it would, however,  affect my rating if reviewing one of their releases.

 

I suppose you are talking of the artistes in that Prog-related category. Music being progressive is of course subjective, and although everyone has their intepretation of progressiveness (I prefer that to proggyness) there are side inclusions which are entered (often because of popular demands) solely for pleasuring the forum membership. I will not go into details , but there are bands in the database which have no business here even in prog-related (Super Furry aimals, Triumph, Zep) and if I chose to review them, it is mostly to guiide those who wouldn't know them. 

 

 As for the proto-prog category, it is an alktogether different matter, but there is no doubt in my mind that the artistes entered here were progressive before prog rock was created.

 

Just in case you meant progmetal, much of the new prog revival is based on those bands' success. some might argue as to how much prog they are, my answer is : prog enough!!!

 

Glueman wrote: There is no need to mark someone down! If you do that, a quick look at the Beatles output - based on lack of prog voting down, would show only one album - Sgt Pepper as scoring a high vote. This would imply all the other Beatles' material as being sub-standard. I don't believe that people want to use reviews to see how proggy and album is - they want to know how GOOD it is - period. It would be a simple caveat to just add in the review something like..."not very progressive"!

-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

 

Well that's partly my point - a large number of artists on here a in that grey area of "prog or not". On that basis, many ratings, as all musical opinions, are subjective in nature. With that in mind all reviews/votes/ratings are inherantly flawed. In order to give a more coherent picture I believe the rating/review should be based purely on the music.

It's rather a similar picture when someone reviews a work based on the previous output of the artist - another flawed method. What people seem to forget is that very few bands remain constant throughout their lifetime (Rush being a notable exception). Changing one important meber will usually result in a change of sound/style. That's life - everything changes.

Take for example Coheed and Cambria, now most people would say they are not prog because they have catchy melodies and because of this they are not proggy but most people I know and other people I have met (and this I agree with) have said they are very much in a rush mold, they pack alot of riffs into their songs, they use the occastional time change, they are writing a massive sci-fi concept album on all their albums (they all link up), plus claudio sounds at times like Geddy.  Yet people would argue against this.

Now Im not argueing a Co&Ca should be in Progarchives thing here, im just pointing out that before we start saying its either about good music or the 'proggyness' of a band/song/album we need to destinquish between prog and progressive.   

 

That's where it's up to the moderators and people that run the site. Whether it's prog related or prog, if it's on here we have to assume that someone has made that decision for us! Then let us get on with the music.

 

Do you realise how contradictory that was?

 

I quote...."when reviewing for this site I do take into account how prog an album is"

 

and then...." its a decent alum and worthy of 3 stars IMO but its only prog in one or two places I find so I knocked it down to two satrs as t would be misleading to say it was good example of progressive metal when it isnt really progressive"

 

5 stars means "essential: a masterpiece of prog music"

 

If it's not prog music, it can't be 5 stars.  Plain and simple.  Every other rating is fine.

 

Self explanatory. Everyone knows they are what they are - maybe not even progressive at all  - the sub-genre tells you all you need to know. They can then be voted on for their music alone. No-one will think they are a bonafide 5 star PROG album is if scores a 5 on musical merit alone. It will be taken in context - or should be!

 

Mike

 

That's what some of us are beefing about!!!!! Why the on earth do that when there's absolutely NO need when the title of the sub-genre does it for you? There's absolutely no ambiguity about it! Proto and related speak volumes. No-one ought to be confused about a 5 star rating in these two!! Words fail me!!

 

Well that's flawed in itself. Given that we only work a 5 star system on here. There would be less ambiguity regarding the high scorers if it were out of 10. Let's face it 5 stars encompass both 9/10 and 10/10.

 

We then get onto another moot point regarding the use of the words "essential" and "masterpiece". I, personally would never use them. "Essential",  especially, is highly emotive and implies all should own it - plainly not so gievn our differing tastes. To say that "Close To The Edge" is essential when someone might not like it or Yes or even that style is not helpful. Who would want ownership of an album they didn't like purely because it was required listening according to the "experts"?

As for "masterpiece" - another subjective term. I would never want to influence another and would never expect my opinion to influence another but I honestly don't think there is such a thing. I have over 2000 prog CDs and about 80 or 90 are 10/10. But none is a masterpiece in my opinion. Mozart's Requiem, Beethoven's 9th, Chopin's Nocturnes etc etc- they are masterpieces.

 

By the way  - I'm not disagreeing with anyone who believes in the concept of a prog masterpiece at all. It's just my slant on things.

 

Hang on a second. besides judging the quality of the music (I doubt most reviewers are really up to make proper judgment on it), we rate also (and mainly) the enjoyment  and to a lesser extent the album's histocal importance.

 

And I gave Machine Head and Zoso 4* or more. But the fact that both albums are not prog (per se) should also intervene.

 

I personally use halstars as well. It always figures at the start of my reviews. I definitely don't think there is that much wrong with the actual star system except thaty it should have intermediate steps (such as halfstars)

 

But no matter what happens there will always be people to misunderstand and misuse the star rating . the fact that it is non linear id already baffling most people.

 

Masterpiece you will agree is exceptional >> less than 5% of albums should be masterpieces

 

Excellent ( ) is defintely a A grade which is in general above 85%. and a good rating is definitely above 70% >> getting three quarter of the full marks is good.

 

But most casuals will read it wrongly:

 

They either read  as 3/5 or 6O% and   >> which means average , they see it as bad.

 

When in fact a good album  is definitely more than a 60% (which should really be average) and the  albums are roughly 50%

 

 

one of the things I do regret is that the Zero star rating disappeared, too.  Because it does not give enough space on the bottom of the scale.

Good idea. We have a problem with the star definitions with prog-related and proto-prog albums. I reviewed Physical Graffiti which would normally be a 5 star album without question, but it is not a prog album so I couldn't really give it 5 stars by this site's definitions. The same thing applies to Beatles records.

 

 

Of course, if some certain music is already listed on the PA, and not in the proto/related categories, the main issue is HOW GOOD it is. The "how proggy is it?" issue is usually not relevant, except for possbile cases of extreme degrees of progressiveness. Much more important IMO is the issue of "in which way is this progressive?". The greatest pleasure this site gives me is the inexhaustible discovery of new kinds of progressive atitude to music.

 

However, in relation to the entire music spectrum, the "progressive degree" is fundamental. Without it, this site couldn't even BE.

 

Thank God IT IS.

 

 

 

I'm wainting for this to become effective.

 

Also, if nothing changes, I will have to give maximum 4* for the proggiest Zeppelin albums, though they're the highlights of my collection.

 

Don't mention it.

I just used Co&Ca as an example of a band who are centeral to this argument, some people on here would say their music is good but they are not proggy whilst other may say they are proggy and good whilst some would say they are sh*t and are just progressive whilst another final group may say they are sh*t but porggy.

I personally feel they are a good proggy band, but someone may not agree with me.

I don't feel this point is about the music or the porggyness of something, I see it being the age old question of prog and progressive, once they have been determined then you can contiune the questioning and get to this point.