WinterLight wrote: Moatilliatta wrote: Perfection cannot be attained. I'm not sure that this is a true statement.  In particular, it has no literal meaning (again, what is meant by "perfection"?)   Being perfect in the definition of "excellent, as in skill or quality" can definitely be attained. But critics and artists will never agree. And as a musician and composer, I know that there are always new ways to redo work you've created, from "maybe I should have played this fill instead" to coming up with a whole new movement of the song. The fact that one would even consider altering a piece or imagining other ways to make it better implies that the piece isn't perfect. Music kind of revels in its imperfection. Musicians improvise in their songs all the time because they feel something else. This may not be perfect to a listener, or even the player, but it felt right at the time. Furthermore, music is way too subjective for a consensus to be made on the topic. This is one of those claims that is touted so often that it becomes obviously true by repetition.  But it's not true.  Music, as with any art, can be evaluated by objective standards (specifically, musicianship and composition).  Our reaction to a piece of music is, of course, subjective, and it need not coincide with our subjective evaluation.  Sure, I don't disagree with that. I try to balance objectivity and subjectivity. But there must be both, and it's often very difficult for a large group of people to agree with both aspects. We can phrase things as objectively as we want, but those objective statements are rooted in our subjective tastes. Explain this.  In classical music, for example, there are accepted criteria for how each instrument should be played and sound--it's simply not a matter for debate. Didn't progressive rock break a bunch of "accepted criteria" for how rock music was supposed to be played? This is also true of all "progressive" groups. Even some modern classical style groups are doing things that would be unheard of in the days of Mozart. Classical music is quite different from rock music in many ways, and to bring that into this particular topic is irrelevant. Even the terms "simplistic" or "complex" can be subjective. Perhaps you mean "simple" versus "complicated".  There is a distinction, and it's non-trivial. That's not what I mean. People with different understandings of music can interpret how simple or complicated a piece is differently. If I asked a kid just learning the guitar if "Coil" was complex, he/she would probably say it was. But to a multi-instrumentalist who has been playing music for years might say it isn't. Perspective makes a difference, regardless of whether or not the source is reliable to us. They definitely depend on the perspective they come from. "Coil" can only be called "simplistic" by someone who understands music theory or is acquainted with this kind of music. If you look for complexity in any structure, then you will find it.   I'm not sure how what you're saying connects to what I said. But I see no complexity in the structure of most songs by The Ramones. Am I not looking hard enough? And this is another note on labels. As soon as we start to label things we introduce bias. Even strictly used as adjectives the reviewer or the reader automatically makes connections in their heads, be it postive or negative. Yes, but "making connections" is not tantamount to "introducing bias". I think it is. If someone or myself makes a connection to a list of bands and sounds that I don't like and nothing else, I think my bias is going to kick in when I sample the music and I'm going to expect not to like it. Why does it matter if it's "progressive" or not? There is more to music than that. I think to listen to music solely or largely because it is housed under the term "progressive" is absurd. Although I completely agree with the two statements here, I think the question is baseless.  This site is dedicated to progressive music (regardless of definitional controversies), and the ratings theoretically reflect that mission (despite the blatant misuse of the rating system by some). I'll write a review, but it's going to be completely unrelated to how "progressive" it is.   Again, I consider that a misuse of the rating system as defined.

This site as a database for progressive bands. The fact that they are here means that there is a consensus as to their being "progressive" or "prog" or not. Sure, we have a right to say that we don't think a band or album is "progressive," but to neglect the positives about an album because of that one thought isn't right. I don't like bands on here because they are "progressive." I assume that the reader is more concerned with what's beneath the surface of the labels as well, and so I often don't worry about analyzing how progressive it is.

I personally ignore genre's altogether. In my world, there are only 3 types of music: music I love, music I hate, and everything else. Most of what I like would come under the heading of prog, but not all. I'm getting off topic, so I'll stop LOL. I guess my point is that I can't even agree with myself sometimes on what is good or not, so its unrealistic for us on PA to agree on what is perfect.

Flip the question around - has Perfect Prog ever existed?