When the sticky thread regarding Dream Theater appeared, telling that all pseudo Octavarium reviews have be deleted, I was happy.

I was hoping that this would not only be a single act to stop the DT flood, but also meant that moderators would begin to actually spend time clearing up all other mess, which, I'm afraid, is 20% of all reviews, at least.

Unfortunately, that was merely a single act. It was aimed at DT fans who are too lazy to write a review, at people who don't know how to write good reviews and at bandwagoner websites("hey look, dudes, look at this site, go there and give [album] [score]". And that was it. Bad reviews keep being submitted, and the moderators not only stop looking for them, but even avoid the reviews that are reported multiple times(!) in the 'report abuse' thread.

I am very disappointed in this website. It is not as balanced as we we would all want to: you see an album that gets only 5 star reviews, in which people claim this is the best thing ever and buy to hear generic crap, while good albums die after a few "terrorists" give them 1 star reviews and get away with it.

To somehow challenge those terrorists, this must be done:

1. Moderators should be more active.

2. Users should be willing to contribute and report every review that doesn't match the standards(which, I point out, is not just a number of symbols, but the actual way of reviewing something).

3. And finally, those standards for reviewers should be made.

I am posting this in the general forum, to get more attention of the users, to describe the problem to those who do not see it yet and discuss it.

Cheers,
Ronnie.

I think the real problem is that the reviewers are rating the genre, not the band or even the ALBUM. When I browse the Octavarium reviews, I see people bashing LaBrie, prog metal in general, the lack of emotionality in Petrucci's playing compared to David Gilmour, Portnoy's dense playing compared to Collins ...

90% of the Octavarium reviews simply lack maturity. The ability to write objectively. I don't have any problem with subjective elements of reviews ... as long as the reviewer at least TRIES to be objective.

Gentle Ronnie wrote: It is important to realise that Octavarium is not the only album people are reviewing too. The problems are much deeper than you expect.

I know ... but Octavarium is a well known example. The same applies to any controversial album.

The admin team are indeed conscious of the issues with some of the reviews at present. We're currently discussing the best way to tackle them.

salmacis wrote: That's good to hear, Easy Livin', as for a long time there were relentless 'Octavarium' reviews, and worse still all were 5 star- odd, as personally speaking, I found there to be little genuine progressive content bar the admittedly excellent title track. Whilst it's a very good record, it's hardly 5 star quality, showing that most reviews were just fan-boy material. Equally interesting is the 'best DT albums thread' on Prog Polls, where there are barely any votes for 'Octavarium'.

I'm pretty sure that the 5 star / fanboy issue is a general one, it is not limited to Octavarium, Dream Theater or even prog metal. It happens for any other album, too. How many 5 star reviews exist for Genesis albums, which were only written to compensate for some 1 or 2 star review ?

Whilst Certif1ed's comment about how 'prog' an album is holds some water- for example, I can't imagine many prog fans giving an unequivical 5 stars to an album like 'Invisible Touch' by Genesis- I don't think we should deliberately downgrade an album like that to 1 or 2 star reviews, but instead judge the album on its relative merits, though preferably avoiding 5 star reviews, as that would suggest it's worthy of being an essential prog album like 'Close To The Edge', 'Foxtrot' et al, when it has little progressive content.

Of course, this is only my opinion, and I know of course many people won't hold the same views.

You cannot quantify "progressiveness". You can count the signature changes in a song ... but we all know that time signatures not necessarily make something prog.

Cert1fied asked me a while ago to name some specific elements that qualify Meshuggah's Catch 33 as "progressive". While I respect him very much (he really tried to be objective in his Meshuggah review), I refuse to comply with his request.

Progressiveness simply cannot be proven. The intro to Wish You Were Here is not progressive by any objective standards. Yet we know that it is something like a progressive anthem.

Few weeks ago I started a thread of my reasons to review an album. Since it was put in the non music section only few had read it so I will summarize it again. I review only an album that I feel I fully understand and I love it very much. I try to focus in albums that I feel are not known enough to get some more attention to that album. Do'nt get me wrong I reviewed only 4 albums.

What I'm trying to say is that there is nothing objective here. Not for me and not for most others. If one wants to read proffessional reviews one can take melody maker or any other music magazine. People want to share their feelings about the music.

Now, I know some of those are written poorly or not to the subject. What I do is stop reading it and ignore it. So there are some bad reviews. Do'nt read those. What happened ? A specific album will get a slightly better or worse place in the top 50 / 100 list ? Who cares ? It is not the list that makes us buy an album or not. It's only a list and it changes from one day to another.

This is not a reason to be so disappointed ! Let Maani & others concentrate on exposing us to some more good music and not being our babysitters !

I do understand where you are coming from with these points, and am willing to defer on the admittedly touchy subject of 'prog' and 'not prog'.

Another issue I had with the whole 'Octavarium' debacle was how quickly the 5 star reviews were dolled out- the album had barely been out a day or two, and this ultimately affected the judgement of the ratings, as progressive music really takes more than a few listens to really get under your skin- I think this point was made by a few forum members previously- I think Sean Trane and Easy Livin'.

salmacis wrote: I do understand where you are coming from with these points, and am willing to defer on the admittedly touchy subject of 'prog' and 'not prog'. Another issue I had with the whole 'Octavarium' debacle was how quickly the 5 star reviews were dolled out- the album had barely been out a day or two, and this ultimately affected the judgement of the ratings, as progressive music really takes more than a few listens to really get under your skin- I think this point was made by a few forum members previously- I think Sean Trane and Easy Livin'.

Many people had downloaded the album weeks before it was released - and I'm not talking about the Elements Of Persuasion fakes. But fanboy reviews are an issue, that's obvious.

It's not just "terrorists". Some of my favourite albums have been marked way down by a well respected collaborator for not being "prog" enough - hint; see Horslips!

If an album is on this site, it should be reviewed on its musical merits, not its prog content! Some bands (Strawbs especially) made some albums that were clearly prog and some that were not prog at all.

All:

As Easy Livin notes, the admin group is indeed aware of the problems, and we are trying to figure out the best, fairest way to deal with them.  Please be patient.  In the meantime, I will try to address some of your specific issues when I get home this evening (I am currently at work).

Peace.

maani wrote: All:  In the meantime, I will try to address some of your specific issues when I get home this evening (I am currently at work). Peace.

I'm very surprised they have The Internet in Carboard City.........

They should be more humorous

This is my favourite one and it was deleted....

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=1874"> EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) - Works Vol. 1
Review by Karnevil Nein! @ 5:38:47 PM EST, 4/5/2005

  —   I really love this album,from the ham-fisted keyboards to the twee vocals and from every over-blown piece of orchestration right up to the masterpiece of mirth that is Pirates. Long years in the making,due to ego clashes and arguments about makeup,Elton John being part of the recording process then not and finally producer Pete Waterman being replaced by Little Jimmy Osmond,the band finally got this meisterwerk out into the public consciousness.Once out there it was a smash,spending 16 weeks at Number One in Albania and going Quadruple Platinum in Belize. When one listens to Emerson's Piano Concertos one is immediately reminded of Les Dawson's egregious masterpieces of the early 70's.I can think of no higher praise than that. I find that "The Enemy God Dances With The Black Spirits" fills me with nostalgia,or should that be neuralgia? I'm not sure-but I know that Mrs Palmer should have decided against that shiny red kit for young Carl's 6th Birthday.Pirates-what can I say?I nearly choked to death the first time I heard this 13 minute epic.It sounds like the ungodly product of a demonic union between WS Gilbert and The Village People and is breath-taking in its excruciating awfulness and willfull over-ambition.There is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album and this is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album

 

 

 

 

 

Some people!

Trouserpress wrote: Tony R wrote: They should be more humorous This is my favourite one and it was deleted.... http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=1874"> EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) - Works Vol. 1 Review by Karnevil Nein! @ 5:38:47 PM EST, 4/5/2005   —   I really love this album,from the ham-fisted keyboards to the twee vocals and from every over-blown piece of orchestration right up to the masterpiece of mirth that is Pirates. Long years in the making,due to ego clashes and arguments about makeup,Elton John being part of the recording process then not and finally producer Pete Waterman being replaced by Little Jimmy Osmond,the band finally got this meisterwerk out into the public consciousness.Once out there it was a smash,spending 16 weeks at Number One in Albania and going Quadruple Platinum in Belize. When one listens to Emerson's Piano Concertos one is immediately reminded of Les Dawson's egregious masterpieces of the early 70's.I can think of no higher praise than that. I find that "The Enemy God Dances With The Black Spirits" fills me with nostalgia,or should that be neuralgia? I'm not sure-but I know that Mrs Palmer should have decided against that shiny red kit for young Carl's 6th Birthday.Pirates-what can I say?I nearly choked to death the first time I heard this 13 minute epic.It sounds like the ungodly product of a demonic union between WS Gilbert and The Village People and is breath-taking in its excruciating awfulness and willfull over-ambition.There is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album and this is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album           Some people! That's f**king marvellous!! I want this review reintstated immediately!

I'm with you on that, Trouserpress!

All:

For the record, I did not delete the ELP review, so please don't look at me...  Indeed, I also think it's rather...quaint () and would have kept it.

Now, let me address some of the specific comments made here.

Re Gentle Ronnie's initial comments:

"Moderators should be more active."  I will chalk this up to your relative newness.  First, until recently, I was the sole moderator for the site.  And if you don't think I was "active" enough, I think that even those members who don't necessarily support me (or at least agree with me much of the time ) would come to my defense as to how active I am, and have been.  Indeed, some members undoubtedly wonder when I have the time for a "real life."  We now have a few additional moderators, and I daresay that, within the confines of their individual schedules, they are as active as they can possibly be.

The problem of "inappropriate" reviews is something that was never contemplated at first.  Thus, even though we now know that something needs to be done, the problem is so systemic at this point that the process for tackling it and the time it will take to do so is daunting.  Still, the admin group is trying to work out a way to do so as quickly and efficiently as possible.

"Users should be willing to contribute and report every review that doesn't match the standards" and "Those standards for reviewers should be made."  The admin group, along with the site collaborators, is currently discussing this very issue: what the "standards" (or, more accurately, guidelines) for reviews should be.  We are very close to a final decision here.  Once that decision is made, it will become policy, and will not only be posted in the announcements (for current members), but new members will be required to "sign off" that they have read them and will abide by them or face possible deletion of their review.

Re Mike's comment about "reviewing the genre" rather than the band or album, while that may occasionally be the case, I still think that most reviewers (especially the "one-offs" like those who joined just to give Octavarium 5 stars) are reviewing the band and album, just not very well.  He is right that most of those reviews "lack maturity."  However, as I have noted elsewhere, this lack of maturity is much more widespread than simply DT fans: the largest influx of new members are 15-20 (and sometimes even younger) and thus, for the most part (but not in every case), they simply do not have the necessary "tools" (academic, intellectual, etc.) to write a truly cogent review.  It is enough for them to say "I really love this album.  Petrucci is the world's greatest guitarist.  And the songs are really good.  So I give it 5 stars."  Clearly, this is unacceptable, and those reviews will be deleted (if they have not been alerady), and such reviews will not be permitted in the future.

Re Dragon Phoenix's comment that "I'm getting tired of reviews stating, 'This is not prog, this should not be on the site," there is nothing wrong with stating this per se - as long as the reviewer actually reviews the album and gives some reasonable idea why s/he does not believe it is prog.

Re DP's and limeyrob's comments about an album being given a low rating simply because the reviewer does not feel that the album belongs here, that is, indeed, inappropriate.  However, I'm not certain that it happens frequently enough to be a serious concern.  Still, it is something we (the admin group and moderators) need to watch for, and we encourage members to alert us when they see it.

Re Mike's comment that "I'm pretty sure that the 5 star / fanboy issue is a general one, it is not limited to Octavarium, Dream Theater or even prog metal. It happens for any other album, too. How many 5 star reviews exist for Genesis albums, which were only written to compensate for some 1 or 2 star review ?"  This is actually a bigger problem then low ratings for the wrong reasons.  As a matter of policy, the admin group is united unanimously and strongly against the deliberate (mis)use of ratings either to "compensate" for other reviews or to simply increase or decrease an album's overall rating.  Indeed, not only do we discourage this practice - from new members and veterans alike - but anyone found to be engaging in it will be summarily ejected from the site: no warning, no "three strikes you're out."

Re MO's and salmacis' comments about Certified's approach to reviewing, and richardh's response, all of you are correct.  Ultimately, as richard points out, "The only valid criteria for a satisfactory review is that you must demonstrate that you have heard the album at least once..and thats it. Then you say whether you like it or not in so many words. End of story."  However, that does not mean that we should not - or, indeed, cannot - seek to have reviewers provide more than just their subjective "feelings" about an album.  That is why the admin group is seeking to create "review guidelines."  We are hoping that the guidelines we institute will be "solid" enough to get reviewers to offer more than just "feelings," while being "open" enough not to seem overly restrictive or daunting.

You probably will not believe me when I say that threads like this - and your various comments, both impassioned and analytical - are extremely important to the admin group.  Indeed, that was why I left this thread where it is: because it is threads like these that help the admin group to come to decisions about various things.  This does not mean that we will always agree with everything every member says, and simply change the site accordingly.  However, as most of the veteran members know, the admin group tries - and, we believe, most often succeeds - in truly "listening" to the members, and has made many of its decisions based on member input and feedback.

Keep the discussion going, since new ideas, thoughts, comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc. will lead us to continue to better understand what is working, what is not working, what needs tweaking, etc.

Sincere thanks to all of you for this very important and well-focused discussion.

Peace.

Tony R wrote: They should be more humorous This is my favourite one and it was deleted.... http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=1874"> EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) - Works Vol. 1 Review by Karnevil Nein! @ 5:38:47 PM EST, 4/5/2005   —   I really love this album,from the ham-fisted keyboards to the twee vocals and from every over-blown piece of orchestration right up to the masterpiece of mirth that is Pirates. Long years in the making,due to ego clashes and arguments about makeup,Elton John being part of the recording process then not and finally producer Pete Waterman being replaced by Little Jimmy Osmond,the band finally got this meisterwerk out into the public consciousness.Once out there it was a smash,spending 16 weeks at Number One in Albania and going Quadruple Platinum in Belize. When one listens to Emerson's Piano Concertos one is immediately reminded of Les Dawson's egregious masterpieces of the early 70's.I can think of no higher praise than that. I find that "The Enemy God Dances With The Black Spirits" fills me with nostalgia,or should that be neuralgia? I'm not sure-but I know that Mrs Palmer should have decided against that shiny red kit for young Carl's 6th Birthday.Pirates-what can I say?I nearly choked to death the first time I heard this 13 minute epic.It sounds like the ungodly product of a demonic union between WS Gilbert and The Village People and is breath-taking in its excruciating awfulness and willfull over-ambition.There is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album and this is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album           Some people!

That was excellent. but sadly, not so many people have the wit of Karnevil Nein!. Though he should get an hourly wage to write reviews that funny.

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%)

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%)

that's a very good point. i believe most people (i'm guilty too) tend to review the albums out of five stars without taking into consideration the guidelines under the rating options. they are helpful too, and i'm glad progarchives.com uses them.

Man Overboard wrote: Cert, how good of an addition to a prog collection it might be does not have much to do with how "prog" it is...  else we'd all have tons of Magma albums.

You misunderstand completely.

I'm just saying the review should discuss the progressive aspects, as those are what Prog fans are interested in.

On a metal site, a review might say "Brutal riffs, extreme dive-bombing guitar solos and bone-crunching drums make this an album to really mosh out to. X's vocals scream like a banshee and dive to the pits of hell with awesome death grunts, and with lyrics like "Worms creeping out of long-dead corpses" you just can't go wrong. Death metal at its most devastating. Bubblegum pop this ain't".

I've only laboured the point in recent reviews, as I'm agreeing with the sentiment of this thread entirely - I'm sick of fanboy or hateboy reviews - a little objectivity would be nice, and how better to be objective than a brief discussion of the music in terms of its progginess, since this is a prog rock site.

It doesn't mean we should all listen to Magma (although what's wrong with that... ), but simply that we should pay attention to passages that jump out and make the music enjoyable from a prog perspective - especially things that other reviewers either haven't noticed or picked up on. Read some of Gatot or Peter Rideout's reviews - they don't labour the point, but you pick up on the proggy aspects due to their very personal and readable styles.

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.

You have a point there ... but even with that strict set of rules, you can still rate something 3 stars, even if you don't like it at all. You rated "I" 2 stars, if I remember correctly, and IMO that delivers the message that it is a bad Meshuggah album. IMO you could have rated it 3 stars, which still would have made perfectly clear that you don't consider Meshuggah a good addition to ANYBODY's prog collection, and that it is not a masterpiece of prog.

BTW: I love Meshuggah, but I would never rate them 5 stars on this website.

BTW 2: You recently asked me why I consider them prog: Well, they created their own unique way of using polyrhythms to simulate odd signatures when in fact almost all of their songs are 4/4. If they did that on one song, it would just be cool, but they are really trying to consistently implement their own style.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: BTW 2: You recently asked me why I consider [Meshuggah] prog: Well, they created their own unique way of using polyrhythms to simulate odd signatures when in fact almost all of their songs are 4/4. If they did that on one song, it would just be cool, but they are really trying to consistently implement their own style.

An individual approach to rhythm is a single progressive aspect, and not enough for prog rock, IMO.

I could write an album using Mellotrons on every track - but it might not be prog.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: BTW 2: You recently asked me why I consider [Meshuggah] prog: Well, they created their own unique way of using polyrhythms to simulate odd signatures when in fact almost all of their songs are 4/4. If they did that on one song, it would just be cool, but they are really trying to consistently implement their own style. An individual approach to rhythm is a single progressive aspect, and not enough for prog rock, IMO. I could write an album using Mellotrons on every track - but it might not be prog.

That is something I hate abot forum discussions: You give one example to prove a point, and in the reply it is assumed to be the only argument there is. It's pathetic.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: BTW 2: You recently asked me why I consider [Meshuggah] prog: Well, they created their own unique way of using polyrhythms to simulate odd signatures when in fact almost all of their songs are 4/4. If they did that on one song, it would just be cool, but they are really trying to consistently implement their own style. An individual approach to rhythm is a single progressive aspect, and not enough for prog rock, IMO. I could write an album using Mellotrons on every track - but it might not be prog. That is something I hate abot forum discussions: You give one example to prove a point, and in the reply it is assumed to be the only argument there is. It's pathetic.

i know that feeling, i used to be a list moderator for another website, i couldnt take the pressure from posters and their misinterpreted opinions of me.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: BTW 2: You recently asked me why I consider [Meshuggah] prog: Well, they created their own unique way of using polyrhythms to simulate odd signatures when in fact almost all of their songs are 4/4. If they did that on one song, it would just be cool, but they are really trying to consistently implement their own style. An individual approach to rhythm is a single progressive aspect, and not enough for prog rock, IMO. I could write an album using Mellotrons on every track - but it might not be prog. That is something I hate abot forum discussions: You give one example to prove a point, and in the reply it is assumed to be the only argument there is. It's pathetic.

It's always difficult to interpret what isn't said when there is only type on a page and no body language.

However, it was a reasonable assumption on my part, as rhythm is the only standout aspect, so that was the only example that could be used, AFAICS.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: BTW 2: You recently asked me why I consider [Meshuggah] prog: Well, they created their own unique way of using polyrhythms to simulate odd signatures when in fact almost all of their songs are 4/4. If they did that on one song, it would just be cool, but they are really trying to consistently implement their own style. An individual approach to rhythm is a single progressive aspect, and not enough for prog rock, IMO. I could write an album using Mellotrons on every track - but it might not be prog. That is something I hate abot forum discussions: You give one example to prove a point, and in the reply it is assumed to be the only argument there is. It's pathetic. It's always difficult to interpret what isn't said when there is only type on a page and no body language. However, it was a reasonable assumption on my part, as rhythm is the only standout aspect, so that was the only example that could be used, AFAICS.

You even mentioned several other aspects that might indicate "progressiveness" in your 2 star "I" review ...

Tony R wrote:

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=1874"> EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) - Works Vol. 1
Review by Karnevil Nein! @ 5:38:47 PM EST, 4/5/2005

  —   I really love this album,from the ham-fisted keyboards to the twee vocals and from every over-blown piece of orchestration right up to the masterpiece of mirth that is Pirates. Long years in the making,due to ego clashes and arguments about makeup,Elton John being part of the recording process then not and finally producer Pete Waterman being replaced by Little Jimmy Osmond,the band finally got this meisterwerk out into the public consciousness.Once out there it was a smash,spending 16 weeks at Number One in Albania and going Quadruple Platinum in Belize. When one listens to Emerson's Piano Concertos one is immediately reminded of Les Dawson's egregious masterpieces of the early 70's.I can think of no higher praise than that. I find that "The Enemy God Dances With The Black Spirits" fills me with nostalgia,or should that be neuralgia? I'm not sure-but I know that Mrs Palmer should have decided against that shiny red kit for young Carl's 6th Birthday.Pirates-what can I say?I nearly choked to death the first time I heard this 13 minute epic.It sounds like the ungodly product of a demonic union between WS Gilbert and The Village People and is breath-taking in its excruciating awfulness and willfull over-ambition.There is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album and this is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album

 

 

Some people!

Yes Tony , that was a memorable review you wrote and send André (KE 9) into a frenzy/fury!!! Still laughing about that one! Funny yet incisive, thoughtfull!

I tried a few months back to outdo you in the absurdity, but it only got discovered today!!!!See below. Your review was the latest sensation within three hours of posting! I'm jealous of your success.

Give this one a shot!!! And see the associated thread!!!!

AREA Caution Radiation Area
Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=896 - Permanent link ) by http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=20 - Hugues Chantraine @ 4:28:42 AM EST, 5/3/2005
PROG REVIEWER

 —  Warning!!!! This album is real hazard to anybody’s mental health and not just because of the radiations. Area’s chronological second album (third in the Archives list) is actually a secret document that the left-wing activists they were destined for the Soviet Block!

Forget the titles of the tracks above, as they should read:

1) U235 + Ar + Honey = Pu 240

2) Zyrconium Yaltanium Germanium (Precipita Zero)

3) H + He = Kaboum

4) U238 = Co60 + Cs137 + Fu 2 + n’ + n’

5) Lobotomia

If you think I am kidding you, get the album and you will actually hear what nuclear fission and nuclear fusion sound like, neutrons colliding with Vaginium69 . On the second track , torturing of a Co59 isotope whose nucleus is being ripped apart in order to evolve into Absurdium 89! On track 3 , you can hear a Zircon molecule copulating a Germanium electron on the G-string of the double-bass. How about that Strontium 90 isotope leaving an indelibile mark on contact with the snare drum for the fourth track! Then you shall listen to the last track , head out to CCCP and they will pull out this vital stuff!



Only recommended to terrorist , nuclear physicists and babies under two years of age!

stonebeard wrote: 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%) that's a very good point. i believe most people (i'm guilty too) tend to review the albums out of five stars without taking into consideration the guidelines under the rating options. they are helpful too, and i'm glad progarchives.com uses them.

Yes, but is not my fault if in PROGarchives you can find bands like Rhapsody, Nightwish, Meshuggah, Styx...  So everyone could think that those are PROG bands (because are in PROGarchives). A reviewer just rate an album that is on PROGarchives, he just find it here!

And please stop your crusade against DT!  The only reason why there are so many threads and reviews about them is because they're probably the most popular band nowadays...if you don't like their albums just rate them with a bad review...in this way we can see a general opinion!

MorgothSunshine wrote: Yes, but is not my fault if in PROGarchives you can find bands like Rhapsody, Nightwish, Meshuggah, Styx...  So everyone could think that those are PROG bands (because are in PROGarchives). A reviewer just rate an album that is on PROGarchives, he just find it here!

IMO the one band that stands out in your list is Meshuggah. IMO they're prog as hell. Styx is not prog at all (IMO), just an AOR band that tries to be prog. But I could be wrong here, as I'm not much into Styx. See how subjective it all is?

MorgothSunshine wrote: And please stop your crusade against DT!  The only reason why there are so many threads and reviews about them is because they're probably the most popular band nowadays...if you don't like their albums just rate them with a bad review...in this way we can see a general opinion!

I think the propper procedure is this:

1. You don't like a band and see that it is listed in the archives.
2. You decide to write a bad review about one of their albums, which has a high average rating in the archives with which you don't agree.
3. This is the hard part - you'll have to listen to that album EXTENSIVELY even though you don't like it. If you've just listened to some samples, you don't really have a basis upon which to write a review. And for a really good review, you'll also have to listen extensively to other albums of the artist AND of the genre.
4. After that, you'll be in a position to write a bad review ... OR you might have changed your mind.

I think that if there was a way to ensure that people really know the music they're reviewing, we would have a lot less problems. That's probably not possible - you can only try to guess from the information given in the review if the reviewer really listened to the album.

Man Overboard wrote: Most metalheads I know value things like melody, songwriting, and creativity over 'heaviness'.

Have a little chat with anyone into brutal death metal or raw black metal then

goose wrote: Man Overboard wrote: Most metalheads I know value things like melody, songwriting, and creativity over 'heaviness'. Have a little chat with anyone into brutal death metal or raw black metal then

I love classic prog like YES and GENESIS, i love classical composers like Dvorak and Brahms, i love Miles Davis and Sun Ra but i love also bands like Carcass, God Dethroned, Death, Obituary...

The only impotant thing in music is not the genre but the quality of the music...THINK ABOUT IT!

Here is what I hope to find when reading a review (on a group or CD I have not heard before):

• What group(s) is the music on this CD similar to?
• Is there more guitar or keyboards? How are they used?
• How long is the CD, 70 minutes? 45 minutes?
• Is there any "bonus" content (mpegs or extras for a PC or MAC)
• Is this CD the best line-up of mucicians in the bands history (Example: this was the first Spock's Beard CD without Neil Morse)
• What is the CDs goal? (Example: to play as technical as possible, or, to write consise songs)

What I don't need to hear as much:

• What other reviewers had to say, I can always check out other reviews later.
• Song by song breakdowns of the CD. Of course sone songs just have to be described because they sort of define the album.

Single Coil wrote: Here is what I hope to find when reading a review (on a group or CD I have not heard before): What group(s) is the music on this CD similar to? Is there more guitar or keyboards? How are they used? How long is the CD, 70 minutes? 45 minutes? Is there any "bonus" content (mpegs or extras for a PC or MAC) Is this CD the best line-up of mucicians in the bands history (Example: this was the first Spock's Beard CD without Neil Morse) What is the CDs goal? (Example: to play as technical as possible, or, to write consise songs)

I think the information that I colored red should be available in the album description at the top of the page, there's no need to include it in every review.

guitar/keyboards: Yes, the review should describe the instruments ... but it doesn't has to.

Best line-up of musicians: That is very much a subjective information, should be written (and read) with care.

The CD's goal/intention: Surely that is a very important aspect of a review.

Single Coil wrote: What I don't need to hear as much: What other reviewers had to say, I can always check out other reviews later. Song by song breakdowns of the CD. Of course sone songs just have to be described because they sort of define the album.

I think it's absolutely vital for a good review to contain NO references to other documents, in particular other reviews.

Song by song breakdowns are nice, if the reviewer really offers important informations on the tracks. It's pointless to list the songs and say "This track is awesome, that track sucks, ...". I think it's better to pick 2-3 songs that you find particularly interesting and say something about those.

Man Overboard wrote: "Is this CD the best line-up of mucicians in the bands history (Example: this was the first Spock's Beard CD without Neil Morse)"   I'm sure you didn't mean to use that as an example of the best Beard line-up...    Even though I *do* love Feel Euphoria...  Ghosts of Autum is such a beautiful song...

The epic sucks ... but musicianship is great throughout.

Man Overboard wrote: True, true.  Giving it a bit of thought, they aren't as adventurous, but the individual instrument performances overall seem to be of a higher quality, probably because they had more of an opportunity for input...  the drums especially.  Kinda the opposite of what happened with Genesis in that respect really.

I might also be wrong on the epic ... it just seems uninspired and a little forced to me, like they sat down and said "Let's give the fans an epic that sounds like Neal made it".

In my opinion, when you´ll review an album, just explain how the songs are and what you like s and dislike. If anyone is a moog aficcionado, he will become interested if you say that the whole album is moog soloing.

Let the discussion about being progressive  or not outside the reviews. I´m not a great fan of prog metal, though I like many prog metal songs. If the average rating of an album is 4.99, with 1500 reviews and I read that the songs sound like Dream Theater´s The Mirror, I´ll never buy the album, cause for me that song is less progressive (and worse) than Metallica or Iron Maiden. But an album with average rating 1.5 and 2800 reviews and I read that the songs sound like Dream Theather´s Learning to Live, I´ll become interested in this album.

If an album has a poor average rating and everybody says it sounds like first Pink Floyd, I´ll want to buy it.

No matter what you may argue, individual taste of a prog fan has not to do with key signature changes, number of instruments played, duration of the songs, complexity, etc. I´m tired of reading reviews "Although this album isn´t progressive, there are good songs in it...". Come on! People should care more about the contents of the review than the rating. When someone complained of the review: "All songs are good, Petrucci is the best guitar player..." For me it´s enough, no matter if the guy rated 5 stars. I know what he means and how important to my opinion is his review.

If the whole problem is the top 100 ratings, I suggest to the administrators to remove this from the site. Bad reviews that should be excluded are the examples of ELP and Area, which are ridiculous and doesn´t say anything useful to me. The main reason for review is  to tell to the others that doesn´t know the album how it is.

IMHO, our friends Maan iand others have been doing a very good administrating job, although at times it took them a while to erase some unnecessarily insulting and unabashedly uninformative reviews, but all in all, they've bee ndoing a great job so far.

I agree on that something should be done about lousy/ill-thought/insulting reviews, but I think that THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PRE-CONCEIVED FRAME FOR IT. When we see a not-too-informative but funny and somewhat interesting review, either if it comes with a 1-star or 5-star grade, then we should leave it there (e.g., Chantraine's review about Area's second album, very funny, as deconstructive as the album itself, and somehow, making his negative view clear through all the humour). But if the review is absolutely silly/aggressive, not providing a reason for the happeal (when positive) or merely insulting the band and/or fans in a childish rude, way (when negative), then that review and grade should be erased as soon as possible (anyone remember the "prog is dead, twats" review about Arena's "Contagion"?).

We'll recognize the type of review when it is posted and we read it; before that, I humbly think that it would be "dangerous" or "misleading" to cme up with some sort of detailed structure about what kind of review should stay published in teh Archives or not.

The guidelines for the reviews and ratings are quite clear to me; if some of us don't comply with the guidelines 100 %, it's still OK by me. After all, it is not one or two reviews and grades, but the total of reviews and the comments in them what make the average intelligent prog fan have a better idea of what a particular album is all about.

Regards. 

Rhayader wrote: Tony R wrote: They should be more humorous This is my favourite one and it was deleted.... ../Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=1874"> EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) - Works Vol. 1 Review by Karnevil Nein! @ 5:38:47 PM EST, 4/5/2005   —   I really love this album,from the ham-fisted keyboards to the twee vocals and from every over-blown piece of orchestration right up to the masterpiece of mirth that is Pirates. Long years in the making,due to ego clashes and arguments about makeup,Elton John being part of the recording process then not and finally producer Pete Waterman being replaced by Little Jimmy Osmond,the band finally got this meisterwerk out into the public consciousness.Once out there it was a smash,spending 16 weeks at Number One in Albania and going Quadruple Platinum in Belize. When one listens to Emerson's Piano Concertos one is immediately reminded of Les Dawson's egregious masterpieces of the early 70's.I can think of no higher praise than that. I find that "The Enemy God Dances With The Black Spirits" fills me with nostalgia,or should that be neuralgia? I'm not sure-but I know that Mrs Palmer should have decided against that shiny red kit for young Carl's 6th Birthday.Pirates-what can I say?I nearly choked to death the first time I heard this 13 minute epic.It sounds like the ungodly product of a demonic union between WS Gilbert and The Village People and is breath-taking in its excruciating awfulness and willfull over-ambition.There is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album and this is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album           Some people! Have you noticed that there is that exact same review for Rush's Hemispheres, just with the names changed?

I was going to point that out too!

Posted: 2005 06 July at 1:10pm | IP Logged	http://www.progarchives.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=675437&TPN=8">

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=3073 - RUSH - Hemispheres (1978)
Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=38621 - Permanent link ) by Rich @ 2:38:41 AM EST, 7/6/2005

  —   I really love this album,from the ham-fisted guitar to the girlie vocals and from the over- blown concept right up to the masterpiece of mirth that is Cignus X-1 Book11. Long years in the making,due to ego clashes and arguments about makeup,Elton John being part of the recording process then not and finally producer Pete Waterman being replaced by Little Jimmy Osmond,the band finally got this meisterwerk out into the public consciousness.Once out there it was a smash,spending 16 weeks at Number One in Albania and going Quadruple Platinum in Belize. When one listens to Geddy Lee's bass one is immediately reminded of Chas n Dave's egregious masterpieces of the early 80's.I can think of no higher praise than that. I find that "La Villa Strangiato" fills me with nostalgia,or should that be neuralgia? I'm not sure but I know that Mrs Peart should have decided against that shiny red kit for young Neal's 6th Birthday.- what can I say? Cignus X-1 Book11 I nearly choked to death the first time I heard this 18 minute epic.It sounds like the ungodly product of a demonic union between WS Gilbert and The Village People and is breath-taking in its excrutiating awfulness and willfull over-ambition.There is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album and this is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album.


This one cracked me up. Still, not a touch on Ozalan's

Posted: 2005 06 July at 1:10pm | IP Logged	http://www.progarchives.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=675437&TPN=8">

Not such a great wit after all it seems!

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">

Snow Dog wrote: Rhayader wrote: Tony R wrote: They should be more humorous This is my favourite one and it was deleted.... ../Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=1874"> EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) - Works Vol. 1 Review by Karnevil Nein! @ 5:38:47 PM EST, 4/5/2005   —   I really love this album,from the ham-fisted keyboards to the twee vocals and from every over-blown piece of orchestration right up to the masterpiece of mirth that is Pirates. Long years in the making,due to ego clashes and arguments about makeup,Elton John being part of the recording process then not and finally producer Pete Waterman being replaced by Little Jimmy Osmond,the band finally got this meisterwerk out into the public consciousness.Once out there it was a smash,spending 16 weeks at Number One in Albania and going Quadruple Platinum in Belize. When one listens to Emerson's Piano Concertos one is immediately reminded of Les Dawson's egregious masterpieces of the early 70's.I can think of no higher praise than that. I find that "The Enemy God Dances With The Black Spirits" fills me with nostalgia,or should that be neuralgia? I'm not sure-but I know that Mrs Palmer should have decided against that shiny red kit for young Carl's 6th Birthday.Pirates-what can I say?I nearly choked to death the first time I heard this 13 minute epic.It sounds like the ungodly product of a demonic union between WS Gilbert and The Village People and is breath-taking in its excruciating awfulness and willfull over-ambition.There is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album and this is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album           Some people! Have you noticed that there is that exact same review for Rush's Hemispheres, just with the names changed? I was going to point that out too! Posted: 2005 06 July at 1:10pm | IP Logged http://www.progarchives.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=675437&TPN=8"> http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=3073 - RUSH - Hemispheres (1978) Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=38621 - Permanent link ) by Rich @ 2:38:41 AM EST, 7/6/2005   —   I really love this album,from the ham-fisted guitar to the girlie vocals and from the over- blown concept right up to the masterpiece of mirth that is Cignus X-1 Book11. Long years in the making,due to ego clashes and arguments about makeup,Elton John being part of the recording process then not and finally producer Pete Waterman being replaced by Little Jimmy Osmond,the band finally got this meisterwerk out into the public consciousness.Once out there it was a smash,spending 16 weeks at Number One in Albania and going Quadruple Platinum in Belize. When one listens to Geddy Lee's bass one is immediately reminded of Chas n Dave's egregious masterpieces of the early 80's.I can think of no higher praise than that. I find that "La Villa Strangiato" fills me with nostalgia,or should that be neuralgia? I'm not sure but I know that Mrs Peart should have decided against that shiny red kit for young Neal's 6th Birthday.- what can I say? Cignus X-1 Book11 I nearly choked to death the first time I heard this 18 minute epic.It sounds like the ungodly product of a demonic union between WS Gilbert and The Village People and is breath-taking in its excrutiating awfulness and willfull over-ambition.There is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album and this is nothing like a great Prog Rock Album. This one cracked me up. Still, not a touch on Ozalan's Posted: 2005 06 July at 1:10pm | IP Logged http://www.progarchives.com/forum/edit_post.asp?M=Q&PID=675437&TPN=8"> Not such a great wit after all it seems!

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery!

I am EXTREMELY flattered,ta RichardH !

Snow Dog wrote: ^ OK I see whats going on

Slow Dog.

Tony R wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ OK I see whats going on Slow Dog.

Well that review of yours was before my time! I missed all the Karnevil 9 stuff that went on!

Snow Dog wrote: Tony R wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ OK I see whats going on Slow Dog. Well that review of yours was before my time! I missed all the Karnevil 9 stuff that went on!

No it wasn't.

Tony R wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Tony R wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ OK I see whats going on Slow Dog. Well that review of yours was before my time! I missed all the Karnevil 9 stuff that went on! No it wasn't.

You're right, I never noticed it before......well most of the big arguments with Karnie were before my time!

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!

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.

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

Certif1ed wrote: 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;

No problem - ratings 4 and 5 are the ones for you. I don't see any problem. 

Certif1ed wrote: 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".

There is NO SUCH THING as an "Average Prog Listener". You surely notice how much the two of us disagree on Meshuggah ... I guess we also disagree on Fantomas, Dillinger Escape Plan etc. Those bands cannot be quantified easily. You can just say "this band sounds like ... well, like no other band I know".

Certif1ed wrote: 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.

It's imperative to quantify in terms of subgenres. Newcomers will not begin with obscure albums with very few ratings. They will look at the top 100 list and explore prog from there (at least they should). If you don't quantify on subgenres, but choose the lowest common denominator instead, your review is likely to contain no valuable information at all.

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.

Snow Dog wrote:   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!

1. A review is not about how prog something is, it's your personal subjective view of the quality presented in the album.

2. When in the archives one can assume the album is prog and should be regarded as such.

Of course one should weigh in the prog factor, but that can also be doen by stating such in the review.

For excample.

A five star review of We Can't Dance by Genesis is possible, but we all know that it isn't really a progressive album, so in the review you can state something like this.

Though not really a progressive masterpiece, this album deserves 5 stars, because of the musicality, and sheer brilliance of the melodies and performance that warrant a five stars rating nontheless, but be warned, if you're looking for progressive music don't try this, for it's brilliant pop, but not prog.

Of course a 4 star rating would be more in place, substracting a star because of the non-progressiveness of the album, but that should be mentioned in the review.

Just some loose thoughts, fire at will

tuxon wrote: A five star review of We Can't Dance by Genesis is possible, but we all know that it isn't really a progressive album, so in the review you can state something like this. Though not really a progressive masterpiece, this album deserves 5 stars, because of the musicality, and sheer brilliance of the melodies and performance that warrant a five stars rating nontheless, but be warned, if you're looking for progressive music don't try this, for it's brilliant pop, but not prog. Of course a 4 star rating would be more in place, substracting a star because of the non-progressiveness of the album, but that should be mentioned in the review. Just some loose thoughts, fire at will

The problem is that the rating is used to calculate the top 100 list. So in essence, the rating should MAINLY be about the album's relevance in a prog context. But it can't be entirely based on the "prog factor", because it is subjective.

I don't think that rigid rules make sense here ... a good compromise seems to be to calculate the prog factor as objectively as possible, and then to add a star if you like the album much more than the objective rating represents, or to subtract one star if you "hate" it.

Example: I would rate Meshuggah's "I" EP 4 stars. I think it is a very good Meshuggah album,but - given the "remoteness" of the music compared to standard prog - only a "good" prog album. => 3 stars, and I add one because I really like it.

HaHaHaHa missed me

MikeEnRegalia wrote: tuxon wrote: A five star review of We Can't Dance by Genesis is possible, but we all know that it isn't really a progressive album, so in the review you can state something like this. Though not really a progressive masterpiece, this album deserves 5 stars, because of the musicality, and sheer brilliance of the melodies and performance that warrant a five stars rating nontheless, but be warned, if you're looking for progressive music don't try this, for it's brilliant pop, but not prog. Of course a 4 star rating would be more in place, substracting a star because of the non-progressiveness of the album, but that should be mentioned in the review. Just some loose thoughts, fire at will The problem is that the rating is used to calculate the top 100 list. So in essence, the rating should MAINLY be about the album's relevance in a prog context. But it can't be entirely based on the "prog factor", because it is subjective. I don't think that rigid rules make sense here ... a good compromise seems to be to calculate the prog factor as objectively as possible, and then to add a star if you like the album much more than the objective rating represents, or to subtract one star if you "hate" it. Example: I would rate Meshuggah's "I" EP 4 stars. I think it is a very good Meshuggah album,but - given the "remoteness" of the music compared to standard prog - only a "good" prog album. => 3 stars, and I add one because I really like it.

Who cares about the top 100 list

that's just a list, do you really think a non-progressive album ever get's high into such a list, doubt it sincerely since most prog-fans will think trice before asigning a five star rating to a non-prog album, but some that love such an album will, and since the album is included they are entitled to do so.

And don't start about radiohead or dream Theater, for both bands are in the archives and therefor prog, when you personally feel different state such in one sentence in a review, and then review the album according to it's quality independant of the progressiveness, maybe substract one star from the rating, as long as you state how you come to the rating.

I think, so keep firing at Will Velvet, Let's see how many he can dodge

tuxon wrote: Who cares about the top 100 list

I didn't mean so much the list in itself, but figures like the average rating, number of reviews etc. are used in several functions on this site, for example the "related albums" feature. It would simply be a good thing if the rating is related to the "prog factor" in some way.  

Now your taking Grace under fire

picture didn't work, I'll have to surrender on Will's behave now

fire away please

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......

Sean Trane wrote: 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......

that's a good point, I always wonder about that, are there really people who give higher ratings, or lower ratings than the album actually deserves according themselves, just to get their average rating more to their liking. Would be wrong to do if you'd ask me. Give an album the rating it deserves in your opinion, and don't let your rating be guided by other things than your personal opinion about the album.

I think the top 100 list is a good thing to have, but don't expect it to be to your liking, for it displays the most popular/best known, and also the best albums, but the more unknown albums are not going to be on such a list, that's what exploring is all about, finding something in the haystack that blows you away

Arteum wrote: 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.

I think that 4 star albums can be essential, but only for fans of that sub genre. 5 stars should be albums that EVERY prog fan should have. An album like Shadow Gallery: Tyranny for example would be 4 stars ... but the problem is that I love that album so much that it would break my heart to rate it any less than MAXIMUM. This is too difficult ...  

Sean Trane wrote: 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......

I'm sick of the people always complaining about the people constantly looking at that list.

I'm sick of people always complaining about people always complaining about... oh forget it!

This is just a website- whats the big deal- nothing to get all pissy about- bad-reviews are a part of life- everyone had their own opinions- even if they are sucky

Drew wrote: This is just a website- whats the big deal- nothing to get all pissy about- bad-reviews are a part of life- everyone had their own opinions- even if they are sucky

What's all this "pissy" and "sucky"?

You a rent boy?

Or about 9 yrs old............................

Tony R wrote: Drew wrote: This is just a website- whats the big deal- nothing to get all pissy about- bad-reviews are a part of life- everyone had their own opinions- even if they are sucky What's all this "pissy" and "sucky"? You a rent boy?     Or about 9 yrs old............................

he's from the United States

(sorry America, wanted to say it, doesn't mean I think your all pissy sucky wanky yankee doodley)

I'm also of the opinion that this one is more just than "just a website", but one of it's best qualities, is that everyone is allowed to say her or his opinion, post her or his review (including fanboys and hateboys), have a favorite band and so on. And because of that, your are going to find all kinds of people here (which is great). If anyone doesn't like that, he can always create a yahoo-group of something like that, and decide himself who is gonna belong to it or not.

That also the reason why moderators and admins should be extremly tolerant about reviews (actually about everything on this site) and try not to erase much of them; their variety and polarity are the escence of this great site.

PD: By the way Tuxon, America is a continent, not a country.

Wow- you guys take this S*it way too seriously- must quote me over, and over, wow-

Oh- ouch- that hurts- hey- I got quoted again!!! lol

One last thing bout reviews- you run into trouble when reviewers mostly review albums that they LOVE- ( i must admit- i have done more positive reviews than negative reviews) Inagine if you reviewed every single album that you had, or heard? it would throw the ratings WAY off- just a thought.