IMPORTANT - Unreviewed Albums

Hello

I can prompt you one address where you can create a site and place those songs which you love. can create the list and a lot of interesting can look there

And all it is Free 

Part of the problem is that some bands have only two or three (if not less) Prog albums and 10 non related, so people usually won't rate them in a Prog place.

Maybe addition of determined albums related to Prog should be allowed.

Iván

Two commentaries:

While I read this list, I discovered that:

The "Moment of Truth" album recorded by ELO part II is listed twice, one as part of ELO`s discography (with Jeff Lynne, which it wasn`t recorded with him),

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD. asp?cd_id=10552

 as released in 1994. In the scan of the cover, one can read that it says "ELO part II". The same album is correctly listed as part of  "ELO part II, post- ELO") as released in 1995. I think that the corect release date was 1994. Both have the same scan of the cover. I can`t write a review for this album because I don`t have it.

The Alan Parsons`album "The Very Best of Live" is listed twice in the Progarchives Discography, which is correct, because there were two releases of this album: the European (with only live tracks, released in 1994)  and the U.S. version (released in 1995 with the same  live tracks but in different order,  plus 3 new songs: "When", "Take the Money and Run" and "You`re the Voice"). The problem with this album is that the titles are in the wrong order: the U.S. version is classified as the "Europa Version" and the "Europa Version" is classified as the U.S. version. I wrote a long time ago a review for the U.S. version classified in Progarchives as the "Europa version". I forgot then to write to Progarchives`Aministrators about these mistakes!

P.D. I`m going to post these commentaries   in the "Errors/Omissions Forum" too (with outside soruces references).

Sean Trane wrote: Avestin: How do you think one gets good in reviewing others than writing reviews>>> practice makes perfect (or at least pretty good in my case)

Thanks for your encouragement. I thikn I'll practice offline for a while and write some, and when I feel they are good I'll upload them here.

For the time being, I'll continue my low-level review/recommendations in my thread "I Recommend..." - It allows me to practice a little bit, before the real thing.

THe problem is that I am a (bit) of a perfectionist. And I have these certain standards of reviews I want to achieve, and if I don't feel I did that, I can feel comfortable with sharing it - you know, mentality problems. I hope this gets resolved soon .

Ivan,

Under the new system, the reviewer name is no longer recorded in the database, just the e-mail address. The reviewer name shown for reviews is picked up virtually from the forum profile "real name".

The effect of this is that queries such as http://www.progarchives.com/?reviewer=ivansfr0st  will only work for reviews submitted before the changes were implemented. M@X is looking at a replacement facility which will allow reviewers to see all their reviews, but that is presently work in progress.

Hope that explanation is clear, but let me know if it needs to be clarified further.

Bob Greece wrote:   I think there's a problem because the review names shown are now the forum names and not the names that were originally given with the reviews. My reviews didn't show up until I added my email address into my forum details so that there was a correspondence between my old reviews and my forum name.

Bob, the reviewer names are now taken from the forum. This is part of the move to requiring reviewers to log in using their forum ID before posting reviews. The forum IDs have been identified by linking the e-mail addresses given by reviewers with those in their forum IDs.

The forum name is now shown as the reviewer, with the "real name" from the forum settings added in brackets. You can of course make your "real name" in the forum details anything you wish it to be.