Collaborators’ TOP 20

richardh wrote: I notice that the only ELP album in there was just about hanging on to No20 when I last looked.If changing the system gets it further up the chart then I agree

Me too Richard... !!!

All:

First, let me say that I agree that ratings should not be included without an accompanying review.  True, it might take a bit of time to write text reviews for 20 or 30 albums, but that is not an excuse.  If necessary, write a short review; after all, one can say alot in two or three well-chosen paragraphs.

That said, I believe there are two factors involved here.  First, unless I am gravely mistaken, the majority of "collaborators" are "older."  Yes, there are some "youngsters," ()  but most of the collaborators lived through the early years of prog.  Thus, we are more familiar with the "seminal" bands (Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP, VDGG), and they (and a few others) hold a special place in our hearts.

Which leads me to the second factor: history.  Although many neo-prog bands are exceptionally talented re composition, musicianship, production, etc., there is no question that all of them were influenced by one or another of the seminal bands listed above, to various degrees: i.e., it is rare that a "neo-prog" band adds anything truly "new" to the prog-rock "lexicon."  Given this, I have stated many times that, for me, the "success" of a neo-prog band is dependent on how well they "filter" those influences, and what comes out the other end.

Many neo-prog bands "wear their influences on their sleeves."  And although even some of these bands are quite good (and listenable, depending on your tastes), they suffer from a lack of "creativity" (which is not the same as originality"; one can be "creative" even with obvious influences).

However, some neo-prog bands are more successful at filtering their influences, and come out with music that is "creative," possibly even (in some sense) "new" and/or interesting - and, if they're really good, something exciting, compelling or even extraordinary.  And although these bands are few, they do "get their due" here on Progarchives, at least as far as I have seen.

Having said all that, I believe that those of us from the "old school" are not so much "denying" the excellence of neo-prog bands (certainly most (or all) of us see the exceptional merits of bands like Marillion, Dream Theater, Spock's Beard, Anglagard, and many early and neo-prog Italian groups), but rather have a difficult time "taking them on their own merits," since, by their very nature, they are filtering the influence of one or more of the seminal prog groups.

I agree that this may be an impediment to reviewing neo-prog with the same "ear" as we (i.e., the "older folks") do with seminal prog.  And I, personally, have been making efforts to listen for and find the "new masterpieces" (as our good friend Peter Rideout puts it) among neo-prog groups and albums.  And I strongly urge my "older" colleagues to do the same.

However, although I consider Dream Theater's "Scenes From a Memory," Spock's Beard's "The Light," and Ark's "Burn the Sun" (among others) to be candidates for "new masterpieces," I gave them each four stars rather than five because, although they are clearly exceptional, even highly "creative" works, they could not have existed without the prior works of the seminal prog bands that those groups (and others) were filtering.  This seems to be one (and possibly the primary) reason why we "older folks" have a hard time giving five stars to neo-prog albums.  And as you can imagine, it is something extremely difficult to "get around" and ignore.

Comments?

Peace.

diddy wrote:   But there's maybe one point of just giving a star rating without a review: I can imagine very well that it might be not very easy for someone to write a review for one of the "big ones"...there are more than 30 reviews, some of the authors have seen the band live...what should a 20 year old proghead tell THEM about Foxtrot just to name an example? Or better (because reviews are mainly for people not knowing the band) wich information could he add, after 30 reviews? I haven't written a review for one of these albums yet...and I for one don't know if I'm going to do so. If there's someone who anyhow wants to contribute something I don't know why he should't rate the album without the review...I don't do so but I think it's a point because I know the problems with reviewing albums like Foxtrot...

All reviews are equally valid. As one of the older ones, I value the opinions of "20 year old progheads" immensely. Sometimes, the affection us older ones have for our "favourites" may unintentionally inhibit us from writing about them objectively. Many of us have fond memories attached to those albums. To read reviews written without that "baggage" can be as enlightening and informative as a historical appraisal.

Because some of us have listened to albums such as "Foxtrot" constantly for over 30 years for example, we perceive that they have not aged. It can be very interesting to hear the views of someone who is listening to them for the first time in 2004.

 Never hold back, diversity of views and perspectives is what this site thrives on.

THIS ONE IS FOR THE NON-SPEAKING ENGLISH MEMBERS (BUT THOSE WHO WILL UNDERSTAND THIS WORDS): I KNOW SOME OF YOU GUYS DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO WRITE SOME WORDS IN ENGLISH WHILE REVIEWING SOME OF YOUR FAVORITE ALBUMS...AND JUST CAST YOUR VOTE AND NO REVIEW ABOUT THE WHYS OF YOUR RATING. MY ENGLISH IS NOT PERFECT, THANKS TO THIS WEBSITE I'M IMPROVING MY COMPRENHENSION, BUT IF YOU HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE ALBUM OR GROUP YOU LIKE, JUST WRITE IT IN YOUR NATIVE LANGUAGE, THOUGH IT'S SAID THAT YOU SHOULD WRITE YOUR OPINIONS IN ENGLISH, PROGARCHIVES DOESN'T BAN YOUR REVIEWS EITHER IF THEY ARE IN SPANISH OR IN OTHER LANGUAGE. I MADE SOME REVIEWS IN  SPANISH, BUT FROM NOW ON I'LL DO IT IN ENGLISH, BY THE WAY, SOME OF MY SPANISH REVIEWS HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THE WEBSITE , BUT NO MATTER, WRITE ABOUT YOUR TASTES ON PROGRESSIVE MUSIC... I GLAD TO BE A NEWBIE REVIEWER  I THINK THE COUNTING STARS SHOULD GO ACCORDING WITH THE CRITICS YOU READ ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR ALBUM.

Any chart is going to have its shortcomings, but I think the one on the home page is a pretty good reflection on our collective tastes, if the forum is anyhting to go by.

No great hangups about whether or not a review is submitted with the star rating to count. Personally, I cannot see the point of just giving a rating, it's writing the review which is the enjoyable bit anyway. Writing the review should help to lead you to the appropriate star rating.

I notice that the only ELP album in there was just about hanging on to No20 when I last looked.If changing the system gets it further up the chart then I agree

The ProgArchives Home Page displays the "TOP 20: Collaborators' most popular progressive rock albums". It is derived from Collaborators' star ratings irrespective of whether a Collaborator has posted a review to go with his/her rating.

Question: Should a rating without a review count in deriving the Collaborators' TOP 20?

Boy the above question sounds nerdy, but I'm asking it because e.g. PINK FLOYD's "Meddle" is higher up than "DSOTM" but the reviews by Collaborators for those two albums appear to indicate the opposite. Personally I'd prefer the TOP 20 to ignore Collaborators' star ratings unless they have accompanying text.