Am I reading this correctly?

http://boards.4chan.org/mu/

^ Go there to learn everything about the art of being a pretentious t**t.

What do you call an underwater eel that frivolously wastes his life away watching reruns of reality tv shows?

A plebeian moray! HUR HUR HAHAHAHAHA! I made that up all by myself.

My thoughts on the discussion so far:

- By and large I think the chart system works. There's a few releases on there where I think "maaaaan, what the hell is wrong with people that they rate it that high?" and a few releases that I'd be pleased to see on there that aren't, but whatever the current status of the top 100 list is at least like (and usually love) *FAR* more albums on it than I dislike. As a collective we have pretty good tastes, to be honest. As far as the weighting system goes, I think the rationale behind it is a pretty good one - there's no good reason why anyone should give more weight to the opinion of a drive-by rating than a fully-considered review.

- As far as ELP go I have a love/hate relationship with them. I dig their debut and Trilogy, love the first side of Tarkus but roll my eyes at the second side, and really don't like Brain Salad Surgery or anything that followed it at all. On the whole I think their placing on the current top 100 is more or less fair; of the really BIG prog names of the 1970s, I consider them to be the least consistent in terms of album quality, and I genuinely think they've dated a lot worse than their contemporaries have; I've noted that a lot of people of my prog generation or younger tend to dig ELP less than the old guard do, at any rate, whereas I fully expect Yes and Genesis and King Crimson to retain a strong fanbase for decades to come and a "Pink Floyd phase" has pretty much become a rite of passage for a lot of teenagers into music. ;)

That said, their first album does seem to be fairly impressive to the development of the scene when you put it next to the other releases of 1970 and earlier so it's probably fair that it's in the top 100. On the other hand, it's got 42 years' worth of new music to compete with and "it sounded really incredible at the time" doesn't really cut it because new listeners don't have time machines and aren't going to be able to experience ELP the way they were received in 1970, so the fact that it isn't very high on the top 100 also seems appropriate to me.

(As for the idea that Brain Salad Surgery - or even Trilogy - qualify as ELP's all-time "classic" album... Benny the Bouncer. "Someone get me a ladder!" The Sheriff. 'nuff said: comedy ELP is the worst ELP.)

- I'm not worried about the phenomenon of the latest hot album appearing in the chart, hovering about for a while, and then plummeting down to earth. In general if an album gets that much of a good reaction from the community it deserves its time in the sun, and if it disappears from the chart then, well, the problem's solved itself and a new album of the moment can take its place, no worries. And if it sticks around... then a new release just beat a bunch of 1970s old guard classics, and that's something we should be celebrating rather than griping about. (Personally I think the new BBT release fully deserves its spot, it's one of the most impressive albums I've heard for ages.)

- Dream Theater: so, if I am to understand right, Dream Theater have to work hard to get a high place in the charts because there are a punch of people who do not like their music and give their albums low ratings?

I am shocked. SHOCKED. Clearly the ratings below three stars need to be disabled on Dream Theater releases so they can get a fair chance. ;)

Seriously, though, if a lot of people dislike Dream Theater that's not any sort of proof of unfair persecution; it could equally be evidence that there are a lot of folk who *genuinely don't like Dream Theater's sound*. That doesn't mean they're wrong or DT are bad or their fans are bad, it just means that their sound doesn't have an appeal as broad as that of, say, Genesis or Pink Floyd.

- I like Marmite. :D

I don't think you can resist.