How does the prog factor affect your rating in PA?

Atavachron wrote: As the evaluation process at PA is thorough and well-organized, the likelihood, or perhaps fear, of an artist not being Prog - barring Proto and PR - is not only unlikely but somewhat irrational.  So in a way, the question is irrelevant.   Further, the rating guidelines don't ask about the degree of Prog elements, but rather one's view of the quality of said Prog.   In other words it's a given.   This doesn't mean one may not observe degrees of Prog or a 'Prog approach' in an artist's work, but it does mean the reviewer should be liberated from a need to prove or qualify the music they're reviewing is in fact Prog.

Junges wrote:   Well, maybe people should stop thinking about "oh this is prog, oh this is not prog"..

zravkapt wrote: Personally I would prefer reviews without ratings. My ratings are based on the site's guidelines. I gave some of my favourite albums only 2 stars precisely because I feel they do not deserve any more on a site dedicated to "progressive rock." I'm also in the camp that thinks some throw around their 5-stars too liberally.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Junges wrote: I think it is very stupid to consider how progressive an album is and ignore the music. And that's what many people do. It would be stiupid to do it in a site like Rateyourmusic, where you judge añ}lbums exclusively for their musical qualities. I love Rumors by Fleetwood Mac, in Rateyourmusic I nwould give 500 stars to that album, but in a ProgArchives full genre, we have other requirements. If Rumors was in ProgArchives I would have to go with 3 stars, because Rumors is not an  "essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music" and I would be lying Neithe it is an "Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection" because I don't need a NON-PROG album for my PROG COLLECTION So it's simple, adding non prog bands to FULL PROG GENRES forces me to rate it with les stars than what they deserve only for musical reasons, because being Prog is a requisite for a rating Luckily we have Prog related and Proto Prog that are not Prog categories and the requirements are different, that's why i could rate The Grand Illusion with 5 solid stars, because in my opinion it's an essential: non Prog album.

Edited by Junges - April 04 2012 at 21:58

Junges wrote: I think it is very stupid to consider how progressive an album is and ignore the music. And that's what many people do.

Snow Dog wrote: It says to do so in the guide to what stars mean. So yes. Otherwise it is a false rating not true to the site.

I think it is very stupid to consider how progressive an album is and ignore the music. And that's what many people do.

^ Proto Prog and Prog Related can't get into the general chart. ;)

I dislike the ratings criteria and would rather just rate an album on how much I like it.  Prog genre qualities, plus being progressive in an adjectival sense, are to a considerable extent subjective measures.

I don't like it when I see someone reviewing an album and saying it deserves a low score because it's not Prog or progressive -- and I might disagree with that Prog or progressive quotient evaluation, but I'm fine with people not liking it and thus rating it low, even if I love it, because of taste.

I've suggested other ratings descriptions. 

I like something like, while recognising that it's subjective:

5 stars: Yowza! Sublime, mind-blowing, revelatory...  4 stars: Boner-fied sizzlin!
3 stars: Good. 2 stars: Not that good, but not that bad either.
1 star: Bogus! Horrible. Crappola.

Or better, something like:

5 stars: adoration!
4 stars: love it
3. like to really like
2. don't like
1. hate

Anyway, such a Prog question wouldn't affect my rating, even for albums that I know aren't Prog by the standards of the categories here.  Prog is to an extent in the ear of the behearer, and some purists will come down harder on music that doesn't fit the classic Prog rules, but is considered Prog by the standards of its category.  And I would want to rate a pre-JRF Davis album lower just because it's not JRF -- still may be progressive, but not progressive jazz rock.

Sorry if I'm going off on an aside, but I just have such problems with this:

Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music(39%) Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection(44%) Good, but non-essential (17%) Collectors/fans only (0%) Poor. Only for completionists (0%)

What is an excellent addition for any prog rock collection?  I would prefer it if it said to any well-rounded collection, since there are going to be Prog umbrella styles that do no appeal to everyone.  I would rather, if they have to keep it, to alter it to a masterpiece of its category, but that's still so subjective and depends on how familiar one is with the category.  Some have said that Miles Davis and Herbie Hancock should not be in PA and are not Prog (I rate Prog for this site by how well specific, most representative albums of an artists fits the category, not the artist as a whole), so should those people rate Get Up With It and Crossings or other albums by them lowly because of their notions?  No, they should rate the albums lower if they just don't like them. I would rather personal notions of what is Prog not factor in, as it does too much, I think, but I would extend that to not worrying at all if it is Prog when it comes to my rating (even if I know it's not Prog at all).  Then there are all of the levels of progressiveness/ Prog by degree quotients to consider with an album....


Edited by Logan - April 04 2012 at 15:30

frippism wrote: I really have no idea what section this is supposed to be in.

That is also a good question. It's not a discussion on prog music but about our activity on the site, hence the section where I moved the thread.

As for the issue, IMO the rating has to reflect the quality of the music exclusively, while discussions about the stylistical aspects of the music should have their place in the review.