How can metal be prog?

So , if I understand, there a disagreement , but the decision itself is accepted and respected as made by the people responsible for it
As for Prog metal, and fanboyism ... to summarize - the genre probably does have a younger fanbase than most other prog genres. And youth does have a penchant for enthusiasm. So they post a review after the first listen.
And if this is about higher ratings brought about by this fanboyism, well, don't most of the "experienced" PA members comment that the rating isn't that important, it's more the review(S).

And in ending, having a heated debate does not mean disrespect nor dismissal. Just a difference of opinion.

russellk wrote: Tapfret wrote: I wonder if a "cooling off" period would be beneficial.  Not allow reviews until a month after release. I'm all about waiting periods right now. There have been threads in which people have advocated this. It's a good idea, but there are problems - what about people with legitimate advance copies? Or the many reviewers who will offer a review after listening to an album only once? That doesn't happen just to newly-released albums. In effect, a waiting period will mute the fanboy effect but do nothing to halt the detractor effect. In the end, a careful read of reviews can eliminate both the fanboy and detractor effects. It's just another reason why ratings ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

Sounds like a relatively simple user access issue.  When looking at pre-release reviews/ratings, almost all come
from non-collabs.  Cynic's Traced in Air is a prime example.  More than 30 ratings/reviews prior to the
November 24 release, all non-collabs.  The album still only has one collab review out of 42 rating/reviews.
To me that is an example that collaborators are more prone to give a thorough listen prior to rating an album,
having the sites credibility in mind. Other threads to that effect are present in the collab zone.

Oh please, Ivan. Do you disagree with everything I say just for the sake of an argument? I said the top 50/100, and then later mentioned the Top 10, not the top five. I used the top 10 because the top 5 didn't change (except in order) as a result of the last algorithm.  The top 10 did, though, with Bacamarte and Harmonium making an appearance. But you're flat out wrong about the stability of the top 5 albums: when I came here in March 2005, Hybris was number 2. End of story. As for Train of Thought, while it was released before ProgArchives began, the controversy was of a similar kind - first reviews were overwhelmingly positive, later reviews overwhelmingly negative.

And my other examples stand, your analysis notwithstanding. I made it clear the difference is in DEGREE, not in KIND. Yes, Octavarium was the most significant case, but only because the numbers were greater, not because the trend was any different. The same process has affected other albums, as I showed. The fact that the other albums I mentioned have fewer reviews has nothing to do with the TREND, which is what I was arguing. So I'm still none the wiser, Ivan. How can you say this is exclusively a prog-metal problem?

russellk wrote: I don't really understand this argument. I've been here since 2005, and I've never considered the problem of 'fanboy' and 'detractor' reviews to have been confined to one genre. To my mind it's a perfectly natural phenomenon that works in the following fashion: - an album is purchased on the day of its release by hard-core fans. These people are more likely to give it positive reviews - the second wave of purchasers are somewhat less likely to be positive - a third wave then ensues, made up of detractors determined to 'balance' the fanboys by making spurious 1-star reviews This happened in the case of Dream Theater's 'Train of Thought' long before 'Octavarium'. It's also happened (or is happening) to Kayo Dot's 'Blue Lambency Downward' (was well over 4 in the early days, now 3.62), Mars Volta's 'Bedlam in Goliath' (down from mid-4s to 3.53) and Pendragon's 'Pure' (was near 5 in the early days, now 4.19) - though clearly not to the same extent as these bands are not as popular as DT and so the humbers are not so great. Each of these albums has had a wave of fans followed by balanced reviews and then by spurious low detractors. I was particularly dismayed by poor reviews of 'The Bedlam in Goliath' which gave it one star on the basis of one review and complained the music was too complex. To my mind the problem may appear as a prog-metal problem for two reasons: there are far more P-M fans here than fans of other genres, and many of them are young and inexperienced at communicating. If you allow for this, it seems to me that all we're seeing is the same pattern we see all the time. I'll go further: the same thing happens for classic albums. I remember when the last new algorithm was introduced for the Top 50/100 list, and some lesser-known albums made it into the top 10. Almost immediately the high ratings began to drop as the albums were exposed to a wider audience - only fans and daring listeners had previously gone to the trouble of tracking down what were in some cases hard to get releases. Again, I see this as perfectly natural. Same pattern. Fans first, then a wider audience (drawn by the fans), then the detractors determined to 'balance' the rating.

I wonder if a "cooling off" period would be beneficial.  Not allow reviews until a month after release. I'm all
about waiting periods right now.

I don't really understand this argument. I've been here since 2005, and I've never considered the problem of 'fanboy' and 'detractor' reviews to have been confined to one genre. To my mind it's a perfectly natural phenomenon that works in the following fashion:

- an album is purchased on the day of its release by hard-core fans. These people are more likely to give it positive reviews
- the second wave of purchasers are somewhat less likely to be positive
- a third wave then ensues, made up of detractors determined to 'balance' the fanboys by making spurious 1-star reviews

This happened in the case of Dream Theater's 'Train of Thought' long before 'Octavarium'. It's also happened (or is happening) to Kayo Dot's 'Blue Lambency Downward' (was well over 4 in the early days, now 3.62), Mars Volta's 'Bedlam in Goliath' (down from mid-4s to 3.53) and Pendragon's 'Pure' (was near 5 in the early days, now 4.19) - though clearly not to the same extent as these bands are not as popular as DT and so the humbers are not so great. Each of these albums has had a wave of fans followed by balanced reviews and then by spurious low detractors. I was particularly dismayed by poor reviews of 'The Bedlam in Goliath' which gave it one star on the basis of one review and complained the music was too complex.

To my mind the problem may appear as a prog-metal problem for two reasons: there are far more P-M fans here than fans of other genres, and many of them are young and inexperienced at communicating. If you allow for this, it seems to me that all we're seeing is the same pattern we see all the time.

I'll go further: the same thing happens for classic albums. I remember when the last new algorithm was introduced for the Top 50/100 list, and some lesser-known albums made it into the top 10. Almost immediately the high ratings began to drop as the albums were exposed to a wider audience - only fans and daring listeners had previously gone to the trouble of tracking down what were in some cases hard to get releases. Again, I see this as perfectly natural. Same pattern. Fans first, then a wider audience (drawn by the fans), then the detractors determined to 'balance' the rating.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   I never hidden my opinion that three Prog metal sub-genres is a huge distrorsion of prog history, because it's the only one in the site with this priviledge (Art Rock sub-genres are a different case because each one is different in everything to the other),  we now seem a site that considers Prog Metal the base and foundation of PA.   Nobody belitles the effort of a team, buy the contrary, I think they done a superbb job conviincing people and M@X that Prog Metal needs three different sub-genres, so it would be nice to follow a thread before accusing us of criiticizing a genre or a team, something that at least I never done.   Iván

I'm sorry, but congratulating somebody for accomplishing something that you consider a "distorsion of prog history" sounds mighty critical and derogatory.  I only have to follow 2 of your paragraphs to determine that.

 

Henry Plainview wrote: Hey Visitor, thanks for mentioning Stan Kenton, I hadn't heard of him before and he rules. Mr ProgFreak wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: And that's not all, OCTAVARIUM received during the first days like 66% of  5 stars reviews and 25%  (This means 91% of minimum 4 sdtars) many even said it was the best album ever, and the fact is that when prog Reviewers started to write with responsability, the average went radically down, to the point that it has 3.63 stars despite the avalanche of 5 stars reviews of the first days, a lot of which I'm sure diden't even heard the album The same happens to any high profile band - it's not a problem of a single genre. It's just that prog metal has the highest profile bands with new releases.

1. Review before release were limited
2. The Adms started to block and delete threads that were repeated, a lot about this album were deleted.

Nothing similar happened before or after Octavarium, it was the worst case of fanboyism and distorsion ever.

^ I listened to it twice - so far I think it's in the 7.x range. But I need more listens ...

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Of course. But how can that be a problem ... or are many of those who constantly complain about there being too much prog metal simply envious, and wish that there were more prog rock albums being released today? Well, I can only say that the most fundamental problem that we - the community of prog fans - are facing is the lack of support for new artists. It's really breaking my heart that many members here have only listened to like half a dozen releases of 2008 - regardless of whether they're rock or metal. At PF I'm trying to focus on new bands, and I'm positively surprised about the participation, but I wish there would be more people who are willing to leave the past behind (or at least let the past be the past) and focus on the here and now.

An admirable sentiment but the issue here is about too many reviews submitted in a flurry for new albums. I have observed this on many internet forums....and often these users who submit reviews with extremely high ratings almost on the day of the release never even turn up in the forums if any criticism is addressed to their reviews. In fact, they are hardly seen on the forums and it is not too far fetched to surmise that their sole purpose in submitting reviews could be to "ensure" that their band's album ratings stay high!  What can be done about it? Nothing really, once the reviews are acceptable as per the website standards, they stay, though their intention may not exactly be praiseworthy.  I am sure you agree that jacking up ratings whether for new or old albums is a bad thing because it defeats the rating's utility as a handy guide to whether you need an album or not.