How can metal be prog?

Tapfret wrote: 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.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 11 2008 at 12:31

Ivan wrote: They honestly believe it's correct to split the genre in three, they gave logical reasons, so they are doing an honest job.    I disagree with the split, I said it when the genre split (not just today), that's my point of view, and I believe I'm entitled to give it.   That's not derogatory, we are in front of two different and opposite opinions, but this doesn't mean i don't respect the hard job the Prog Metal team has done.   If I had said "They know is not correct and still do it", that's derogatory, but I said they believe in something, they defend their position with arguments and they concvince the people in charge and that's correct despite I disagree with that action.....Then it's anything but derogatory.   I may be right or wrong as them, but if they did something they believe in, even when there's a chance it's not the best option, they are doing their job according to their beliefs, and that's what i said.,   People can say the same about the Symphonic Team, as a fact a lot of people disagreed and still do with Gentle Giant being moved from Symphonic as King Crimson, I may be wrong, the whole team may had been wrong (I don't believe it), but we did a job according to our honest beliefs, and that's enough.   The same goes for the Prog Metal Team, they believe they need three genres, i believe it's a distorsion of Prog history...Who is right and who is wrong? Only time will tell, but none of us has been dishonest or acted badly.   Iván

Thank you for clarifying. I hope you see how easy the literary equation was to reach the conclusion.

As far as the split goes, that argument has been hashed out numerous times. The problem is that the only
common thread between the bands in those genres is the use of highly distorted guitars.  Lumping all bands
with that single criteria to one sub-genre makes as much sense as linking all bands with a mellotron into one
sub-genre. Additionally, I have argued numerous times that there are several bands that are poorly placed in
the Progmetal sub-genres simply because of the occasionally distorted guitar.  Some bands you may even
enjoy Ivan, but probably won't hear because of their sub-genre.  Anti-depressive Delivery for example, occasionally
distort their guitars in one album and get labeled Tech/Extreme, when the Kansas and Pink Floyd influence
give the overall feel and direction of an eclectic prog band.

I may be wrong about this, but history has little to do with the classification of bands. The only subs that are
bound by chronology are Proto and Prog-related. 

As far as the ratings distortions go, sure, some of us have not been around as long as you to know how
bad the Octavarium situation was.  But it doesn't take long to understand the virulence of popularity. It just so
happens that PM has the most bands with that sort of virulent popularity, that much i can agree upon. But that
is clearly not the only situation with that sort of difficulty.  Not to long ago Bedlam in Goliath was in a similar
situation. Even now, the new Nemo album that is not due for release until 2009 is sitting with four 5 star ratings.
Yes, a lot different than the 50 that you mentioned prior to Octavarium's release, but considering how many
post-release ratings Nemo is likely to have, it is still likely to be skewed.

Its an unfortunate side effect of popularity.  Maybe the new Magma release will have that kind of effect. 

We need more Bacamarte fanboys.


Edited by Tapfret - December 11 2008 at 13:43

 

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:   Well, let's check your examples: This happened in the case of Dream Theater's 'Train of Thought' long before 'Octavarium'.   Train of thought was released before Prog Archives was founded, so we don't know, but even if it would had happened, we're talking about the same band and of course the same genre.   But lets compare:   Octavarium has 561 reviews and 53 threads (Not counting the deleted)    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),   Blue Lambency Downward had 18 reviews and  2 miserable threads...THAT'S ALL!!!!!   Mars Volta's 'Bedlam in Goliath' (down from mid-4s to 3.53)   Bedlam in Goliath has only 11 threads http://www.progarchives.com/forum/search_results_topics.asp?SearchID=20081211133539&KW=Bedlam+in+Goliath and 110 reviews, the fith part of Octavarium.   BTW, the first reviews and ratings are full of 2 and 3 stars, there is much more consequence.   and Pendragon's 'Pure' (was near 5 in the early days, now 4.19)   Pendragon Pure has 84 reviews and still a very decent 4.19 average and only 4  threads,   I check every case, and what happened with Octavarium, has never happened again.     - though clearly not to the same extent as these bands are not as popular as DT and so the humbers are 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.   The same 5 albums are in the top since I came here, and those albums have 30 or almost 40 years of released.   Iván

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.

russellk wrote: Oh please, Ivan. Do you disagree with everything I say just for the sake of an argument?   Please Russellk, is your short term memory bad? You are the one who disagreed with what I said and even made a full post, that here it is:   [quote] 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: ..... Posted at 14:15 Until that point, I haven't even refer or talked about a post written by you.   So leave things clear, you are the one disagreeing with what I say and I replied you, it's clear as water. And it's OK, it's your God given right to agree or disagree with me.     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.     Please Russelk, you and me know that the top 10 changed BECAUSE THE ALGORITHM CHANGED, BEFORE THAT WAS PRETTY STABLE.   As a fact Hybris went down in 2006 or 2007 when the number of reviews was added to the formula. The rating of Foxtrot, The Lamb, Fragile, etc that were in the top 10 has not changed or if it has done is a minimum change, what has changed i9s the formula to place the albums in the top 100.   When we joined this forum, the SC ratings were worth 2, now are worth 10 times, that changed the position of many albums, then (or before) the number of reviews was added as a factor in the formula, and that changed also the position of several albums, and Hybris with the 269 reviews, has gone down to 4.42, despite 63% of the ratings give them 5 stars     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.   Not accurate either Russelk, Train of Thought has 11 threads against 53 of Octavarium. The first ten reviews of Train of Thoughts have this ratings (5, 1, 1, 4, 3, 5, 1, 5, 2, 3 stars in each case), the first ten Octavarium reviews have (5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 3, 5, 5, 5). if you make a simple average of the first ten reviews:   Train of Thoughts has an average of 3 Octavarium has an average of 4.8 So maybe what you say happened on another forum, not here. And i can continue with the first 20, 30 or 40 and the average will be similar. As a fact Train of Thoughts if we add the algorithm, probably had a similar average on the first days than today with 3.49. 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.   Sorry, Train of thoughts (Your example) has 485 reviews, very close to the 561 of Octavarium, but the difference from 3.0 to 4.8 is dramatic.   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?   It has to do, because dependiong on the number of Collaborators reviewing the algorithm and the value given to the number of reviews makes it change.   Iván

oh this is precious...

*munch munch munch*

Just the usual, Micky. Can't be bothered, really. Why respond to a series of points that have nothing to do with my post? I didn't disagree with Ivan, I said I didn't understand the argument. Still don't. A welter of facts and figures is no substitute for actually addressing someone else's question. So here's the question again: can someone explain to me why the pattern of initial high ratings that fall after exposure to a wider listener base is different in KIND (NOT degree, which Ivan's statistics ALL address) between prog metal and other genres?

russellk wrote: can someone explain to me why the pattern of initial high ratings that fall after exposure to a wider listener base is different in KIND (NOT degree, which Ivan's statistics ALL address) between prog metal and other genres?

Here is the sequence:

1.- If you had followed the`posts since the start, you would had found that one of the statements I made is that despite Prog Metal exists you don't need to like Prog to like Prog Metal, you only need to like Metal like Rogerthat said:.

2.- Then Crimson87 made a point:

3.- So then I posted saying that this was not the only distortion that came from Metal fans, not the teams, not the members (because few are the ones who did fanboyish reviews without having heard the album but a recording made by LaBrie as later was discovered,

This extremely high ratings, come mostly from guys who are not usual visitors of the site,. metal lurkers (like the kid who said that Yes was the worst Prog Metal band ever), and those are the ones who distort the ratings. This doesn't happen with other genres, because people who come to rate other bands are normally Progheads or at least they have an idea of what progressive Rock is.

Now this lurkers only visit us when the album is fresh, then they usually never come back, because they discover that this is a Progressive Rock site, not exclusively a Prog Metal site as they believed Now you follow it? Can you see the pattern?

 That's why this patter happens in prog Metal and not in other genres

Nobody is attacking Prog Metal, just pointing something that looks as a fact to me, but I was one of the first to say Prog Metal is a Prog sub-genre by own right.

4.- Then you came out of nowhere inn page 9 and your first post was to question me, without having a clue about what had been talked two or three pages before, and still you dare to say I want to discuss with you?

You are the one that without having followed the discussion made a statement as if we were attacking Prog Metal.

You are the one that argued about what I was saying, I diodn't search for you, you came to question me, and it's ok, but don't dare to ask why i always disagree with you, because that's exactly the opposite to whatb happened here.

 

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 11 2008 at 19:35

Prog metal reviews were taking up a lot of space for a while. Then David Bowie took up his few weeks in the limelight, and Steely Dan once they were included. As both acts have a finite number of albums, the "floods" were brief. Prog metal on the other hand is a relatively new genre here at PA, and so we're going to see a lot of reviews.
Imagine if Krautrock was not yet a PA prog genre. Then we had it as of tomorrow. Do you think that there wouldn't be a ton fo albums reviewed over the next little while. And this for a genre whose heyday lasted a decade. Prog Metal and Extreme/Post metal have been building up their ranks since the late 80s, some 20 years. And metal, in all its' forms, like prog, is a genre that never really goes away. It goes underground, then a new wave comes crashing through every few years.
SO how should the PM denigrators handle this supposed onslaught ? Simple - if you can read, each review has cover of the album next to it. Under that cover, there is the genre to which the band has been assigned. If it read "Prog Metal", "Post-Metal"," Extreme/Tech Metal", then pass it over and go to the next one. Poof, that stress is relieved.
You will also notice , as of this writing, that out of the last 50 reviews, there are 7 that relate to one of the Prog Metal sub genres, and two are post metal. Neo, Symphonic & Heavy have the rest, with one Krautrock, and 2 prog folk.
So, with this in mind, should we stop reviewing the popular genres, and try and get a few dozen raga rock and jazz fusion reviews ?
Should PA set up a quota system that would establish a genre & sub-genre quota for the last 50 reviews ? Oops , sorry, Prog Electronic has hit its' share for this slice of 50 reviews, try again later.

EACH TIME ONE OF THESE "HOW CAN GENRE X BE PROG (JAZZ-FUSION/METAL/ECLECTIC/NEO ETC), ALL THAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE GENRES STAY.
If you have missed the debate that preceded a genre's inclusion, use the SEARCH function.
All you're doing is going over well trod ground, and annoying many people. Do you see Vibration Baby starting threads proclaiming that any Symphonic Prog released after 1975 is not prog ? He put this opinion on a that in a few threads. Nowhere has he started a thread suggesting that maybe the music since then should not be here. He simply gave his opinion when & where it was relevant. Not a 100 page thread of highly conflicting and endlessly circular reasoning that accomplished nothing more than to exhaust PAers, until a month or two, then someone starts the same thread all over again.
Prog Metal, and its' sub-genres are prog in PA's view. If you find there are too many reviews for that music, write up your own about other genres. If you don't like the PM genre, so what. I don't care for Raga Rock. I don't like any electronic prog except Kraftwerk, and I've heard Tangerine Dream's best. Krautrock leaves me befuddled for the most part, but some are interesting. And for the life of me, I often find a lot of prog folk very borderline prog.
But they are all included here, and they all have their fans (except for maybe raga rock, the orphan child of PA)
So if you're just interested in discussing whether a genre deserves to be considered prog instead of denigrating a specific one, at least make it an equal opportunity thing. Go through each of the above genres, and after a week for each , close it off and move on to the next one.
GAWD !

russellk wrote: See, here's the problem, Ivan. Some things happen in the world that are not directed at you, and my post was one of them. I asked the general question as to what the argument was,

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 11 2008 at 22:25