I actually feel the same Junges, though considering PA"s complete discography policy which I accept, I couldn't think of many albums that I think shouldn't be here even if I know they are not Prog, Get your point, though, and much as I want to digress about having a prog album based category that operates similar to Various Artists where artists that had troubles getting in because of larger discography concerns raised, such as with Donald Byrd for Electric Byrd, William Sheller for Lux Aeterna and with Bob James, could have particular albums included rather than a band/ artist page with discography, I will resist the temptation. ;)
|
If I trust that a rater's tastes are similar to my own, then I trust that his/her ratings would be more in-line with how I would feel about the albums than a reviewer with different tastes. Looking at his/her ratings page through his profile is generally a better use of my time than trawling through the reviews of someone who has different tastes than my own. I discovered a lot of great albums early on because I saw a couple of raters who I noticed had remarkably similar tastes to my own. That said I do love tro read some people's reviews such as Philippe. I just discovered a great Krautrock album today through youtube and went and checked to see if the artist was included and came upon his wonderful 5 star rated review of it.
I rated a lot when M@X brought in that quick rating feature, and have written very few reviews. I don't expect people to look at my ratings; it's practically invisible unless they look at my profile, but it does give an idea of my tastes. I wouldn't expect people to trust it -- it's just a reflection of what I like, and if they like very similar music to me, then maybe they'd like it too.
I like ratings because it gives me an idea of what people like. Sometimes I look to reviews for information, but when someone is asking for recommendations I will often look at their profile to get an idea of their tastes. Ratings tell me more about the person, usually, than the album, but that's okay. If I want reviews, I generally don't look to PA. I hardly ever use PA reviews to discover albums, but some do. I prefer getting recommendations in the forum or by kind members who contact me, or just googling my interests in music or going through youtube clips.
Edited by Logan - April 04 2012 at 22:41
|
Junges wrote:
Well, maybe people should stop thinking about "oh this is prog, oh this is not prog".. |
Then why join Prog Archives and not a General Rock forum? Or lets add everything we like, because Prog could be anything, just stop calling the site Prog Archives.
Junges wrote:
This is an infinite discussion. Some albums are prog for some people, some not for other people. Period. If the albums are here in progarchives, well, review them for their music quality. There are zillions "progressive" albums that I think they shouldn't be here and I am sure everyone can also list zillions of albums they don't think they should be here. Well, what can we do? Just say "this album is not prog but I love it, 5 stars". |
That's your perspective, not mine neither what the guidelines say, even if I liked them I wouldn't rate ABACAB, Big Generator or A La Carte as an essential masterpiece of Prog, simply because it's not Prog.
I prefer to say i love this album but I can't rate it with 5 stars because it's not an essential masterpiece of Prog, that why I fought so hard to block Th Who, because they are one of my favorite bans and I don't want to review them from a Prog perspective
Junges wrote:
f**k if it says "masterpiece of PROGRESSIVE ROCK". Being more prog doesn't make an album better. It is like saying "oh I prefer this album over this one because it is more prog, so it deserves a better rating (even if the music quality isn't better)." |
Nobody says that, I prefer Rumors, Bat Out of Hell, No Need to Argue (Cramberries), Joshua's Tree and of course Who's Next more than most Prog albums...But I would never say they are essential masterpieces of prog, because they are not Prog, as simple as that.
And that argument "More Prog than X" is as absurd as "If X is here, why not Y", if an album is Prog, imust be rated as a Prog album in Prog Archives, I don't agree with the concept of level of progressiveness.
BTW: I don't like Larks Tongues in Aspic that for many is the quintessential Prog album, neither the abusive complexity oif Gentle Giant, that's only taste.
There are Great, good average and terrible Prog albums, the genre doesn't make them good, but to say something is Prog when it isn't, is not accurate
Junges wrote:
Or: "oh I won't give it 5 stars because I don't agree this is symphonic, I think it is crossover or whatever". Doesn't it seem stupid? That's why I say: f**k the classification and rate the quality of music. |
That would be absurd, no matter what the subgenre, if a Prog album is essential, I would rate it with 5 stars, but I would also say I don't believe it's Symphonic.
I rated a couple of Santana albums very high, and I believe they should not be in Jazz Rock Fusion.
Junges wrote:
But... that's just my opinion. Let people do whatever they think it is right.
|
Exactly, then don't qualify their opinions as stupid.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 04 2012 at 22:40
|
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.
|