The ProgArchives Home Page displays the "TOP 20: Collaborators' most popular progressive rock albums". It is derived from Collaborators' star ratings irrespective of whether a Collaborator has posted a review to go with his/her rating.

Question: Should a rating without a review count in deriving the Collaborators' TOP 20?

Boy the above question sounds nerdy, but I'm asking it because e.g. PINK FLOYD's "Meddle" is higher up than "DSOTM" but the reviews by Collaborators for those two albums appear to indicate the opposite. Personally I'd prefer the TOP 20 to ignore Collaborators' star ratings unless they have accompanying text.

Any chart is going to have its shortcomings, but I think the one on the home page is a pretty good reflection on our collective tastes, if the forum is anyhting to go by.

No great hangups about whether or not a review is submitted with the star rating to count. Personally, I cannot see the point of just giving a rating, it's writing the review which is the enjoyable bit anyway. Writing the review should help to lead you to the appropriate star rating.

ANOTHER THING IS THAT IN THIS SIDE OF THE WORLD SOME GREAT ALBUMS DOESN'T COME AROUND HERE. ANGLAGARD IS A VERY RARE BAND IN THESE TROPICAL LANDS...BUT WE HAVE GENESIS, FLOYD, MARILLION, RUSH AND OTHERS THAT ARE REALLY POPULAR "ROCK" BANDS (AND I MEAN ROCK... AROUND HERE SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS HARDER IS ROCK IN GENERAL TERMS). THAT COULD BE A REASON WHY SOME OF THE WELL-KNOWN BANDS APPEAR IN THE 20'S MOST POPULAR.

ANYWAY I'M GLAD THAT FOXTROT IS TOPPING THE CHART

diddy wrote:   But there's maybe one point of just giving a star rating without a review: I can imagine very well that it might be not very easy for someone to write a review for one of the "big ones"...there are more than 30 reviews, some of the authors have seen the band live...what should a 20 year old proghead tell THEM about Foxtrot just to name an example? Or better (because reviews are mainly for people not knowing the band) wich information could he add, after 30 reviews? I haven't written a review for one of these albums yet...and I for one don't know if I'm going to do so. If there's someone who anyhow wants to contribute something I don't know why he should't rate the album without the review...I don't do so but I think it's a point because I know the problems with reviewing albums like Foxtrot...

All reviews are equally valid. As one of the older ones, I value the opinions of "20 year old progheads" immensely. Sometimes, the affection us older ones have for our "favourites" may unintentionally inhibit us from writing about them objectively. Many of us have fond memories attached to those albums. To read reviews written without that "baggage" can be as enlightening and informative as a historical appraisal.

Because some of us have listened to albums such as "Foxtrot" constantly for over 30 years for example, we perceive that they have not aged. It can be very interesting to hear the views of someone who is listening to them for the first time in 2004.

 Never hold back, diversity of views and perspectives is what this site thrives on.

All:

First, let me say that I agree that ratings should not be included without an accompanying review.  True, it might take a bit of time to write text reviews for 20 or 30 albums, but that is not an excuse.  If necessary, write a short review; after all, one can say alot in two or three well-chosen paragraphs.

That said, I believe there are two factors involved here.  First, unless I am gravely mistaken, the majority of "collaborators" are "older."  Yes, there are some "youngsters," ()  but most of the collaborators lived through the early years of prog.  Thus, we are more familiar with the "seminal" bands (Pink Floyd, Moody Blues, King Crimson, Jethro Tull, Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant, ELP, VDGG), and they (and a few others) hold a special place in our hearts.

Which leads me to the second factor: history.  Although many neo-prog bands are exceptionally talented re composition, musicianship, production, etc., there is no question that all of them were influenced by one or another of the seminal bands listed above, to various degrees: i.e., it is rare that a "neo-prog" band adds anything truly "new" to the prog-rock "lexicon."  Given this, I have stated many times that, for me, the "success" of a neo-prog band is dependent on how well they "filter" those influences, and what comes out the other end.

Many neo-prog bands "wear their influences on their sleeves."  And although even some of these bands are quite good (and listenable, depending on your tastes), they suffer from a lack of "creativity" (which is not the same as originality"; one can be "creative" even with obvious influences).

However, some neo-prog bands are more successful at filtering their influences, and come out with music that is "creative," possibly even (in some sense) "new" and/or interesting - and, if they're really good, something exciting, compelling or even extraordinary.  And although these bands are few, they do "get their due" here on Progarchives, at least as far as I have seen.

Having said all that, I believe that those of us from the "old school" are not so much "denying" the excellence of neo-prog bands (certainly most (or all) of us see the exceptional merits of bands like Marillion, Dream Theater, Spock's Beard, Anglagard, and many early and neo-prog Italian groups), but rather have a difficult time "taking them on their own merits," since, by their very nature, they are filtering the influence of one or more of the seminal prog groups.

I agree that this may be an impediment to reviewing neo-prog with the same "ear" as we (i.e., the "older folks") do with seminal prog.  And I, personally, have been making efforts to listen for and find the "new masterpieces" (as our good friend Peter Rideout puts it) among neo-prog groups and albums.  And I strongly urge my "older" colleagues to do the same.

However, although I consider Dream Theater's "Scenes From a Memory," Spock's Beard's "The Light," and Ark's "Burn the Sun" (among others) to be candidates for "new masterpieces," I gave them each four stars rather than five because, although they are clearly exceptional, even highly "creative" works, they could not have existed without the prior works of the seminal prog bands that those groups (and others) were filtering.  This seems to be one (and possibly the primary) reason why we "older folks" have a hard time giving five stars to neo-prog albums.  And as you can imagine, it is something extremely difficult to "get around" and ignore.

Comments?

Peace.

I also believe as Maani says that no rating without a review should be counted, giving 5 starts to our favorite bands is really easy, but in my case I want to know why someone rates an album with 5 stars and another one with 0 stars.

Any person can do a 50 words review, and every opinion is important, so even when there may be 30 reviews about Foxtrot, another one can give a new perspective we've not seen before.

If a person is not willing to explain why he believes an album deserves 1, 2 or 5 stars, this rating should not be counted because probably that person doesn't know why he/she is giving that number of stars.

Just a pecission Maani:

I really don't like Neo Prog (As a genre) too much, but it's precise to describe what Neo Prog' means for all of us, I usually see people mentioning bands like Anglagard, Par Lindh, Magenta, Dream Theater, etc as Neo Progressive, which IMO is not accurate. Neo Prog is according to GEPR (Definition with which I agree):

Neo-Progressive http://www.gepr.net/gepr_styles.html#symphonic - Symphonic rock done in a typically more simple or commercial format. Also very lush but lacking the complexity of the upper bands. Bands http://www.gepr.net/ma.html#MARILLIon - Marillion , http://www.gepr.net/i.html#IQ - IQ , http://www.gepr.net/pa.html#PENDRAGon - Pendragon , http://www.gepr.net/ar.html#ARAGon - Aragon , etc.

Bands as Anglagard, Par Lindh and Magenta are clearly symphonic, and I believe they have a lot to offer. Dream Theater is prog metal and even though is not my cup of tea, the band members sure have a great talent.

Not every band that relesed albums after the 70's is neo prog'.

Iván

richardh wrote: I notice that the only ELP album in there was just about hanging on to No20 when I last looked.If changing the system gets it further up the chart then I agree

Me too Richard... !!!

I have two small points, exposing my ignorance .

1. Is the "top 20" very important? I rarely do more than glance at it (I have been a little surprised to see Anglagard so frequently). To be fair, if I were just discovering prog, it would be a great 'must have' list- but even in that case, I've never seen a single album appear there that wouldn't be worth having.

2. I didn't even know it was possible to submit ratings without reviews; doing so never crossed my mind- even now that I do know, I won't be likely to do it. I think reviews without ratings would be a more mature approach, but I also comprehend the usefulness of a 'quick view' method.

James,

I think the TOP 20 (which can be expanded to a TOP 50 by clicking on a link at the botom of the list) *is* important. Not to you or me perhaps, but to new visitors to this site who are looking for information on the genre and would like to discover more about it. It is conceivable that someone visits ProgArchives who has little knowledge of the genre but wants recommendations on which albums he/she should buy to 'get into' the genre. The TOP 20 list is a good - and simple - place to start.

That's one of the reasons why I suggested a TOP 10 to MAX@ in the first place, although I wanted it to be based on *all* of the thousands of reviews posted in the ProgArchives, not just Collaborators' reviews, but was overruled on the basis that spammers might try to influence the rankings. I find the Collaborators' TOP 20 much less interesting than a TOP 20 derived from *all* reviews posted, because it's much less indicative of the true popularity of albums. Back in June this year the TOP 50 based on *all* reviews, not just Collaborators' reviews, looked like this:

Column 1 : RV
Column 2: Nb. of rates
Column 3: CD ID
Column 4: CD TITLE

477 159 3777 Train Of Thought
336 84 1827 Close to the Edge
288 72 1510 Selling England By The Pound
264 66 1829 Relayer
260 65 1672 Scenes From A Memory Metropolis Part II
244 61 1662 Images And Words
244 61 2 Foxtrot
224 56 1440 Dark Side of the Moon, The
224 56 1825 Fragile
212 53 1828 Tales From Topographic Oceans
204 51 1511 The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway
196 49 1443 The Wall
196 49 3 Nursery Cryme
192 48 1903 In the Court of the Crimson King
188 47 1911 Red
184 46 1826 The YES Album
184 46 328 Mirage
180 45 329 The Snow Goose
180 45 1441 Wish You Were Here
180 45 1442 Animals
168 42 1512 Wind And Wuthering
164 41 1433 Piper at the Gates of Dawn, The
164 41 2019 Thick As A Brick
160 40 2448 Trespass
160 40 3070 2112
160 40 330 Moonmadness
160 40 5 A Trick Of The Tail
156 39 1438 Meddle
156 39 3076 Moving Pictures
156 39 2177 The Power To Believe
156 39 2018 Aqualung
152 38 3073 Hemispheres
148 37 1513 Second Out
144 36 1437 Atom Heart Mother
144 36 1995 In Absentia
144 36 1909 Larks' Tongues in Aspic
140 35 1914 Discipline
140 35 2022 A Passion Play
140 35 1666 Awake
140 35 1623 Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence
140 35 327 Camel
136 34 1905 Lizard
136 34 1872 Brain Salad Surgery
132 33 1754 Script for a Jester's Tear
132 33 1831 Going for the One
132 33 3075 Permanent Waves
128 32 1833 Drama
128 32 1863 Tarkus
128 32 621 The Seventh House
128 32 890 Misplaced Childhood

It's much more interesting - and representative - than the Collaborators' TOP 50 in my opinion.

Anyway, back to my original question at the beginning of this thread, I'm glad to see that most of you agree that Collaborators ratings should not be counted in deriving the TOP 20 unless the rating is accompanied by a review.

And to diddy, who asks "...what should a 20 year old proghead tell THEM about Foxtrot just to name an example?" I would say: "Anything you want!" In my opinion reviews should focus on the music and how you feel about it, so that anyone who does not know the album (well, or at all) can decide whether or not it is worth getting. You don't need to be an expert in GENESIS or have been to GENESIS concerts to review "Foxtrot". So don't worry, diddy, write your review of Foxtrot and any other 'great' albums. Tell us how the music moves you, what it makes you think of, how it sounds to you, etc. Us old farts are also interested in the opinion of youngsters!

threefates,

I'm a fan of ELP and would have liked one or more the first four ELP albums to be in the "real" TOP 20, but what you and I think is popular is not necessarily what really *is* popular.

That's why I like the idea of a TOP 20 list based on thousands of different reviews and not a "select few", because it tells me what the majority of Prog fans are thinking.

If you're familiar with the science of statistics (Am I correct in thinking you mentioned you were in marketing?) then the bigger the sample size, the more representative it is of the statistical population, i.e. the more accurate it is.

I'm not a fan of Dream Theater, but it is high up in the "real" TOP 20, so the Collaborators do not appear to be representative of the majority of Prog fans. Similarly, ELP is not as popular amongst the majority. I'm 'sad' about it, but it appears to be the case. "Shoganai" as the Japanese say.

threefates wrote: I don't!!  ELP is way underrated, BSS should be in the top 10 and Trilogy is missing.  That in itself is a sin!!

No.

Easy Livin,

If you look at my original suggestion for the TOP 20 (see hyperlink below) you'll see that I discussed the algorithm and mentioned the problem of extreme cases.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=697 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=697

One of the reasons I ruled out just using averages was for the reason you point out. (Another reason is that it does not allow differentiation between the hundreds of albums that would have the same average rating.)

If you look at "Train Of Thought" you'll see that it *is* popular:

33 5-star ratings; 9 4-star ratings; 11 3-star ratings; 5 2-star ratings; 8 1-star ratings.

Compare that with "Dark Side Of The Moon":

28 5-star ratings; 2 4-star ratings; 3 3-star ratings; 1 2-star rating.

So, from the above, to me "Train Of Thought" *is* more popular than DSOTM whichever way you look at it. And addressing your comment about the number of people who have rated it, the fact that more people have rated it is, in itself, a possible indication of popularity.

When I checked the "real" TOP 50 list in June, it was a good reflection of popularity, i.e. the 'extreme case' scenario seems not to occur in practice.

Fitzcarraldo,

It's fun isn't it!

I don't think any measure which uses the total number of "stars" as its main measure is particulary valid. In the example you quote, TOT is rated by over a third of the people as only "good"(3 stars) or worse, hardly an indication that it is universally liked. I would not like to think that if I then gave it two stars, I was making it appear more popular. (Hypothetical by the way, I have not yet heard TOT.) We will all have contributed reviews and ratings for albums we did not enjoy much. The fact that an album has a lot of ratings does not in itself make it "popular". There are quite a few albums with a lot of ratings, the majority of which are adverse. (Yes and Genesis have a few each).

I think averaging is the best solution, but with the safeguard that the album must have a minimum number of reviews (say 10) to qualify. I do acknowledge though that that too is flawed. Perhaps the star ratings is not the best way to identify the top albums. Maybe there could be a separate voting section for everyone's top 10. Registered voters (i.e. forum members) could change their top 10 at any time. That would immediately remove the adverse star ratings from the calculation, and thus focus on the positive. It would also mean that if I try to differentiate between two great albums by the same band by giving one 4 stars, and one 5 stars, I can still support both in my top 10 vote.

By he way, taking a straight averaging of the star ratings, DSOTM comes out far higher (4.67 vs 3.81)

Fun, it is!

But, as I think we both agree, the comparison of averages is problematic:

Album 1 has 20 5-star ratings => average = 5-stars

Album 2 has 60 4-star ratings => average = 4-stars

Which of the above two albums is more popular?

I think the number of reviews needs to be a factor. And I think that the more people/reviews are included, the better (i.e. the bigger the sample, the more interesting and representative the result).

I need to think some more about this (interesting) problem!

Prog Fans ,

This is cool to have great polls, manage and fill with bright POSTS like thoses in this forum. That is why the FORUM of PROG ARCHIVES is such important for us.

Continue your great work.

About the TOP 20 Collaborator's album on the HOME PAGE , as requested and debated in this THREAD, the algorithm now ( 09-12-2004 )  count only ratings of collaborators with review with 50 caracters and more.

I think it is better now, but not a lot of changes...

Next question :

"Should we count all ratings by collaborators and non-collaborators ?"

MAX@

MAX@ wrote: "Should we count all ratings by collaborators and non-collaborators ?" MAX@

I still say no to that one Max. I know at first it seems a bit elitist, but I retain my concerns about spamming when it becomes known that all votes count. (And rest assured it would, the bulletin boards on the various band sites would soon have notices on them saying "vote for our band"). Until we collecively come up with a reasonably foolproof way of doing it, I say stick with what we have.

Thanks, MAX@.

Well, regarding your second question, I think my opinion is known, but I also understand Easy Livin's concerns.

Is there some way we could protect against the spamming that Easy Livin thinks may be a possibility? For example, only include star-ratings from non-Collaborators if there is an associated review of at least a certain length? Only disclose the results to members of the forums?

Whatever is done, I think it would still be useful to have the Collaborators' TOP 20/50 as a separate list, if for no other reason than to give some recommendations to newcomers from the 'official' site reviewers. But as we've seen in this thread, the Collaborators tastes do not appear to be an indication of the tastes of the larger population.

When I get time I'm going to think about the algorithm. But I'm convinced that averaging is not the best way to do it: it does not make sense to me if an album has, say, ten 5-star ratings (average = 5 stars) and then someone adds a 4-star rating (average = 4.91) and the album drops in the ratings. Easy Livin might counter by saying that adding e.g. a 2-star review should not raise an album in the ratings, and he might also be right. But if Album1 has more 5-star and 4-star reviews than Album2 (as in the example I quoted in an earlier posting) then, to me, even if Album1 has more 2-star and below ratings, Album1 is the more popular. I say this because more people like Album1 than Album2, simple as that. But I'll give the algorithm some more thought.

JrKASperov wrote: threefates wrote: I don't!!  ELP is way underrated, BSS should be in the top 10 and Trilogy is missing.  That in itself is a sin!! No.

No what?

richardh wrote: ELP have now dropped out of the top twenty.

Again Richard... its just me and you.  That is so disappointing... I'm really very disappointed with everyone here..

I think I'm gonna go play some Trilogy now to raise my spirits..

threefates wrote: No what?

No whatever you say