Yes.

horza wrote: Ahh - but remember, not everyone feels confident enough to post a review but would like to register their approval/disapproval - also, some people do not have english as their first language and might feel inhibited - should THEIR opinions not count?

A good point but shouldn't that be explained to the admins?

W.Chuck wrote: at least they could write in their language! I've found so many reviews with another language and furthermore I think it is very brazen to chose an english nickname and write nothing

Also a good point

I vote yes.

Winter Wine wrote: horza wrote: Ahh - but remember, not everyone feels confident enough to post a review but would like to register their approval/disapproval - also, some people do not have english as their first language and might feel inhibited - should THEIR opinions not count? A good point but shouldn't that be explained to the admins?

This is an ongoing discussion for months , with most admin admitting there is a prpbblem but mailto:M@X - M@X and Proglucky (the owners are not agreeeing with them).

I personally voted not caring about a useless issue. The reviews are important to fid new bands.

the ratings mean nothing and are abused by almost everyone.

and those top list are just paid too much attention to. They have been skewed and are completely untrustworthy.

W.Chuck wrote: at least they could write in their language! I've found so many reviews with another language and furthermore I think it is very brazen to chose an english nickname and write nothing

 Thats a good point, its a little hard for us non-english speakers to make a review.... it can be easier if we can make a review with our main language...

anyway i voted no, but if we can review with our own lenguage i vote yes

My proposition is based on STEPS.

• Step 1: from a date informed by PA, e.g., January 15th, all albums rated 5* or 1* shall be obligatorily accompanied by a review.
• Step 2: a limit date shall be defined to eliminate all 5* and 1* ratings without reviews. All people that rated with no reviews shall be able to make their reviews explaining their ratings. This limit date shall be scheduled for 3-4 months ahead.
• Step 3: after Step 2 has finished to repeat Step 1 for all albums rated 2*, 3* and 4*.
• Step 4: to do Step 2 for albums rated 2*, 3* and 4*.

I believe it can work smoothly!

Atkingani wrote: My proposition is based on STEPS. Step 1: from a date informed by PA, e.g., January 15th, all albums rated 5* or 1* shall be obligatorily accompanied by a review. Step 2: a limit date shall be defined to eliminate all 5* and 1* ratings without reviews. All people that rated with no reviews shall be able to make their reviews explaining their ratings. This limit date shall be scheduled for 3-4 months ahead. Step 3: after Step 2 has finished to repeat Step 1 for all albums rated 2*, 3* and 4*. Step 4: to do Step 2 for albums rated 2*, 3* and 4*. I believe it can work smoothly!

Not a bad idea at all, but the way I see it two problems are still left

• The language problem - some people may not be able to write out a full review, though I guess it could be short like a note, with a couple of good points. I mean a lot of people who would be this possition still post in forums etc.
• People could be so bold to just give crummy, useless reviews with no valid points at all for example - "I think Foxtrots bad because its not good".

I have repeated below, my post from one of the many other threads on this topic. I would say here though that it would have been better if the poll had had a few more options. The site owners have made it clear they will not delete the 15,000+ ratings without reviews which have already been posted. It would therefore be more appropriate to offer options which work within that such as:

• Banning ratings without reviews in the future
• Reducing or eliminating the impact on RwR on the chart, recommended albums etc.

Previous post:

Just to explain once again why ratings without reviews are allowed.

The view is that some people either do not speak English sufficiently well to write a coherent review in English (per the site rules). Others find it very difficult to put into words what they feel about an album, and do not wish to look foolish or as they see it tarnish the site with a poor review. The owners of the site(*) are committed to allowing as many people as possible to actively participate in the site, even if it is just by recording their rating for the albums which are listed here.

There are over 15,000 ratings without reviews. The site owners feel that to remove these, or simply ignore them would be unfair to those who have taken the trouble to record their views. The vast majority of these ratings reflect the submitter's sincere views of the album being rated.

The site owners are however aware of the controversy surrounding ratings without reviews, and are looking at how best to address this. This will take a little time, there are more important things to be dealt with, and everything must take its turn. Rest assured, a solution will be found, but please be patient.

Speaking personally, I have said many times that I do not like ratings without reviews. I feel that if they are to be included, their impact on features such as the chart and the average ratings should be reduced (say 50% of a rating supported by a review), or removed with the rating appearing for information only on the album page.  

(* For those who do not know, the owners of the site are M@X and Proglucky. I am not speaking on their behalf here, simply conveying their thoughts as I understand them)

I never look at ratings without reviews. I don't pay attention to the top 100 rankings. All I care about is reading well thought out and comprehensive reviews of albums that I might take an interest in. Then, if there are soundclips, I listen to the soundclips. If I like them, I just might go out and buy the album. That's it. That's all that matters. Everything else is mere puffery.

Therefore, I voted that I don't care.

IMO ratings without text are better than reviews telling nothing new.

It was discussed before in "Too many reviews" poll. I often visit the site and see almost every day new reviews on "Selling England by the Pound", DTSOM, "Close To The Edge" and other top albums. I think, everything about such albums has been said long before and it is enough simply rate them (if ratings mean something for you).  

W.Chuck wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ as soon as they are no longer used in the calculation, there is no need anymore to abuse them. I agree that they would be rather unimportant ... but there is no NEED to remove them. OK DON'T REMOVE THEM, BUT DON'T COUNT THEM, THAT's MOST IMPORTANT!

Agreed.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: W.Chuck wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ as soon as they are no longer used in the calculation, there is no need anymore to abuse them. I agree that they would be rather unimportant ... but there is no NEED to remove them. OK DON'T REMOVE THEM, BUT DON'T COUNT THEM, THAT's MOST IMPORTANT! Agreed.

Also agreed

They would only have to issue a SQL command like this:

"DELETE FROM REVIEWS WHERE REVIEW_TEXT IS NULL"

But I agree that it would be more friendly to not just simply delete them. I think that 90% of them have been issued by people in good faith.

W.Chuck wrote: I would like to know what the admins think about that, they wouldn't have to delete every review!

I have said many times that I'd like to see the rating without reviews excluded, or at least diminished in terms of their impact on favorites calculations.

(I delete very few reviews!)

GoldenSpiral wrote: yes, but mainly just 1 and 5 star reviews.

Not true ... see my calculations. 

Submitting a rating without a review should be possible, but there should be in incentive for also writing a review. This incentive could be:

• The review gets listed on the front page
• The rating is used in avg. calculations

So people have a choice: Either add your name and rating on the album page like in some kind of guest book, or file a review and be part of the site - influence the rankings and have your 15 minute fame on the front page.

I feel that this would not hurt the non-english speaking visitors too much ... but it would really be a nice gesture for those who currently invest their time in writing reviews.

A few days ago I wrote a post about this same issue in the Collaborators section because I was really pissed:

Some Special Collaborators take a lot of work adding new bands, and believe me, it's not an easy job:

1. Write a biography double checking the data.
2. Search for a good not copyrighted photo
3. Add the albums, song by song and musician by musician, checking all the serial numbers in two or three places to avoid false information
4. Search for a photo of each album (Pre-70's albums are almost im´possible to find.

Writting a Biography is fun (At least for me because it's relaxing to write about anything not related with my work), but the searching work is hard, the albums job is easy, but it's tedious and repetitive, recently added Jean Luc Ponty and the mother fu**er has almost 30 albums, some are only remakes or new editions of old ones (So you ,must read and not only copy and paste info) 

Others are the same album with another name (because troubles with their labels or an ex-member), the data from the early albums is almost impossible to find (Including musicians) some sites give wrong song lists and when you have three or four different songlists you have to call somebody to fax or email an original cover (I found Jean Luc Ponty credited as drummer and Randy Jackson as violinist in one album)

Finding a Canteloupe Island art cover took me almost a week, thanks to other members who found hidden places, it was possible to find some rare albums.

When you have ended this it's better to make some reviews.

When I do the first review of an album I really take it even more  seriously (Especially when not well known as Traffic Sound, Laghonia or Miranda Sex Garden), in the last case I made a 1,500 words song by song review, that took me at least 3 hours, because I have to listen each song again and again even if I have heard t 1,000 times.

Edit: For people who speak English as a second language, it's even harder, because in my case  I have to use a thesaurus to check it, because one thing is making a mistake in a frienly forum like this one and another is making this same mistakes in a review that represents Prog Archives.

After that I rated this album (Fairytales about Slavery) with 5 stars because I honestly believe it deserves this rating.

If another collaborator, Prog Reviewer or just a reviewer takes his time to make a 100 words review explaining why he gives 1 or 2 stars, no problem, it's ok, that's his opinion and he was honest plus respectful enough to explain his perspective.

But if a guy called Tamtam, who never made a single review, and rates every album except Uriah Heep (Which I love) and VDGG,  with one star... and without any review gives two stars to the album in which I worked so much it pisses me.

In this cases I believe all my job was in vain, because I don't even know if this guy has ever listened the album or he's only giving low rates to anything different to Uriah Heep and VDGG just to take this twop bands to the top.

And it pisses me more that this rating has the same value of one given by Sean, Cert or any other member (Or even visitor) who has therespect of making an effort.

Believe me, during the day I steal time from my job to do this (And I do it with pleasure because I love Prog) and in the night when my girlfriend is in Perú (She works 6 months a year in NY) I miss a lot of quality time with her (Thanks God he has to do a lot of work at home so we are usually free at midnight ).

I see people who give one star to any Genesis album to keep Close to the Edge in the top...I'm an early Genesis fanatic (As everybody here knows) but I gave 5 stars to Close to the Edge and Relayer but only 4 stars to Trespass and The Lamb, because that's why I believe.}

I don't ask to delete the ratings without review, but there are three options:

1. Not count them for the average
2. Make a separete list for this ratings
3. Make a different algorhythm so that this ratings have a value not higher than 25% of a review rating.

Maybe it's too much work, so I believe the owners and the administrators should decide what's the best option.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: I don't ask to delete the ratings without review, but there are three options: Not count them for the average Make a separete list for this ratings Make a different algorhythm so that this ratings have a value not higher than 25% of a review rating. Maybe it's too much work, so I believe the owners and the administrators should decide what's the best option. Iván

Not counting the ratings for the average would not be much work, and I think that this is the way to go. Since they are not used for the average, they also don't affect the ranking of the album.

ivan_2068 wrote: If another collaborator, Prog Reviewer or just a reviewer takes his time to make a 100 words review explaining why he gives 1 or 2 stars, no problem, it's ok, that's his opinion and he was honest plus respectful enough to explain his perspective. But if a guy called Tamtam, who never made a single review, and rates every album except Uriah Heep (Which I love) and VDGG,  with one star... and without any review gives two stars to the album in which I worked so much it pisses me. In this cases I believe all my job was in vain...

I don't think your job is in vain even in such cases. People, often visiting the site, see who write good reviews. So believe me, your opinion and opinions of many other reviewers are much more important than Tamtam's ratings. Personally, I don't care for Top 100, Top 200 etc at all. But good reviews are often helpful.

Tamtams come and go. I believe most people are giving honest ratings.

Easy Livin wrote: W.Chuck wrote: I would like to know what the admins think about that, they wouldn't have to delete every review! I have said many times that I'd like to see the rating without reviews excluded, or at least diminished in terms of their impact on favorites calculations. (I delete very few reviews!)

I dislike them very strongly ... and want them out now, actually ...

I'd like to see PA assemble some language specialists to translate the reviews from the main languages (basically Spanish, French, Italian are the main ones I see) ... which I hope would put an end to the main doubts that mailto:m@x - m@x and Ron have ...

And just for the record, I don't really care about the average rating, and Top 100 lists, I just think this practice is a waste of time and spoils part of the impact of the site ...

I have nothing against rating-only-reviewers but I disagree the algorithm of calculation. I Think there should be an algorithm that give a higher weight to those who write a coherent review, and penalize the rating-only-reviewer giving them a lower weight on the result.

TheProgtologist wrote: I don't think old ratings without reviews should be deleted,but ratings without reviews ought to be stopped right now.

Agree! Plus deleting some of the current 1* rating on some albums (like all those on DT's 'Images & Words' for example. I believe that 80% of those ratings are from active DT-Haters)

razifa wrote: I have nothing against rating-only-reviewers but I disagree the algorithm of calculation. I Think there should be an algorithm that give a higher weight to those who write a coherent review, and penalize the rating-only-reviewer giving them a lower weight on the result.

That is also an excellent idea!

Who was it who originally suggested that ratings without an accompanying review should be allowed but excluded from the calculation of the Top 100?

Seems a good idea. Those who cannot write a review or do not want to write a review can still leave their 'vote' for all to see on an album's page. But it would not influence the Top 100.

Bj-1 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: I don't think old ratings without reviews should be deleted,but ratings without reviews ought to be stopped right now. Agree! Plus deleting some of the current 1* rating on some albums (like all those on DT's 'Images & Words' for example. I believe that 80% of those ratings are from active DT-Haters)

That's not possible. Who should decide which ratings are to be deleted? Either remove them all, or remove none. OR change the algorithm (see below).

Bj-1 wrote: razifa wrote: I have nothing against rating-only-reviewers but I disagree the algorithm of calculation. I Think there should be an algorithm that give a higher weight to those who write a coherent review, and penalize the rating-only-reviewer giving them a lower weight on the result. That is also an excellent idea!

Why give them any weight at all? As long as a rating without review has any effect on the ranking, people will file these ratings in order to manipulate the ranking. The only way to stop this is to remove the effect on the ranking. 

Phil wrote: Maybe I'm too naive, but I can't see why anyone would want to submit a rating, with or without a review, solely for the purpose of manipulating the Top 100 in some way..c'mon folks, get real......

Check this names:

1. Amarok (Even voted twice in Close to the Edge - Gives all Yes mateial 1 star).
2. Zabriedskidpoint (Gives one star to anything exept Pink Floyd),
3. Jd (Only rates high Prog Metal)
4. Tamtam (Only rates high Uriah Heep and VDGG 1 or 2 stars for all the rest).
5. Mariscal (New guy, 1 point for Genesis albums, 5 points for King Crimson)

Look at the polls you'll find that there's a Yes fan who probably has an Internet Café because even in the single option polls you find up to 1,400 votes when only 150 persons read the poll.

Look at : http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17053&KW=Ivan%5F2068 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17053& amp;KW=Ivan%5F2068  299 votes for The Yes Album, there are not 50% of habitual members in the forum.

Don't be naive, people love to manipulate.

Iván

R_DeNIRO wrote: I wrote a few reviews, but not all I wanted. The problem: language. I'm not able to make a good review in English, so I voted a lot of albums without reviewing them. That's the reason I say "No" in the poll. I would vote "Yes" if I could write reviews in my own language, I know this is problematic, or almost imposible, but I think it has good points too. A lot of people I know don't enter in the site because it's all in english, the majority of members of the web write in English (there is a lot of American guys), so I think there wiil not be a great problem some of the reviews in Spanish or any other language.

As I see here, you write in English better than some American guys.

The English only rule is for practical purposes. We do not have moderators for other languages.

From what I know of mailto:M@X's - M@X's views, he is strongly committed to continuing to make the site as inclusive as possible. I do not therefore believe ratings without reviews will be banned.

Taking that as a given, it's a question of coming up with the best ways of allowing them to be accepted, while addressing many of the members legitimate concerns about manipulative ratings.

Options are reducing their "value" in the calculations, showing separate averages for ratings only reviews etc. What's the preference? Are there other options?

I'm totally for it. Enough of the people who put 1 star on every album of one band just because they hate the band.

(Abuse removed by admin)

henri_ds wrote: I'm totally for it. Enough of the people who put 1 star on every album of one band just because they hate the band.

(abuse within quote removed by admin)
 

Ricochet wrote: henri_ds wrote: I'm totally for it. Enough of the people who put 1 star on every album of one band just because they hate the band. but...disliking the band/album usually justifies the 1* star rating...

Ah but Ricochet, you could easily just dislike a band for silly reasons. For example if someone were a big Klause schulze fan () and there was a poll in which Rick wakeman beat him that person may come to dislike Wakeman, and give unjustified ratings.

It's already happened, some guy gave Floyds albums masterpiece ratings and Yes' and Genesis' albums 1* ratings to try put Pink Floyd ahead. Stupid really.

Ricochet wrote: goose wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: I think that these ratings should be allowed, but not be used in the calculation of the average rating. This would also mean that the old ratings would not have to be removed. Best idea yet! actually,that's an idea everyone eventually gets to...

That only shows that it might make sense. BTW: It's not my idea ... someone else suggested it and I picked it up.

I voted Yes, because You mostly get the 1star reviews from them (just to bring the rating down). Close to the Edge, and many Dream Theater Albums suffer from this.

There are some persons who dont think what points do they give.

Some put 1 ,other 5

5 means masterpeace -you cant put thoughtlessly 5 to albums.

I put also only points,but I didnt write review.My english is not that good to describe my feelings about albums.

Some jerks think that  pointgiving is NUMBER GAME

They put 5,51,,5,5 ,4,1, and again 5,5,5 etc. Look Rick Wakemans page for example. 

W.Chuck wrote: What's the admins opinion about NOT COUNTING them?

Collectively, Tony, Trotsky and myself agree the issue needs to be addressed.

Personally, I think we have more chance of persuading mailto:M@X - M@X to reduce their impact, rather than excluding them all together.

Let's check some of the top albums:

• Close to the Edge: I believe it's a 5 stars album:
  • Most Reviewers rated it with 4 or 5 stars
  • Nine reviewers rated it with 3 stars
  • One 2 star review (Another guy who complains that the songs are too long )
  • One 1 star review by an idiot who says Jon sounds like a woman
  • Ratings without Reviews: Eleven RWR gave Close to the Edge 1 star.
• Selling England by the Pound: Not my favorite Genesis album but can't give it less than 4 stars but...
  • The review ratings are 4 or  5 stars (Most 5 stars)
  • Three that rate it with 3 stars because they believe it's overrated
  • One reviewer gives 2 stars but he's obviously  a troll who doesn't know what he's talking about because he doesn't even know the name of the songs
  • RwR (Nine RWR give 1 star??????)
• Thick as a Brick: No review under 3 stars (Tonly 2 reviewrs gave it 3 stars)
  • RWR: Four 2 stars and four 1 star????
• Dark Side of the Moon: Eleven 3 stars, one 2 stars and one 1 star  are the lowes reviers gave (The last one is a Floyd hater).
  • RWR: Nine RWR gave 1 star???? and a whole bunch of 2 stars.

It's clear, Ratings without reviews go against the normal average of an album, and exceed by far the low ratings given by reviewers.

Iván

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I think that as long as these ratings are used in the calculations, there will be abuse.

yep, I have just deleted about 200 of them!....

Symphony X albums have fallen down the chart even quicker than they have risen over the past few days...

ivan_2068 wrote: Let's check some of the top albums: Close to the Edge: I believe it's a 5 stars album: Most Reviewers rated it with 4 or 5 stars Nine reviewers rated it with 3 stars One 2 star review (Another guy who complains that the songs are too long ) One 1 star review by an idiot who says Jon sounds like a woman Ratings without Reviews: Eleven RWR gave Close to the Edge 1 star. Selling England by the Pound: Not my favorite Genesis album but can't give it less than 4 stars but... The review ratings are 4 or  5 stars (Most 5 stars) Three that rate it with 3 stars because they believe it's overrated One reviewer gives 2 stars but he's obviously  a troll who doesn't know what he's talking about because he doesn't even know the name of the songs RwR (Nine RWR give 1 star??????) Thick as a Brick: No review under 3 stars (Tonly 2 reviewrs gave it 3 stars) RWR: Four 2 stars and four 1 star???? Dark Side of the Moon: Eleven 3 stars, one 2 stars and one 1 star  are the lowes reviers gave (The last one is a Floyd hater). RWR: Nine RWR gave 1 star???? and a whole bunch of 2 stars. It's clear, Ratings without reviews go against the normal average of an album, and exceed by far the low ratings given by reviewers. Iván

Dear Ivan,

please note the 1 star review of greenback for a 5 star album (Devin Townsend - Terria). Who are you to judge whether a 1 star rating is valid or not?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Dear Ivan, please note the 1 star review of greenback for a 5 star album (Devin Townsend - Terria). Who are you to judge whether a 1 star rating is valid or not?

I never judge the ratings unless they are obviously stupid (remember the flawed thread), I'm in favour of reviewing, Have you read my previous posts?.

But if a guy said that Close to the Edge is bad because Jon Andeson sounds like a Woman or because the songs are too long..........That's a stupid argument.

I always said I  respect people who dare to give low or high ratings making a review, because they are assuming a risk and its' clear when the person has a valid argument or he's simply talking crap.

Compare:

THIS IS A PILE OF CRAP

YES Close to the Edge
Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=45077 - Permanent link ) by Hawkeye @ 6:26:40 PM EST, 8/31/2005

 —  Well, here is is folks- the MOST OVERATED ALBUM ON THIS SITE. Easy..no doubt about it. The "epic" close to the edge- starts as a headache- the 1st 3 minutes sound like a truck filled with musical instruments colliding with a wall- its horrible- not untill the femanistic vocals come in does the song take a slight change for the better. Yes- he sounds like a woman. The lyrics are not as 'deep' as everyone says- instead, they are rather basic- most liekly sophistcated to an 8th grader. Dont try to analyze "Seasons Change..I get up..I get Down" ust meaningless lyrics. The rest of the album is DULL- nothing great here at all- but a headache, and an oveerated pile of trash.

BLAH!!!

YES Close to the Edge
Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=36620 - Permanent link ) by Mike @ 10:38:46 PM EST, 6/15/2005

 —  2.75-- These songs have some amazing parts capable of evoking intense emotion, but I fail to see why it is so revered. Some serious editing was needed here. Instead we get interminable passages at the end of which one is left reaching for the snooze button.

 

Nothing, simply nothing about the album.

 

______________________________________

DEVIN TOWNSEND Terria
Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61487 - Permanent link ) by http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=30 - greenback @ 12:35:41 AM EST, 12/24/2005
SPECIAL COLLABORATION

 —  This music describes the best what is a monolithic electric guitar! I have never heard a more monolithic electric rhythmic guitar than on this record: that's completely ridiculous! This brutal guitar is so distorted and polluted with tons of useless effects that it takes all the available room! As if it was not enough, the musician seems to take a huge pleasure to exaggeratedly sustain each note, a painful torment for the ears! The rhythmic guitar is COMPLETELY unmelodious. The lead vocals are just simply too angry and aggressive for me. When the lead vocals are more mellow, they amazingly remind me David Gilmour and James LaBrie. There are some good acoustic guitar parts. There are some unconvincing TV or radio sounds, a much worse copy of Roger Waters' effects: they seem too coarsely produced. You can hear some whales-like sounds. There are some rare good passages, so that, globally, this record is not worth a complete listen. The only track that retained more my attention is "Deep peace", starting with an imitation of David Gilmour's voice; an Oldfield-esque guitar solo then begins, followed by an Hillage-esque one, featuring his spacy ambience from the "Green" album; then, it changes to a VERY modest & much slower attempt to emulate the symphonic Yngwie Malmsteen himself. This VERY rebel music is probably perfect for the young people who like disturbing moods.

Rating: 1.5 star

 

He takes the time to describe each instrument, the vocals, the sound, similarities, etc, it's obvious he hates the album, but waht's the problem?

_______________________

 

My whole point is that at least you got a review to make an idea about the reviewer, but in RWR you have no base, no idea, the guy may never even heard the album and simply hates Yes or Genesis, so he gives on star.

 

Iván

 

 

^ the problem with greenback's review is that most of the things which he dislikes are common for that kind of music. An "unmelodious rhythm guitar" ... this makes no sense to me whatsoever. "unconvincing TV" ... how can a TV sample be unconvincing? And then the hilarious sentence where he tries to insinuate that the album is basically one big ripoff ... ending with the "symphonic Malmsteen himself", which is again a contradictory, non-sense term.

See? All of what I said here could be argued about. Neither you or me are authorities who can define what's nonsense and what is not.

Winter Wine wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: W.Chuck wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ as soon as they are no longer used in the calculation, there is no need anymore to abuse them. I agree that they would be rather unimportant ... but there is no NEED to remove them. OK DON'T REMOVE THEM, BUT DON'T COUNT THEM, THAT's MOST IMPORTANT! Agreed. Also agreed

I could live with that, too

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ the problem with greenback's review is that most of the things which he dislikes are common for that kind of music. An "unmelodious rhythm guitar" ... this makes no sense to me whatsoever. "unconvincing TV" ... how can a TV sample be unconvincing? And then the hilarious sentence where he tries to insinuate that the album is basically one big ripoff ... ending with the "symphonic Malmsteen himself", which is again a contradictory, non-sense term. See? All of what I said here could be argued about. Neither you or me are authorities who can define what's nonsense and what is not.

THAT'S MY POINT: In a review like Greenback's we can argue, agree or disagree,  and that is good for a discussion forum even if you don't consider it a good review, we can appreciate what the reviewer means, specially whe it's carefully done.

In this case Greenback took the time to describe all the elements, including instruments and influences , it's clear that the guy has listened the album (Probably he didn't listened more bands of this kind, but this doesn't really matter in an indidual review), and that's something I respect, talking only after you listened the album.

But in a Close to the Edge review like:

YES Close to the Edge
Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=36620 - Permanent link ) by Mike @ 10:38:46 PM EST, 6/15/2005

 "2.75  (Why in hell he gives two stars, if it's closer to three????)-- These songs have some amazing parts capable of evoking intense emotion (Everything can evoke emotions, even the Slade ballad with a burp reminds me of my early parties and how I tried to kiss a girl when that ugly sound filled the room ), but I fail to see why it is so revered.  (Please explain why) Some serious editing was needed here (Where.., I can't find a flaw, please ilustrate me!!! Or maybe he wants to ask Eddie Offord to cut the songs because are too long for Mike's (???) taste? ). Instead we get interminable passages at the end of which one is left reaching for the snooze button."  (???????)

I don't even care about the content, for God's sake, he says absolutely nothing about the album except that it needs editing (Strange because Close to the Edge has an excellent production, editing and mixing), this is not a review.

This is the only kind of reviews I don't understand, seems like the guy counted the words he needed and wrote them without saying anything,

Just as an example:

Excellent album, a masterpiece, always loved it, the songs are very emotional and well sung, the guitar is outstanding, keyboards are impressive, the rhythm section is perfectly accomplished, a must have for any prog fan.

Five stars, if you don't have it, go and get it.

I just invented invented this one (seems like a politician speechs ), but I've seen a lot of similar ones, I could be talking about any album, this kind of reviews should be deleted.

I don't say it's the only one valid, but my method is to write a review while listening the album, because memory is fragile, yesterday Micky reminded me of my quote about Via Lumiere that i had absolutely forgotten, because I haven't heard that album in almost two years.

But what I always criticize is extreme ratings (5 or 1 star) on albums not reviewed, because we don't even know if the guy has a fu**ing clue about what he's talking.

Iván

EDIT: I must check some of my first reviews, because I believe two or three are too general (Big Generator and Genesis Shapes).

Moatilliatta wrote: So I was just about to post my first review for Pelican, and I noticed that the ratings have been significantly lowered by this guy named  "Kinetic," whom I have seen around other albums doing the same thing. It's getting pretty ridiculous.

Seems we got an Opeth fanboy who hates everything else:

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10316"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 2003) Avg: 2.50/5 from 2 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10316 - PELICAN* "Australasia" Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=63521 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 6:48:39 AM EST, 1/7/2006

http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10317"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 2005) Avg: 3.25/5 from 4 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10317 - PELICAN* "The Fire In Our Throats Will Beckon The Thaw" Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=63520 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 6:48:14 AM EST, 1/7/2006    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5794"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 2003) Avg: 4.13/5 from 79 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5794 - OPETH "Damnation" Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61941 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 1:22:32 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5797"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 1999) Avg: 4.52/5 from 54 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5797 - OPETH "Still Life " Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61940 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 1:18:47 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5798"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 1998) Avg: 4.03/5 from 30 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5798 - OPETH "My Arms, Your Hearse " Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61939 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 1:16:55 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5800"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 1995) Avg: 3.83/5 from 23 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5800 - OPETH "Orchid " Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61938 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 1:14:44 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5799"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 1996) Avg: 4.34/5 from 35 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=5799 - OPETH "Morningrise " Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61937 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 1:14:16 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=8133"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 2005) Avg: 4.37/5 from 116 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=8133 - OPETH "Ghost Reveries" Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61936 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 1:13:46 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10194"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 2004) Avg: 4.14/5 from 7 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10194 - ISIS* "Panopticon" Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61935 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 12:58:10 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10209"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 2002) Avg: 4.14/5 from 7 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10209 - ISIS* "Oceanic" Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61934 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 12:56:49 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10210"> Progressive Metal (Singles/EPs/Fan Club/Promo, 2001) Avg: 3.75/5 from 4 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10210 - ISIS* "SGNL>05" Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61933 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 12:56:28 PM EST, 12/27/2005    http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10197"> Progressive Metal (Studio Album, 2000) Avg: 3.75/5 from 4 ratings http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_CD.asp?cd_id=10197 - ISIS* "Celestial" Review ( http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=61932 - Permanent link ) by Kinetic Posted 12:54:17 PM EST, 12/27/2005

Iván

That's kind of funny though!

Yes, we need to remove them, so Velvetclown's legacy wouldn't be so much longer than mine!

@Ivan

How odd people can't enjoy bands that sound like ones that they already like.

AtLossForWords wrote: @Ivan How odd people can't enjoy bands that sound like ones that they already like.

I get your point, but it's possible in some cases, for example Genesis and Yes are Symphonic bands, but I don't like Yes so much (Because of Jon's voice mainly even though I rated two Yes albums with 5 stars) and I love early Genesis, I also hate most King Crimson stuff (Except ITCOTCK and Red) so I don't review them.

But that's why I ask for reviews, to explain this differences.

What I believe is that guys like the one above  don't hate similar bands (For God's sake he rated two Pelican albums in 25 seconds , not enough time to think) I believe they want their beloved band to be N° 1 and try to take down the rest.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: AtLossForWords wrote: @Ivan How odd people can't enjoy bands that sound like ones that they already like. I get your point, but it's possible in some cases, for example Genesis and Yes are Symphonic bands, but I don't like Yes so much (Because of Jon's voice mainly even though I rated two Yes albums with 5 stars) and I love early Genesis, I also hate most King Crimson stuff (Except ITCOTCK and Red) so I don't review them. But that's why I ask for reviews, to explain this differences. What I believe is that guys like the one above  don't hate similar bands (For God's sake he rated two Pelican albums in 25 seconds , not enough time to think) I believe they want their beloved band to be N° 1 and try to take down the rest. Iván

Well yeah there are exceptions, but Genesis and Yes are two different bands in the same genre.  I love Dream Theater, but I don't really care for Symphony X.  The two are in the same genre, but they don't sound too much alike.  On the other hand Dream Theater and Andromeda are quite similar in sound and I love both of them. 

Rating two Pelican albums in 25 seconds is nuts.  I saw Pelican with Opeth, and I thought they did quite a good performance.  The drummer has mad chops.  Rating distortion to help your favorite band is just stupid.  In the end it just leaves a bad relfection on the band.

AtLossForWords wrote:   Rating two Pelican albums in 25 seconds is nuts.  I saw Pelican with Opeth, and I thought they did quite a good performance.  The drummer has mad chops.  Rating distortion to help your favorite band is just stupid.  In the end it just leaves a bad relfection on the band.

Well if this is too much, look at this: This freak of nature called Kinetic rated 5 albums by Opeth with 5 stars each one in a bit more than 5 minutes!!!!!!!!!!

Hey, I take more time in the bathroom, and I don't need to think there

It's so obvious that the guy doesn't think before doing the ratings that he made a mistake in Damnation rating it with one star  He's the kind of guys that clicks before and thinks after (If he thinks) I'm almost sure he believed the ratings were about the Symphony X called The Damnation Game 

It's really unfair that some of us take one, two or three hours to make one responsible and coherent review (maybe not good, but honest) while this a$$hole does 5 in 5 minutes giving 5 stars to each one, and the worst thing is that both ratings have the same weight here.

It's absurd.

I rather read a simple but clear review of a Spanish, Italian or Portuguese speaker full of gramatical mistakes, because this guy is really doing an effort and deserves a lot of respect.

But this moron is using our beloved site as free propaganda for his favorite band with absolutely no effort and mieleading newbies to buy a record that doesn't deserve thatrating or avoid an excellent release because 5 or 6 idiots as him decided to attack a great band.

Iván

W.Chuck wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: Well if this is too much, look at this: This freak of nature called Kinetic rated 5 albums by Opeth with 5 stars each one in a bit more than 5 minutes!!!!!!!!!! Hmm, actually you have listened to albums before, and your opinion developes during the process of listening and maybe afterwards. So he simply expresses his rating afterwards and gives it a rating, album for album. Anyway I find his ratings quite strange...

Well, it works different for me, I believe before making a review or giving a rating you must listen the albums, the details, things you have not notived before.

I must have listened Musical Box 1,000 times, but every time I listen it I find something new, the same with Close to the Edge or Thick as a Brick.

So I need to think before rating and during the process.

Iván

FishyMonkey wrote: This music describes the best what is a monolithic electric guitar! I have never heard a more monolithic electric rhythmic guitar than on this record: that's completely ridiculous! This brutal guitar is so distorted and polluted with tons of useless effects that it takes all the available room! As if it was not enough, the musician seems to take a huge pleasure to exaggeratedly sustain each note, a painful torment for the ears! The rhythmic guitar is COMPLETELY unmelodious. The lead vocals are just simply too angry and aggressive for me. When the lead vocals are more mellow, they amazingly remind me David Gilmour and James LaBrie. There are some good acoustic guitar parts. There are some unconvincing TV or radio sounds, a much worse copy of Roger Waters' effects: they seem too coarsely produced. You can hear some whales-like sounds. There are some rare good passages, so that, globally, this record is not worth a complete listen. The only track that retained more my attention is "Deep peace", starting with an imitation of David Gilmour's voice; an Oldfield-esque guitar solo then begins, followed by an Hillage-esque one, featuring his spacy ambience from the "Green" album; then, it changes to a VERY modest & much slower attempt to emulate the symphonic Yngwie Malmsteen himself. This VERY rebel music is probably perfect for the young people who like disturbing moods.      Rating: 1.5 star Hey look, I can do it too! Let's see...what did he rate five stars that I've heard? Images and Words! This album is the epitome of cheesy overdone and horribly recorded prog metal! The drummer takes great joy in ripping apart original and creative fills done originally by Neil Peart and putting them together in a haphazard way to make horrible stuttering fills. The lead vocals are completely overdone. They try and fail to emulate a style done with perfection by Geddy Lee. Whereas Geddy would sing each note with perfect clarity, this LaBrie always manages to go slightly flat or sharp, epecially when he gets higher. In the higher ranges, he almost sounds like a screeching banshee, completely painful on the ears! One good thing I managed to notive among all the bad parts was the bass work. On the song Learning to Live the bass player manages to imitate John Entwhistle's style of counter-melody basslines very well. The keyboardist seems to take extreme pleasure in filling the backgrounds of songs with meandering and seemingly random patterns and textures that are rather incoherent in relation to the main melodies. When the band attempts softer songs they also manage to stumble, with Wait for Sleep being a dull uninspired snoozefest. The production in particular on this album is horrid. It sounds shallow and flat, and the guitar tone is completely lacking of any full rich emotion. That coupled with the fact that the guitarist seems to like to attempt Vai-esque solos and butcher them makes for a horrible listening experience! The band attempts to make epics like Learning to Live, which lacks any sense of song structure whatsoever and fumbles around a single melody line the whole song, trying to place randomly throughout the song to tie it together! Rating: 1.0 stars. Now. If you've heard Images and Words you know this review is ridiculous and is picking apart nonexistant faults that seem to only exist because I PUT them there...as well as the comparisons (besides the Peart one). However, look how similar it is to greenback's review. Upon glancing and skimming through it, both reviews are ok, and might only raise your eyebrow a bit. But if you've actually heard either album, it'll raise more than your eyebrows...your temper as well.

You don't get the point Fishy:

I can speak about Greenback because even we had some disagreements I know he's a serious persons and the facts he's giving are true for him.

But the main point is that if you have a review you can see if his rating is ok or if he's just speaking crap. You may agree or not with him, but he took the time to listen the album over and over and gave an honest review.

In a rating without review you don't know anything, maybe the guys fundaments are valid (In many cases aren't) so I rather read a review even if I disgree because I have an idea why the rating was given.

Iván