The slow demise of Gentle Giant in the top 100

Personally I like the fact that the top 100 list is in flux. If we gave too much weight to number of reviews that wouldn't happen so much (though, as demonstrated upthread, number of reviews is in fact taken into account). Ultimately, the top 100 would be a boring, boring list if the same old predictable bands filled it; I like the fact that new acts have a shot at making a mark on it. Sure, very occasionally you get a fluke where an album ends up lower or higher than it really deserves to be, but the way the system's set up that'll correct itself over time as more people toss in reviews and ratings - and I'd rather have the occasional eccentric placing which lets me discover new albums and bands I hadn't previously considered than to eliminate such blips and end up staring at an almost static list.

The Hemulen wrote: Harry Hood wrote: darkshade wrote: by the way, i thought this thread was about the slow demise of Gentle Giant. Period. I was going to say, it wasn't slow, it was actually quite fast  Hey man. Civilian is a damn good album. One of the best albums of the 80's. It's good for what it is, but "one of the best albums of the 80's"? Really?! Civillian was an ageing prog band's competent last-ditch attempt at commercial viability, nothing more. There was a shedload of exciting, innovative music produced in that decade, all of which utterly eclipses that album.

Don't forget you're on a prog forum.

Harry Hood wrote: darkshade wrote: by the way, i thought this thread was about the slow demise of Gentle Giant. Period. I was going to say, it wasn't slow, it was actually quite fast  Hey man. Civilian is a damn good album. One of the best albums of the 80's.

It's good for what it is, but "one of the best albums of the 80's"? Really?! Civillian was an ageing prog band's competent last-ditch attempt at commercial viability, nothing more. There was a shedload of exciting, innovative music produced in that decade, all of which utterly eclipses that album.

I'll just have to add more 4 and 5 star reviews for GG.  

I discovered most bands thru the forums too but I have to say the top 100 has merit. Many would check this to see what is out there and revered as the best of the best. I printed a top 100 in 2006 before i even joined. But its unrecognizable now.

Edited by AtomicCrimsonRush - March 23 2011 at 22:53

This is ridiculous I discovered most bands on PA via the forum not checking the Top 100. A bands position in the rankings carries nowhere near as much weight as what the reviews of it say in my view. If you are a member of PA or regularly check it out then it is impossible for Gentle Giant to slip past your radar regardless of their position in the rankings

^ Its ok...its just my opinion.

Triceratopsoil wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Triceratopsoil wrote: Catcher10 wrote: Had he picked one of the "big 3" I seem to think the replies would have been different.   I would have actually ridiculed him in that case. Why? By what right? Because the top list is already full of "big 3" albums; how could you possibly complain about a lack of them?

Angelo wrote: Anthony H. wrote: My question is: why is the Top 250 list so radically different now than it was a week ago? How different is it, then?

Tons of albums were either moved way up/down or added outright. For example, Maiden Voyage is in the top 60 when it wasn't even in the top 250 before, and Sing to God and Leaving Your Body Map both went up around 60 ranks. Other examples include: Stormcock, Isa, and A Little Man and a House and the Whole World Window.

Yes, absolutely