Hello to everyone,

As many of you know, I am not the sort to stir up trouble and make rash statements designed to rile up my fellow prog afficianados.

But again I must direct the forum's attention to the prog LP/CD rankings on our beloved home page.

I realize that Fitzcarraldo and MikeEnregalia are smart, reasonable people, probably moreso than myself unless I really try hard, but the fact is, under no reasonable system would a work by Riverside be ranked higher than anything by Emerson, Lake and Palmer.

We again need to revisit this ranking business and get at a reasonable approach that ranks these LPs in a manner that makes sense and comports with prog history as it is commonly understood.

Otherwise the list is just an odd assortment of works that really is meaningless to all but the designers of the algorhythm.

What do others think?

Kotro wrote: What's your point? That Riverside aren't better than ELP or that the rankings list should be redone acording to some sort of historical priority?

My point is that any reasonable polling of prog members would have ELP albums ranked higher than anything by Riverside. I'm not saying one is better than the other (though I happen to think ELPs best is some of progs best as well).

I think our list should reflect this (and for the most part it does), but due to the logic of the algorhythm, certain anomalies creep in, such as this. I don't believe that if you polled all prog members across the forum that the Riverside lp would rank higher than ELPs best lps (e.g. BSS, ELP, Tarkus, Trilogy).

This is my point. Thanks for letting me clarify that.

The algorithm is really simple. There are no "anomalies", no hidden rules which push certain artists or punish others. Have a look at the average rating and number of ratings - it's pretty obvious:

2005

4.53 (78 ratings)

RIVERSIDE Second Life Syndrome

Progressive Metal (Studio Album)

1973

4.28 (138 ratings)

EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) Brain Salad Surgery

Symphonic Prog (Studio Album)

Well... the point is quite obvious: I don't like Riverside and it really pisses me off that they are higher then the awesome  ELP...

The algorithm is simple and good...  If the rank is higher than that means that Riverside gets much attention now and has more good reviews... but this will probably change when everything will cool down a bit...

MikeEnRegalia wrote: The algorithm is really simple. There are no "anomalies", no hidden rules which push certain artists or punish others. Have a look at the average rating and number of ratings - it's pretty obvious:   2005 4.53 (78 ratings) RIVERSIDE Second Life Syndrome Progressive Metal (Studio Album) 1973 4.28 (138 ratings) EMERSON LAKE & PALMER (ELP) Brain Salad Surgery Symphonic Prog (Studio Album)

Thanks for the response. I appreciate it.

But the problem I see with this approach is that it doesn't take into account the number of reviewers that have ranked an lp. For example, 1000 reviewers could review BSS and it might end up with a 4.78 or something. Then 25 reviewers could review Riverside and give it a 4.8. So then should Riverside be ranked higher than BSS? No, it shouldn't. Obviously the number of reviews is an indication of an lps impact on prog culture and should be factored in.

I realize this is a complex matter, and others could say, well if the lp sucked and a lot of people reviewed it badly, then it makes no sense to have the # of reviewers favorably impact its ranking. But I believe this is a very rare scenario. There needs to be a way to more accurately rank the lps that are truly considered to be prog classics among those that are good but not of the same caliber.

Maybe the list should be broken out by sub-genre or something. I'm not sure, but the combined list suggests that this is the consensus of the forum membership, which I do not believe to be the case. 

^^ oh, and the list IS available for each sub genre:

http://www.progarchives.com/top-prog-albums.asp - http://www.progarchives.com/top-prog-albums.asp

bluetailfly, the algorithm figures that in.  (Otherwise, it wouldn't be an algorithm...it would be an average.)

Like it or not, but of the people who have made reviews have given higher marks to Riverside over ELP.  I actually would rather listen to Riverside myself.  I understand that you are wanting ELP to have some "bonus" for being influential in this music that we love.  But frankly, ELP struggled with putting together a solid album.  In my opinion, all of their albums (BSS included) has glaring flaws (e.g. Benny the Bouncer).

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^  the algorithm is a combination of both the average rating and the number of reviews.

Well MikeE, that's not what your earliar post said, is it?  And, if that's the case, to what degree does the number of reviews affect its ranking? And to what degree does it's numerical ranking affect it? This then is where the heart of the issue lies.

Ed_The_Dead wrote: Well... the point is quite obvious: I don't like Riverside and it really pisses me off that they are higher then the awesome  ELP... The algorithm is simple and good...  If the rank is higher than that means that Riverside gets much attention now and has more good reviews... but this will probably change when everything will cool down a bit...

Why will it change when things "cool down?" Please explain.

bluetailfly wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^  the algorithm is a combination of both the average rating and the number of reviews. Well MikeE, that's not what your earliar post said, is it?

What are you referring to? If you mean the bit about "anomalies": I was just saying that there are no rules like "Riverside get's a bonus" or "ELP gets a handicap of 5 points". All the bands and albums are treated exactly the same way, all that matters are the reviews and ratings.

bluetailfly wrote: And, if that's the case, to what degree does the number of reviews affect its ranking? And to what degree does it's numerical ranking affect it? This then is where the heart of the issue lies.

Well ... the number of ratings is "dampened" ... the higher the number of ratings, the lesser is the effect of any additional ratings. Example: the difference between 10 and 60 ratings has a much higher influence on the ranking than the difference between 110 and 160 ratings.

The average rating is emphasized: the difference between 4.0 and 4.1 has a lesser effect than the difference between 4.5 and 4.6.

Lofcaudio wrote: bluetailfly, the algorithm figures that in.  (Otherwise, it wouldn't be an algorithm...it would be an average.) Like it or not, but of the people who have made reviews have given higher marks to Riverside over ELP.  I actually would rather listen to Riverside myself.  I understand that you are wanting ELP to have some "bonus" for being influential in this music that we love.  But frankly, ELP struggled with putting together a solid album.  In my opinion, all of their albums (BSS included) has glaring flaws (e.g. Benny the Bouncer).

The fact is Lofcaudio, if you asked prog members at large which of those two lps should be ranked higher, I believe the vast majority would say BSS. I'm not asking for a bonus, just an accurate reflection of the prog membership's opinion. The fact that you'd rather listen to Riverside than BSS is an semi-interesting footnote to the discussion, but isn't really relevant.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: bluetailfly wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^  the algorithm is a combination of both the average rating and the number of reviews. Well MikeE, that's not what your earliar post said, is it?   What are you referring to? If you mean the bit about "anomalies": I was just saying that there are no rules like "Riverside get's a bonus" or "ELP gets a handicap of 5 points". All the bands and albums are treated exactly the same way, all that matters are the reviews and ratings. bluetailfly wrote: And, if that's the case, to what degree does the number of reviews affect its ranking? And to what degree does it's numerical ranking affect it? This then is where the heart of the issue lies. Well ... the number of ratings is "dampened" ... the higher the number of ratings, the lesser is the effect of any additional ratings. Example: the difference between 10 and 60 ratings has a much higher influence on the ranking than the difference between 110 and 160 ratings. The average rating is emphasized: the difference between 4.0 and 4.1 has a lesser effect than the difference between 4.5 and 4.6.

Well, then I see this "dampening" as the cause of the problem. Why was that instituted? So that lesser known bands would appear in the top lps? What would happen if this "dampening" effect were taken off? I would be curious to see the results. BTW/ Thanks for providing this information; I really appreciate it.

bluetailfly wrote: Lofcaudio wrote: bluetailfly, the algorithm figures that in.  (Otherwise, it wouldn't be an algorithm...it would be an average.) Like it or not, but of the people who have made reviews have given higher marks to Riverside over ELP.  I actually would rather listen to Riverside myself.  I understand that you are wanting ELP to have some "bonus" for being influential in this music that we love.  But frankly, ELP struggled with putting together a solid album.  In my opinion, all of their albums (BSS included) has glaring flaws (e.g. Benny the Bouncer). The fact is Lofcaudio, if you asked prog members at large which of those two lps should be ranked higher, I believe the vast majority would say BSS. I'm not asking for a bonus, just an accurate reflection of the prog membership's opinion. The fact that you'd rather listen to Riverside than BSS is an semi-interesting footnote to the discussion, but isn't really relevant.

 This website is asking exactly that ... and the people are answering in the form of ratings and reviews. IMO the ratings in this case say that ELP are more popular ... but Riverside are either generally rated better, or recieve less "bashing" (1 star reviews).

bluetailfly wrote: Lofcaudio wrote: bluetailfly, the algorithm figures that in.  (Otherwise, it wouldn't be an algorithm...it would be an average.) Like it or not, but of the people who have made reviews have given higher marks to Riverside over ELP.  I actually would rather listen to Riverside myself.  I understand that you are wanting ELP to have some "bonus" for being influential in this music that we love.  But frankly, ELP struggled with putting together a solid album.  In my opinion, all of their albums (BSS included) has glaring flaws (e.g. Benny the Bouncer). The fact is Lofcaudio, if you asked prog members at large which of those two lps should be ranked higher, I believe the vast majority would say BSS. I'm not asking for a bonus, just an accurate reflection of the prog membership's opinion. The fact that you'd rather listen to Riverside than BSS is an semi-interesting footnote to the discussion, but isn't really relevant.

While my opinion is irrelevant since I have not entered in ratings for either of these bands, the FACTS are that Riverside has been rated higher than ELP by the members of this website.  I think you are assuming something which may not be true.  Thus, the use (need) for the rankings.  While you may subjectively believe that most would prefer ELP, that isn't reflected in the ratings.  That is a fact.

I'm not trying to get into an argument.  I am simply pointing out the value of the rankings.  Sure, we all have varying tastes that would disagree with the rankings, but these rankings do reflect a wider range of opinions than our normal circle of peers.

bluetailfly wrote: Well, then I see this "dampening" as the cause of the problem. Why was that instituted? So that lesser known bands would appear in the top lps?

No ... so that better rated bands would appear at the top. (see below)

bluetailfly wrote: What would happen if this "dampening" effect were taken off? I would be curious to see the results. BTW/ Thanks for providing this information; I really appreciate it.

When I first came to this website the list was compiled like you suggest. The result was that Dream Theater - Train of Thought and later also Dream Theater - Octavarium were in the top 10 with more than 200 ratings but an average of less than 4.0. At the same time, Jethro Tull - Thick as a Brick (which back then had an average of 4.88 with a respectable number of ratings around 70) was around position 50.

I presented the changes of the algorithm to mailto:M@x - M@x and we both liked the new list better than the old one, and so it was adopted. But it is in no way manipulating the results.

BTW: When the new version of the progarchives website nears completion (whenever this will be), I will suggest to mailto:M@x - M@x that several "algorithms" can be chosen from - average rating only, number of ratings only, this algorithm ... and another more sophisticated algorithm that I have in mind, which finds underrated "gems".

MikeEnRegalia wrote: bluetailfly wrote: Lofcaudio wrote: bluetailfly, the algorithm figures that in.  (Otherwise, it wouldn't be an algorithm...it would be an average.) Like it or not, but of the people who have made reviews have given higher marks to Riverside over ELP.  I actually would rather listen to Riverside myself.  I understand that you are wanting ELP to have some "bonus" for being influential in this music that we love.  But frankly, ELP struggled with putting together a solid album.  In my opinion, all of their albums (BSS included) has glaring flaws (e.g. Benny the Bouncer). The fact is Lofcaudio, if you asked prog members at large which of those two lps should be ranked higher, I believe the vast majority would say BSS. I'm not asking for a bonus, just an accurate reflection of the prog membership's opinion. The fact that you'd rather listen to Riverside than BSS is an semi-interesting footnote to the discussion, but isn't really relevant.  This website is asking exactly that ... and the people are answering in the form of ratings and reviews. IMO the ratings in this case say that ELP are more popular ... but Riverside are either generally rated better, or recieve less "bashing" (1 star reviews).

You keep using the laughing emoticon...I guess I'm glad you're amused by all of this.  But I am rather serious about this.

No, the ranking of lps is not exactly that...that's the problem. The rankings system allows for a minority of rabid fans to get on and lavish praise upon some piece of prog ephemera and have it post higher than classic prog lps that contain more considered reviews and rankings by the most thoughtful members of the forum.

I percieve a problem here. The list is not accurate in that it is not a reflection of the prog membership, yet that is what it suggests to those who view the site. Surely, you can't be so enamored of the present algorhythm that you don't see inaccuracies of perception arising as a result of it?

One of the issues is that Progressive Metal reviews generally tend to be of the "fanboy" type, along the lines of "This is really great" and "I love this", and there are a lot of them.

Classic Prog album reviews tend to be more realistic, and concentrate on qualities of the music rather than the percieved quality, since the sort of people that typically listen to Classic rather than Metal are more critical.

Not only that, but people who aren't into Prog Metal tend to stay away from it as a genre rather than review it, so the reviews almost invariably come from people that love the albums.

Please note that I'm not making this up or taking a swipe at Prog Metal or its fans - the reviews speak for themselves - simply look at the front page of ProgArchives for verification of this.

bluetailfly wrote: You keep using the laughing emoticon...I guess I'm glad you're amused by all of this.  But I am rather serious about this.

Sorry, I'm not laughing about you. I'm just imagining what would happen if we restored the old system - it would cause a major uproar in the forum. But it's not fair - you obviously were not here back then, so it's all new to you.

^ what are you refering to, Cert? There are two Prog Metal reviews on the front page - one about Pain of Salvation - BE (5 stars, a little euphoric but in line with the average rating) and one about Subterranean Masquerade - Suspended Animation Dreams (which also seems reasonable to me, but I don't know the album).

^

Ah well when the fans of the "true" progressive rock finds out about this im sure it will spawn alot of anonymous 1 star reviews

bluetailfly wrote: Ed_The_Dead wrote: Well... the point is quite obvious: I don't like Riverside and it really pisses me off that they are higher then the awesome  ELP... The algorithm is simple and good...  If the rank is higher than that means that Riverside gets much attention now and has more good reviews... but this will probably change when everything will cool down a bit... Why will it change when things "cool down?" Please explain.

I mean that SLS has quite a lot of hype right now... And everybody loves it etc... but still no so Meany people know it... So when the hype goes away and everyone will look at it like your ordinary album... the reviews will vary a bit... and probably other people will get to know it... and give 1 star rieviews... its always the same...

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: One of the issues is that Progressive Metal reviews generally tend to be of the "fanboy" type, along the lines of "This is really great" and "I love this", and there are a lot of them. This is not exclusive to prog metal. Have a look at the reviews of the current top 5 ... also have a look at the reviews of prog metal albums which used to have a high ranking, and observe some serious bashing of the oh so civilised "prog rock only" fans ... I'm sure that Second Live Syndrome will soon become a victim of these "traditionalists". I'm sorry - which part of "generally tend" was so tricky to understand? It's true that the Classics have a higher proportion of idiot reviews too - generally the low rating ones. Classic Prog album reviews tend to be more realistic, and concentrate on qualities of the music rather than the percieved quality, since the sort of people that typically listen to Classic rather than Metal are more critical. There you ... ahem, I forgot that I'm not allowed to say that. There's the word "tend" again... Not only that, but people who aren't into Prog Metal tend to stay away from it as a genre rather than review it, so the reviews almost invariably come from people that love the albums. Yes ... rather than reviewing the albums, they just file 1 star ratings.  That happens to both categories - but you're right, there are a lot of cowardly hit and run ratings in the Prog Metal reviews, and I'm fairly sure that some of them came from "realistic" Classic prog lovers - I didn't say they were entirely sensible, did I? Please note that I'm not making this up or taking a swipe at Prog Metal or its fans ... No, of course not. I mean, it's not off-topic or anything ... ... the reviews speak for themselves - simply look at the front page of ProgArchives for verification of this. I'll do just that.

To illustrate my points only - with apologies to the authors for taking these as examples - it was entirely random that they happened to be there at the time...

PROG METAL REVIEW currently on the front page:

Well, I really don't know what to whrite here. The first time I heard BE I had only listened to PoS for a short time, and I was still exploring their older albums with great intrest. I heard a couple of songs of it when my friend bought it, and I thought it sounded really wierd. Lot's of wierd talking, and stuff, that didn't make any sense to me at the time. Than I actually got to a place where I got to borrow the album from him, and I listened to it a couple of times, until I thought it was pretty good. So, I decided to get the album, and this is where it really turned. The more I listened to BE and the more I understood the concept, and the lyrics on the album, as well as beginning to know the songs the way I like to, I just started liking it more and more! And that is the way it has continued, and now I would say that BE is, if not THE, than at least not very far from the best album ever made, in my opinion. Now I listen to it practicly at least a couple of times a mounth, and it gets better for every time! TIP: Have time with BE, get to know it, cuz it's really worth it!

CLASSIC PROG REVIEW currently on the front page:

Welcome to Czukay’s unique and fantasist musical universe. Czukay's first solo album after his departure from Can. Recorded with the collaboration of Can's family members (Irmin Schmidt, Michael Karoli) this album features 4 original, very distinct, intriguing songs which develops Czukay's aptitude to combine alternative sounds to synth / guitar experimentations (from world to a funk, jazzy felt). Taken from diverse sources (TV, radio...) many electronic collages & samplings enrich the compositions and give to them something special, rather unconventional. Discreet, floating pop vocals accompany the instrumental sections. The sound of the album is still fresh & modern. All tracks include a lot of changes and progressions in themes and materials. A few of them have a nice, satiric, hilarious flavour as in the funkadelic & rhythmical "Cool in the Pool" . "Oh Lord give us more money "is my favourite song on this one; a personal, fuzzy, detached and jazzy tune. "Persian Love" is directly influenced by Arabic music with traditional vocals and percussions augmented by different electronic samples. A complex album which needs several listenings before giving a proper judgement! Just be careful, this recording has its soft moments. For prog-heads I warmly advise the revolutionary “Canaxis”.

Note the tendencies I mentioned in the Metal review (a 5 starrer), and note also the considerations of the music's qualities in the Classic review (a 3-starrer).

In both cases, the authors clearly like the music.

Only in the second does the author attempt to rationalise feelings for the music and give any actual clues as to what the music sounds like - ie, it's a more realistic review, and paints a really good picture of the MUSIC.

In the first, it's just praise - but for what? There is no indication of what it sounds like, except "wierd", "pretty good", and "gets better every time". 

I would be left wondering what the heck it sounded like - if I didn't already have several inklings...

I know exactly which album I'd check out first

^ It's easy to pick two arbitrary reviews to make your point. I could also pick a -well, let's say "beginner review" of a classic album and compare it to a really good prog metal review (yes these exist - if all else fails there are always those that you yourself wrote).

Lindsay Lohan wrote: ^ Ah well when the fans of the "true" progressive rock finds out about this im sure it will spawn alot of anonymous 1 star reviews

I don't want to have to stoop to that...but if becomes the only recourse for the righteous, we may just have to...

bluetailfly wrote: Lindsay Lohan wrote: ^ Ah well when the fans of the "true" progressive rock finds out about this im sure it will spawn alot of anonymous 1 star reviews I don't want to have to stoop to that...but if becomes the only recourse for the righteous, we may just have to...

That is the path to the dark side of the force ...

I think I have to agree with Bluetailfly.. 

I think the " Top 100" doesn't make sence AT ALL.

Why?

- It isn't something to calculate, as Bluetailfly said erlier, the number of reviews IS of essence.

- Lovers and haters; With bands you've also have certain lovers (the now quite OFTEN used term "overrated"  gets of use..) and haters (for me, dream theater is one of them...) this won't get any brighter.. and with an " CALCULATED"  top 100 more difficult..

- Subjective vs. objective; some albums just deserve to be in an certain top " ... " . In prog there's an guidline to that I guess (essentional albums like ITCOTCK, CTTE etc. etc. ) but that would be even subjective too. I'd say let's make an split in the top 100; Pure essentional albums.. genres (tough the metal part would be Dream theater only, wich is rather sadly..). and/or even certain years/dates. MAYBE even make an " Weekly (dayly, monthly yearly whatever!) hilight" to bring an rather unknown but good album in the spotlight, so not only the albums that almost everybody knows of get heard, but also the lesser known.

other:

- People will review not to add something to an album (tough it gets screened/read now and then) but to put their band one spot higher (OR lower), with that the overall of an album will not be realistic. With that some things will get an rather childish look.

I've got a lot to add/delete within this post.. don't have the time for that now. Hopefully does this any good. Cheers

Radioactive Toy wrote: - It isn't something to calculate, as Bluetailfly said erlier, the number of reviews IS of essence

So you think that Train of Thought should be the #1?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ It's easy to pick two arbitrary reviews to make your point. I could also pick a -well, let's say "beginner review" of a classic album and compare it to a really good prog metal review (yes these exist - if all else fails there are always those that you yourself wrote).

That's utterly true.. but there is something like an balance in this.. In progmetal these things more tend to 5pointers then reasonable reviews..

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Radioactive Toy wrote: - It isn't something to calculate, as Bluetailfly said erlier, the number of reviews IS of essence So you think that Train of Thought should be the #1?

with that, I was referring to the sentence that "the top 100 doens't make any sence at all"

It also makes sence that an 1 review album wich scored 5 points doens't give a clear vieuw that it's better then an 100 reviews album wich scored 4,8 points for example. BOTH doesn't make sence.

Radioactive Toy wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ It's easy to pick two arbitrary reviews to make your point. I could also pick a -well, let's say "beginner review" of a classic album and compare it to a really good prog metal review (yes these exist - if all else fails there are always those that you yourself wrote). That's utterly true.. but there is something like an balance in this.. In progmetal these things more tend to 5pointers then reasonable reviews..

That's your opinion ... I disagree.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Radioactive Toy wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ It's easy to pick two arbitrary reviews to make your point. I could also pick a -well, let's say "beginner review" of a classic album and compare it to a really good prog metal review (yes these exist - if all else fails there are always those that you yourself wrote). That's utterly true.. but there is something like an balance in this.. In progmetal these things more tend to 5pointers then reasonable reviews.. That's your opinion ... I disagree.

lets see the mainpage right now:

progmetal reviews: 2/2 5 pointer reviews with a " wow i really like this album so it's a masterpeace level"

Progrock reviews:  5/9 with such level (wich still is VERY high)

Radioactive Toy wrote: the last or the first? what's the relevance of that? The newest progmetal review is also an 5/5 by the way..

 don't you think that it's a little phony to use this one review to back up your theory? What about the 5 star review of Trespass?

ELP's low ranking comes from the minority of ELP bashers who deliberately post 1 or 2 star ratings to knock them down.

Brain Salad Surgery should be a top twenty prog rock album easy ,but detractors use this album to make a (negative) point as its the one that ELP fans like the most and so normally would be placed high.

The fact is only ratings that are accompanied by a viable,knowledgable and sensible review should be counted.Why on earth are ratings without an accompanying review counted?

richardh wrote: Why on earth are ratings without an accompanying review counted?

Indeed. But even if only ratings with reviews are counted, there would be no way to separate the "good" ones from the "bad" ones.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Radioactive Toy wrote: the last or the first? what's the relevance of that? The newest progmetal review is also an 5/5 by the way..  don't you think that it's a little phony to use this one review to back up your theory? What about the 5 star review of Trespass?

Nope.. it really sets its own example.. I can't get anything wiser from a review of a random dream theater album reviewed 5/5 " OMG this is teh pwnage lol" . Same as an random yes review 5/5 " this is a pure prog classic buy it" . I hope you can agree with that.. both is useless. Some stuff that really stimulates that (to get back on the topic) is the top100.

Maybe an catogorisation of all sorts of things. All people have different interests;

Instrumental for example; The snow goose is of the same value (maybe even less) as morte macabre's symphonic holocaust

Dark prog

Scandinavian prog (more people are talking about this, maybe this could be catogorised as an genre itself..)

etc.

etc.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: richardh wrote: Why on earth are ratings without an accompanying review counted? Indeed. But even if only ratings with reviews are counted, there would be no way to separate the "good" ones from the "bad" ones.

Well I've had oen or two e-mails from admin about some of my 'dodgy' reviews so I guess that someone must be monitoring them 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: richardh wrote: Why on earth are ratings without an accompanying review counted? Indeed. But even if only ratings with reviews are counted, there would be no way to separate the "good" ones from the "bad" ones.

YES there is!

There are certain guidlines.. Those aren't used OFTEN!

Radioactive Toy wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: richardh wrote: Why on earth are ratings without an accompanying review counted? Indeed. But even if only ratings with reviews are counted, there would be no way to separate the "good" ones from the "bad" ones. YES there is! There are certain guidlines.. Those aren't used OFTEN!

Even within these guidelines it's entirely possible to rate a "typical" 5 star album 1 star and vice versa. There cannot be a system of guidelines that only permits "perfect" ratings, because we all are different.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Radioactive Toy wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: richardh wrote: Why on earth are ratings without an accompanying review counted? Indeed. But even if only ratings with reviews are counted, there would be no way to separate the "good" ones from the "bad" ones. YES there is! There are certain guidlines.. Those aren't used OFTEN! Even within these guidelines it's entirely possible to rate a "typical" 5 star album 1 star and vice versa. There cannot be a system of guidelines that only permits "perfect" ratings, because we all are different.

But maybe THEN there are things used like ARGUMENTS ? WITH that a 5 star rating WOULD be usefull.. since it's EXPLAINED WHY..

Radioactive Toy wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Radioactive Toy wrote: the last or the first? what's the relevance of that? The newest progmetal review is also an 5/5 by the way..  don't you think that it's a little phony to use this one review to back up your theory? What about the 5 star review of Trespass? Nope.. it really sets its own example.. I can't get anything wiser from a review of a random dream theater album reviewed 5/5 " OMG this is teh pwnage lol" . Same as an random yes review 5/5 " this is a pure prog classic buy it" . I hope you can agree with that.. both is useless. Some stuff that really stimulates that (to get back on the topic) is the top100. Maybe an catogorisation of all sorts of things. All people have different interests; Instrumental for example; The snow goose is of the same value (maybe even less) as morte macabre's symphonic holocaust Dark prog Scandinavian prog (more people are talking about this, maybe this could be catogorised as an genre itself..) etc. etc.

quoting it just to let it be read..

Radioactive Toy wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Radioactive Toy wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: richardh wrote: Why on earth are ratings without an accompanying review counted? Indeed. But even if only ratings with reviews are counted, there would be no way to separate the "good" ones from the "bad" ones. YES there is! There are certain guidlines.. Those aren't used OFTEN! Even within these guidelines it's entirely possible to rate a "typical" 5 star album 1 star and vice versa. There cannot be a system of guidelines that only permits "perfect" ratings, because we all are different.   But maybe THEN there are things used like ARGUMENTS ? WITH that a 5 star rating WOULD be usefull.. since it's EXPLAINED WHY..

Of course there would be LESS abuse, and I'm all for it (forbid ratings without reviews). But there will always be reviews which seem unjustified or just wrong to you ... and you could not do anything about it. So why bother in the first place? Does it really matter if an album is in the top 20, or if album X is 5 positions above album Y?

and again... " WITH that a 5 star rating WOULD be usefull.. since it's EXPLAINED WHY.."

I don't care at all, some prog jewels (in my humble opinion) aren't even in the top 100, cound't care less. But what kind of addition DOES it make to make SUCH an generalisation? Huh the best albums ever are spice girls - totally spice and back street boys - happylords united.. It has to do with ratings you know. You're making an generalisation with KNOWN and LESSER KNOWN in the first place. Then the OVERRATED and HATED part comes. Then the plain BAD REVIEWS come. This all state that an top 100 DOESN'T make sence. THAT's why I bother.. NOT the place of an album..

The current top 100 albums are a great selection for newbies to start with. Should they start with Liquid Scarlet? Or Peter Hammill - The Fall of the House of Usher? Edge of Sanity - Crimson?

Don't know.. why don't you let them choose? (as I stated 10 times earlyer..) I mean, when they know the moody blues from whatever.. should they listen to dream theater? AND IF they want to try out dream theater.. should they pick #1 that is for example: metropolis part like I care because of the overload of 5/5 star reviews with " WOOAAAH THIS IS THE BEST ALBUM EVAAAH" , NO.. why NO top 100? because of the IRRELAVANCE..

Radioactive Toy wrote: Don't know.. why don't you let them choose? (as I stated 10 times earlyer..)

Oh, I let them choose, no problem.  BTW: Who are "they" and what should they choose from?

You are taking this way too seriously ...

bluetailfly wrote: Hello to everyone, As many of you know, I am not the sort to stir up trouble and make rash statements designed to rile up my fellow prog afficianados. But again I must direct the forum's attention to the prog LP/CD rankings on our beloved home page. I realize that Fitzcarraldo and MikeEnregalia are smart, reasonable people, probably moreso than myself unless I really try hard, but the fact is, under no reasonable system would a work by Riverside be ranked higher than anything by Emerson, Lake and Palmer. We again need to revisit this ranking business and get at a reasonable approach that ranks these LPs in a manner that makes sense and comports with prog history as it is commonly understood. Otherwise the list is just an odd assortment of works that really is meaningless to all but the designers of the algorhythm. What do others think?

bluetailfly,

I don't want to get involved in a debate - I've discussed enough the Top 10/20/50/100 (it's appeared in various guises) in these forums over the last 18 months - but, just for the record, the current algorithm is all MikeEnregalia's own work and nothing to do with me (no implied criticism of Mike).

I suggested having a Top 10 on the Home Page back in May 2004 if I recall correctly, and the algorithm went through a number of changes - see the following thread for its history prior to the current algorithm by Mike (now No. 6?):

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4038 - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4038

Because I wanted specifically to gauge equally the impact of the number of 'votes' for an album and the ratings for that album (popularity, if you will), my algorithm No. 5 was more interesting *to me* and, although I'm no fan of DREAM THEATER or other Prog Metal bands, *I* found the result to be probably a more telling representation of the likes of the site visitor population. However, it seems that many people just cannot stomach DT anywhere near the top of a list, and the results of algorithm No. 5 continued to generate a lot of discussion.

Having seen the list produced by algorithm No. 5 and been satisfied by it and my rationale (again, see the above-mentioned thread), I'm happy to see the results produced by Mike's algorithm, especially if it generates less polemic than the previous one. It generally produces the right sort of bands in roughly the right sort of places, so I'm not complaining. Having said that, I personally agree with you vis-à-vis ELP and RIVERSIDE, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It's all just a bit of fun at the end of the day.

Actually, I sometimes wonder whether, when all the old fogies such as myself who were in their teens and twenties in the 1970s and 'into' Prog Rock are long gone, the big 1970 successes of the Prog Rock genre will still be considered good music. A lot of CD sales of the classic Prog Bands of the 1970s have been to older people, replacing LPs or revisiting the past (me, for example). When the likes of me are long gone, will people think that the music of YES, GENESIS, ELP, TULL etc. is good? I'd like to think so, but there's no guarantee. Perhaps in 50 years time, any 100 people would prefer the music of RIVERSIDE to that of ELP. Personally I would hope not, but who can say? Tastes change. Another hypothetical question for you: not knocking RIVERSIDE but, if they had been around in 1972, would they have been able to draw a crowd of 350,000? ELP were true showmen, weren't they?!

One of the problems with these archives is, any idiot and their gran can add some peice of nonsense and review. Prog metal appears to be an American phenomenom, how heavy metal is progressive beats me, but some nutters think it does. These archives sem to be alive only for dispute and mostly irrelevence. Prog is/was better, and always will be, in the 70's. No other decade has given more to prog than this era, the birth, it's inevitable climax, since then it has been downhill. Clutching at straws for any different sounding band seems to be the norm on here, and then get them included. So much rubbish is installed in these archives, pretending to be prog that it makes me shake my head in utter disbelief.

I know standing still will not keep this site alive but adding nonsense and keeping appalling groups in the top 100 will only alienate many people. Many changes have happened on this site and from what i've seen, definitely not for the better. Shake loose and get rid of all the non-prog, and stop pandering to heavy metal with keybaords.

ELP are one of the, if not the, top prog bands, the top 100 albums is a joke, and a very bad one at that. Mickey mouse could probably get an album in there, if it was construed as being different to his Disney stuff.

god help us all. 

dream_orchestra wrote: Shake loose and get rid of all the non-prog, and stop pandering to heavy metal with keybaords. ELP are one of the, if not the, top prog bands, the top 100 albums is a joke, and a very bad one at that. Mickey mouse could probably get an album in there, if it was construed as being different to his Disney stuff. god help us all.

Well, I guess that some people will always be shallow and narrow-minded ...

Moatilliatta wrote: I listened to the two Riverside mp3s that this site hosts, and I don't see what's so spectacular about it.

I only have Second Life Syndrome, and I would rate it a solid 4 stars. Based on that, I guess I could agree that it's presently overrated. But who knows, maybe it will grow on me!