About the top 100

The top100 is actually based on the number of rating instead of the actual overall note of the album.

Dream Theater's Train of Thought is 14th with a 3.24 rating! (297 reviews) This is one of the most contreversial album on the site. It's far from being the best DT album, it's a lot more metal than prog, and it's actually pretty bad in my opinion. I accept somes like it, but well, number 14 on a top100 prog album ever!?!

Pink Floyd's Division Bell is 47th with a 3.76 rating. (88 Reviews) Not a bad album, but well...

Radiohead's OK Computer is 82th with a 3.87 rating. (55 reviews) Not bad for an album which isn't considered prog by many people, including Radiohead members.

BaldJean wrote: I stated that from being the most popular you can't derive they are the best, and I'll stick with that. And it is certainly true in many cases that bands are simply overrated by the majority. My personal opinion is that about 10-20% of what is very popular also is very good, compared with the unpopular stuff. But mere popularity of a certain band or album says absolutely nothing about the quality.

I respectfully disagree with you. I would like you to tell me who YOU think are the top 5 best progressive rock artists in YOUR opinion.

Also, you have not commented on my view that all the artists that I mentioned (Genesis, Miles Davis, Mozart, Bob Marley, etc.) are very good. Do you disagree? I doubt you do, which is why your argument fails to hold up.

BaldJean wrote: I stated that from being the most popular you can't derive they are the best, and I'll stick with that. And it is certainly true in many cases that bands are simply overrated by the majority. My personal opinion is that about 10-20% of what is very popular also is very good, compared with the unpopular stuff. But mere popularity of a certain band or album says absolutely nothing about the quality.

Well, in prog it does. 'cause prog is a genre of music that is NOT regarded as popular!!!

These band defined the genre.. blah blah they are the best of the genre blah blah ELP are good... blah blah.

Hogwash.

The reason for the top 100 consisting of albums from a select few bands, is simple. People don't know that many albums, nor have they listened to enough albums to review albums relatively relatively. Relativity is the key when making a top 100. You don't have to know all albums in prog-rock to know that 'The Snow Goose' is a masterpiece, but you have to know a great deal when composing a top 100.

Conclusion: The top 100 list doesn't represent the top 100 albums of the genre, but are based on this site's reviewer's rating, and amount of ratings.

Hey Tony R! Which one is you and which is your brother?

I disagree.

Here's what it all comes down to: Although you don't listen to the more popular bands of the prog genre, you are still being controlled because they are popular.  While its not as simple as that, according to your logic, the worse a band is, the more people like it, therefore making it popular.  To break away from this conformity you listen to more underground stuff and enjoy it more.

But ask yourself this: Do you dislike the popular bands because they don't have the talent or because they are merely popular?  Obviously they have talent if they are popular (at least in this "snobby" genre) so that can't be the case.  So, you dislike popular bands mostly on the basis of their popularity.  Therefore popularity also controls your musical decisions.  You said yourself you didn't give a damn about charts, yet you won't listen to bands that are on them

The moral of the story: listen to what you like, and let your neighbor listens to what he likes.  If the two of you realize you like the same thing (thus its popular) don't let that deter you.

Interesting posts.
[/QUOTE]

You didn't get me at all. I don't care one bit whether a band is popular or not. It may very well be that I agree with most of the listeners. I don't vote for other bands just because I want to be different. But I prefer to keep my ears open and be unbiased by the opinion of others, and that's in a positive way as well as in a negative. Simply saying just because all others like it it can't be good would be idiotic.

Okay...you kiddies need another lesson. The Top 100 list is based on number of reviews that were given to that band....nothing else....take Piper At the Gates of Dawn(rated at 31) has a 3.99 rating whereas In the Land of Grey and Pink(rated at 50) has a 4.61...

ALL THE LIST IS IS THE 100 ALBUMS THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED THE MOST!

End of lesson.

dalt99 wrote: Sorry but I must Laugh Out Loud at your suggestion. I am DEAD serious about it. It's the case that the most popular in a genre DEFINE THE GENRE so in time these bands/artists just seem the most digestible.  Do you mean to tell me that The Beatles suck? Metallica sucks? Yes and Genesis suck? Miles Davis sucks? Bach and Mozart suck? Jimi Hendrix sucks? Bob Marley sucks? B.B. King sucks? Magma sucks? Tangerine Dream sucks? I am sure you wouldn't say that about them but these artists are usually classified as the best or about the best in their genre of music because they are very good. They may seem easy to digest but that's because they helped to define their genre of music. As time goes on music progresses but I know many people that think The Mars Volta is easier to enjoy then Yes or King Crimson! Go figure

I wouldn't exactly call Magma or King Crimson easily digestible.