About the top 100

dalt99 wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Charts of whatever kind, and I mean whatever, are not a reflection of quality. I like you BaldFriede and I get what you are saying but you can't make a statement like that as an absolute. You say charts are never a reflection of quality but if I asked you to rank your top 10 favorite Magma and Gong songs you mean to tell me that there is no quality there? If 10 fans of Gong and Magma rated their top 10 favorite songs the worst songs would be at the top of the chart? Maybe. Maybe not but there is still quality throughout the chart. Do you rank on quality? I rate a song on quality but also on if I enjoy it or not.  What makes a song by Gong of any more quality than a song by The Beatles? Sometimes songs nobody likes have no quality and vice versa

What would that say? It would say that I personally like these bands. It is my personal opinion and a poll for me alone only. Such polls are useful, at least occasionally, since they may include suggestions as to what to listen to. But a poll on which more than one persons votes will only give you the usual results again, with the same bands being at the very top. I don't see what that should give me or anyone else.

The posts triggered me to have a look at the top100:

Bands that were in my collection before I came here:

YES, GENESIS, PINK FLOYD, KING CRIMSON, RUSH, CAMEL, ELP, CARAVAN, MARILLION, SUPERTRAMP, RICK WAKEMAN, MIKE OLDFIELD

 

Bands that I had heard off, but did not have before I came here (stars mean I got them since):

JETHRO TULL*, GENTLE GIANT*, UK, QUEENSRYCHE*, STEVE HACKETT*

 

Bands that I had never heard off before I came here (stars mean I got them since):

DREAM THEATER*, VAN DER GRAAF GENERATOR*, PORCUPINE TREE*, ANGLAGARD, AYREON*, IQ, THE MARS VOLTA*, PAIN OF SALVATION, PFM*, COLLAGE, ARENA, RIVERSIDE, SYMPHONY X

Many of these new purchases were triggered by the fact that they are in this list, and that I read and liked the reviews of the albums. So for me, the list worked.

gdub411 wrote :

I was still half right there gramps. I'm 39 and please, never take me too seriously.

I'll try not to take it too heavy. However I am more interested of what you think in the discussion part (the idea of most high rated albums instead of the current mechanism).

BaldFriede wrote: I tend to to have a dfferent opinion. It is mostly a list of the albums that had the biggest commercial success, which does not say anything about their quality or importance. You might as well draw similar inferences from the current pop charts. Charts of whatever kind, and I mean whatever, are not a reflection of quality.

I disagree, popularity can often be a sign of high quality. The two are not mutually exclusive. Especially at a website like this, the membership is fairly intelligent, and of rather refined tastes (not everyone, mind you). I don't believe that there are obscure albums out there that are more mind blowing than the majority of the top 100. I'm sure they're good albums and are deserving of recognition, but the top 100 represent serious prog rock achievement.

Shakespeare was very popular, so are Martin Scorcese movies, Seinfeld, etc.: and they represent the top quality in their genres. Commercial success doesn't mean it isn't good, though a lot of stuff that does succeed commercially is crap; you need sort the wheat from the chaff.

Certif1ed wrote: They're most popular because they got most votes. I hate to see any Yes or Dream Theater rated as highly or higher than Marillion, Pink Floyd, Tull, KC, Rush or Genesis when it quite blatantly isn't true... It's like the pop charts - at the top is the most pop.

Dream Theatre are joe average but the Yes men rule and that is the blatant truth.The above mentioned are all fine bands but it's about personal taste at the end of the day and Yes are way above this lot

gdub411 wrote :

Polite!?!....Ha!!...Bugger off kiddo!!

I'm 41 years old grampa ! are you older than that ?

There are things you learn when you get old and wise. And you did get it wrong, remember ?

I tend to to have a dfferent opinion. It is mostly a list of the albums that had the biggest commercial success, which does not say anything about their quality or importance. You might as well draw similar inferences from the current pop charts. Charts of whatever kind, and I mean whatever, are not a reflection of quality.

^..I certainly haven't heard all the top 100...there's even a few bands that I haven't even heard yet.

BaldFriede wrote: I had a look at the so-called top 100, and now, after having seen them, I think it is a totally unnecessary list. It does not supply you with any interesting information, because anyone who is into prog will most probably know the bands named there.

In theory you'd think it would stop all those newbie threads like "Hi, I'm new to Prog - what would you recommend", as there is 100 great albums to choose from.

I think it's interesting to see what's popular - then you can go check it out and see if you agree or not and discuss it here in the forum. I doubt that everyone who posts here has the entire top 100 in their collection, and it's worth discussing the well-known just as much as the obscure recordings, IMO 

I had a look at the so-called top 100, and now, after having seen them, I think it is a totally unnecessary list. It does not supply you with any interesting information, because anyone who is into prog will most probably know the bands named there.