TOP 100 Progressive Music Albums - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21156

Posted: July 24 2007 at 01:22

darqdean wrote:

^ now here lies an interesting paradox...

Without the weighting The Who's Quadrophenia would currently be sitting near top of the Top 100, which would bring about a flurry of hateboy 1-star ratings to drag it down.

With the new weighting system this will not happen until it has a sufficient number of 4 and 5 star ratings to get it into the Top 100, which will render the hateboy low ratings ineffectual for quite some time.

Which is highly commendable. But not exactly a level playing field for the exisiting albums that have already "suffered" under the old system.

(I'm not having a go at The Who - the same thing will happen to the next major inclusion and to the next major release buy one of the big-names)

I don't think that there's any ranking algorithm that could automatically separate the abusive ratings from the honest ones. Embarrassed

Recently listened to:

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: July 23 2007 at 20:39

Ok, that makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: July 23 2007 at 20:37

1800iareyay wrote:

Yeah, but weird things happen here and there with the rating system. Livecrime is in the upper reaches of the prog metal top 100 with only 16 ratings I believe

Because it has only 1 1-star rating against it's 13 5-star ratings - ie it desreves to be there - and also DVD's tend to attract reviews and ratings only from fans of the band.

Edited by darqdean - July 23 2007 at 20:38

What?

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: July 23 2007 at 20:27

dude, why do you keep bringing that up?

Edited by 1800iareyay - July 23 2007 at 20:27

Dim

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 17 2007
Location: Austin TX
Status: Offline
Points: 6890

Posted: July 23 2007 at 20:26

WyWh is in the top spot.

(sigh) what are we doing to ourselves?

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: July 23 2007 at 20:23

Yeah, but weird things happen here and there with the rating system. Livecrime is in the upper reaches of the prog metal top 100 with only 16 ratings I believe

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: July 23 2007 at 20:19

^ now here lies an interesting paradox...

Without the weighting The Who's Quadrophenia would currently be sitting near top of the Top 100, which would bring about a flurry of hateboy 1-star ratings to drag it down.

Which is highly commendable. But not exactly a level playing field for the exisiting albums that have already "suffered" under the old system.

(I'm not having a go at The Who - the same thing will happen to the next major inclusion and to the next major release buy one of the big-names)

What?

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: July 23 2007 at 19:40

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Short explanation:

Suppose that the average number of ratings for an album in the archives is 10. Also suppose that the total average rating is 3.80:

N=10
R=3.80

now we have an album which has only one rating of 5.0:

n=1
r=5.00

The weighted average is:

avg = (N*R + n*r) / (N+n)

In this case:

avg = (10*3.80 + 1*5) / (10+1) = 43/11 = 3.91

Let's look at another album which also only has one rating, but 1 star instead of 5:

avg = (10*3.80 + 1*1) / (10+1) = 39/11 = 3.55

Now let's look at an album which has 20 five star ratings:

avg = (10*3.80 + 20*5)/(10+20) = 138/30 = 4.60

Or an album which has 20 one star ratings:

avg = (10*3.80 + 20*1)/(10+20) = 58/30 = 1.93

See? Albums with only one rating start at the total average an slowly work their way up or down the chart as the number of ratings increases. The more ratings an album has, the more it's computed average matches the "real" average ... the less ratings an album has, the closer the weighted average "sticks" to the total average.

So...if she weighs as much as a duck...she's made of wood?

Easy Livin View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: February 21 2004
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 15585

Posted: July 23 2007 at 17:19

Thanks Mike, it was beyond me to explain!!

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: July 23 2007 at 16:08

^ of course that does mean that no band will ever score a perfect "5" - but that's no bad thing

What?

MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21156

Posted: July 23 2007 at 15:57

Short explanation:

Suppose that the average number of ratings for an album in the archives is 10. Also suppose that the total average rating is 3.80:

N=10
R=3.80

now we have an album which has only one rating of 5.0:

n=1
r=5.00

The weighted average is:

avg = (N*R + n*r) / (N+n)

In this case:

avg = (10*3.80 + 1*5) / (10+1) = 43/11 = 3.91

Let's look at another album which also only has one rating, but 1 star instead of 5:

avg = (10*3.80 + 1*1) / (10+1) = 39/11 = 3.55

Now let's look at an album which has 20 five star ratings:

avg = (10*3.80 + 20*5)/(10+20) = 138/30 = 4.60

Or an album which has 20 one star ratings:

avg = (10*3.80 + 20*1)/(10+20) = 58/30 = 1.93

See? Albums with only one rating start at the total average an slowly work their way up or down the chart as the number of ratings increases. The more ratings an album has, the more it's computed average matches the "real" average ... the less ratings an album has, the closer the weighted average "sticks" to the total average.

Recently listened to:

Desoc

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 12 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 216

Posted: July 23 2007 at 15:43

If anybody cares to give eduur a reply, I would also appreciate it. Because I simply fail to see the (probably easy) method being used based on the Wikipedia article. An example:

We have 5 albums:
Album A, average 4,38, 58 votes.
Album B, average 4,11, 32 votes.
Album C, average 4,42, 29 votes.
Album D, average 3,82, 44 votes.
Album E, average 4,58, 20 votes.

The Wikipedia article seems to imply that I should multiply the average rating (the grade in the article) by the number of votes (the number of students) and then divide it by 183, which is the total number of votes. But this basically only ranks the albums by the number of votes, which is the opposite of what was supposed to happen. So... how's it calculated?

eduur

Forum Newbie

Joined: December 06 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 11

Posted: July 21 2007 at 16:00

Can anyone EXPLAIN how the new ranking system works?

Just give me a formula, the link to wikipedia doesn't help much in explaining

why e.g. Los Aivas (nr. 37) isn't Number One...

1800iareyay View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: November 18 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2492

Posted: July 19 2007 at 20:11

M@x, the problem I have with a weighted system is that every few onths the list will drastically alter, which will lead to at least three forum threads on how the site as a whole has failed and how could you even think of putting yadda yadda yadda at No. 1 as if you yourself made the list. I'd like to think my hard work is rewarded with a little weighting, but I think more harm than good will come of it.

Seyo

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 08 2004
Location: Bosnia
Status: Offline
Points: 1320

Posted: July 11 2007 at 05:16

SPLIT ENZ "Split Enz" ratings distribution

3.84 / 5
(1 ratings)

Essential: a masterpiece of progressive music (100%)

Excellent addition to any prog music collection (0%)

Good, but non-essential (0%)

Collectors/fans only (0%)

Poor. Only for completionists (0%)

I don't understand this new calculation algorhythm. How could it be that only one rating of 5 stars produces the average rating of 3.84 ?!

sospiri

Forum Newbie

Joined: February 08 2007
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1

Posted: February 08 2007 at 14:21

I worked with both Lennie Wright and Don Fay as long ago as 1962 in a band at Poole Harbour Yacht Club - rather different stuff to what they did with Samurai and Web. Don Fay is now back in the UK after a spell in Australia and lives somewhere in the New Forest area so I am told.

The purpose of this posting is to enquire if anyone knows whether Lennie Wright is still alive. I understand that he lived in the Norwich area for many years and had a son, Louis Wright, who is apparently no mean vibes player. However, I have been unable to find any mention of Louis via the search engines and no one in Lennie's original stamping ground of Bournemouth seems to be able to confirm whether he is alive or dead. I'd love to know - just for old time's sake!

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: January 13 2007 at 01:10

proglamaniac wrote:

Thanks for the welcome. I've been a non-lurking member of your sister/brother site progressive ears for a few years now, and I've been using progarchives as a reliable resource for prog about the same. I've learned of many bands and albums from this site that I might not have had progarchives not been here. I've been a diehard progger since the early 70s when, still in my teens, I was exposed to Genesis, King Crimson, ELP, Yes, and all the great bands that were popular at the time. And that was notable, because one could hear a track from Yes Fragile on FM one moment, followed by a Black Sabbath or Blue Oyster Cult track and then maybe Foghat or Elton John. Those days have changed, of course. Dramatically, and not for the better. Thank God for the internet, the bridge that connected all of us!

Hello Proglamaniac and welcome to participate, I also been a member of Progressive Ears for many years and my respect for that site is great, but due to my collaboration in Prog Archives plus the "real life" leaves me little time to visit it.

I agree with most of your concepts about the radio days, despite that in Perú Prog was very rarely in the FM. I am a Prog maniac since 1976 and yes Internet has made us realize wer're not so few as most of us once believed.

I think I understand that many, if not most, of the bands/albums I listed are already reviewed. It's possible I misunderstood the purpose of a top 100 proto-prog list. Let's see how close I am...

The purpose of every list is only a reflex of the ratings the reviewers have given to the albums, the fact that an album is N° 1 or 200 doesn't mean it's better or worst, only that more people rated it with a high average.

The purpose of a top 100 genre list, in this case proto-prog, is to list the best 100 albums that genre had to offer. That seemed pretty clear to me, but by all means correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case, and I believe it is, how does 33 of the 100 albums end up coming from one band? Deep Purple, whom I am a BIG fan (MK II mainly) put out some 4 studio albums and 1 great live album from 1970 to 1974 when Gillan and Glover both left the band before Burn. That makes 5 albums.

Our top 100 chart has no quality reference purpose, it's only the average of the ratings given by the members and visitors to the albums.
Our site for good or bad is band oriented, in other words a band is located in one sub-genre and all their discography attached to them, that's why you will find Genesis as Symphonic and We Can't Dance included as part of their discography despite it's bland POP.
If we are allowed we will make some changes in Symphonic that will alow to be more clear about the different genres that the bands have crossed.
Deep Purple is a popular band so more people reviews and rates the albums, that's the reason why so many DP albums are in the chart, not because hey are better or worst.
No member, Collaborator, Administrator or even the owners decides which band reach the charts, the position is only the consequence of a complex average of all the ratings given to a determined album.
The algorithm to calculate the general rating of an album and it's position in the list evaluates different aspects, a rating without review has a very low weight, being that if you don't review and album, we have no way to know if you have really heard it or just a fanboy trying to manipulate the top 100 list (we had many of those sadly).
A visitor's review has less weight than a Collaborator's because the site has a special trust for them, the number of reviews has also a weight being that there are albums rated by two or three persons with 5 stars and of course there's no possible trust in an average obtained from such a short number of ratings.

So, there's nothing we can do to change the charts except rating more and higher an album and hope more people does the same, but of course if an atempt to manipulate the charts is discovered, the review and the rating are deleted.

Proto-prog is a sub-genre of progressive rock that generally refers to bands in the late 60s and early 70s that played a more sophisticated rock music but was not necessarily "progressive". Look anywhere on the 'net and you'll read names like Cressida, Spring, Gracious, Colosseum, Manfred Mann, Gnidrolog, Indian Summer, Still Life, and so many of their kind it's fairly obvious to anyone who takes the time to read up on this early movement (which is generally considered to have had its beginning in Great Britain).

Agree that the notion of Proto Prog is a bit obscure in Prog Archives, but M@X constant changes are done to improve it plus the work that the Collaborators and Administratord also make, will help to improve constantly the site.

It's also important to notice that most sub-genres have a team in charge of it, like my team does with Symphonic, but Proto Prog has not a team in charge yet, so the amount of work in this sub-genre is smaller than in others.

Well being that we have different sub-genres, the location of the bands is different here like in the case of the ones you mention:

Cressida is in Symphonic: Post 70's and the most suitable genre is Symph
Spring is in Art Rock: Because the definition of this sub-genre has changed from being an eqyivalent to what we call Prog Related to the actual http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=3 if the Proto Prog definition doesn't change, I will probably ask the Art Rock Team this band for Symphonic.
Gracious is in Symphonic for the same reason as Cressida.
Colosseum is in Jazz/Fusion
Manfred Mann is in Art Rock: I believe it should be in Prog Related, not Prog but almost in short terms, but it's not my call
Gnidrolog is in Art Rock and I agree in this case.
Indian Summer is in Art Rock and I'm not familiar with them so I can't give an opinion.
Still Life idem as previous but I agree with you, if it wasn't for the date of the release, this one could be a clear case of Proto Prog

So maybe our perspective is different but all this bands are included.

BTW: Ghost Riider and Micky formed one of the most recent teams in charge of Art Rock and you will surely see changes soon.

Not one of those bands or their albums are mentioned in the top 100 proto-prog list, yet Deep Purple has 33, only a handful of which were actually recorded before 1972! They had 3 or 4 albums before 1970 and another 3 or 4 after, which in my count comes to 8 at the most, not 33. How many reviews do you suggest I read before that improbable figure begins to make sense? Or is it because the other 28 Deep Purple albums that make up the bulk of that list aren't reviewed that qualifies them for inclusion? If that's a primary criteria, then wouldn't the Carpenters or Blood, Sweat & Tears be on that list, since they have not been reviewed?

I think you don't know that the site decides which bands go to a determined sub-genre, Carpenters are not in the data base of Prog Archives, so they could never appear in a chart.

Check: http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=37 and you will see which bands are included by Prog Archives until today in Proto Prog, no other band or album by a different band can be rated as a proto Prrog album (This list will grow).

Proto-Prog bands/artists list

Bands	Country
BAKERLOO	United Kingdom
BEATLES, THE	United Kingdom
BROWN BAND, THE ARTHUR	United Kingdom
COLLECTORS, THE	Canada
DEEP PURPLE	United Kingdom
DOORS, THE	United States
GILES GILES & FRIPP	United Kingdom
GODS, THE	United Kingdom
H.P. LOVECRAFT	United States
IRON BUTTERFLY	United States
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL DAY	United States
JEFFERSON AIRPLANE	United States
KALEIDOSCOPE / FAIRFIELD PARLOUR	United Kingdom
MÁQUINA!	Spain
PAN & REGALIZ	Spain
PROCOL HARUM	United Kingdom
QUIET WORLD	United Kingdom
SALAMANDER	United Kingdom
SPIRIT	United States
SWEEttER**	United States
TOUCH	United States
VANILLA FUDGE	United States

Admittedly, I'm not the most tactful person on the planet and for that I'm truly sorry. I don't wake up each morning thinking of ways to piss people off. The only reason I joined this forum was from shock. You guys can run your site any way you like, but if want input from folks who might know a thing or two about the whole genre of progressive rock music, I'm available and I'd love to share what I know. After consuming prog ravenously for over 35 years, I might just know a thing or two.

By the contrary, the opinions help us improve.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

Maybe you can explain to me why Deep Purple has 33 albums in this list and classic proto-prog bands like Cressida, Gracious or Spring have 0. Please explain to me how a live album by DP recorded in 2001 qualifies as proto, when a classic album by Still Life recorded in 1971 on the Vertigo label does not. Hey, I'm not trying to crap in your corn flakes here. I guess I could have tempered my comments a bit so I didn't sound like I thought the people who created the list were idiots. I'm sure there's a good reason. I just didn't see one at the time. But I'm all ears.

Again, because the charts are only a reflex of how many people have given high ratings to a determined album of our data base, here's no explanation for so many DP albums, we include the complete discography of the band and the people rate them.

For example, my team is in charge of Symphonic, most of us believe HYBRIS should be in the top 10 if not in the top 5 (It's lower in the chart), but there's not a thing we can do because the system adds the ratings, uses the algorithm and gives a cold number and an average that has not necesarilly relation with the quality of the album.

The chart only says that more people believes Closre to the Edge deserves 5 stars.

Enlighten me. This might be fun. Or maybe you'll tell me that David Bowie's latest album is proto-prog, and I'll just go find another forum to join. It's no sweat off my balls.

Bowie is not in the site

Oh, I almost forgot. Web is actually Samurai, they just changed their name. While they may be the same band with a new name, Brainchild has nothing to do with Greenslade. Lennie Wright of Web and Samurai did produce Brainchild's album, which explains why they share a similar sound/style, not to mention the album cover design too. But Dave Lawson left Samurai to form his own band: Greenslade. So, saying that covering Greenslade amounts to covering Samurai or that covering Samurai is the equivalent to covering Brainchild is like saying Allan Holdsworth is Canterbury because he played on a couple albums with Bill Bruford, who happened to play with National Health and Gong for a short time. Rich Wakeman was a guest keyboardist on a couple Black Sabbath albums, so does that make him a metal keyboardist?

This site is pretty new, dates from 2004, and some bands were added by members who made a bio without verifying it, that's why the addition of bands has been restricted to special collaborators and higher ranks.

Last year in May we were one of the first teams to check band by band all the database (In our case the original 519 bands of Symphonic), after several months we retired 150 bands (Sent them to other sub-genres) and asked for 30 or 40 bands to be added to Symphonic, still we're making bios of almost unknown bands that we have to research, sometimes buying the albums, but this is not an easy work, it takes time, but don't worry, each day will be better.

BTW: Where did you found this info, I checked the small but accurate bio of Samurai by Sean and the excellent bio of Greenslade by Erik and this is not mentioned.

If you read it in a review in the front page, this is responsability of the reviewer.

Keep proggin

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 13 2007 at 01:28

peace_echoe View Drop Down

Forum Newbie

Joined: August 06 2005
Location: Iran -tehran
Status: Offline
Points: 16

Posted: January 12 2007 at 23:10

1-ALL THE PROGRESSIVE GERMAN ROCK 2-ALL THE PROGRESSIVE ROCKS 3-ALL THE ROCKS 4 ALL THE METAL BANDS[ELOY-E.L.P-CAMEL-GROBSHNITT-ARCHIVE-NEKTAR-OPHELIAS DREAM-MEREDITH MONK............

slow motion...

Joolz

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377

Posted: July 07 2006 at 09:19

Proglamaniac

I think, to be fair, the Proto Prog definition on PA is slightly misleading -

Proto-Prog definition

Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not.

This implies that bands in existence before 1969 will be defined in Proto Prog, but of course, the way it is implemented on PA is that those which continued into a full Prog career are assigned to a full Prog sub-genre, eg King Crimson, VDGG etc, which only leaves those which did not do so, eg Beatles.

Notice, also, the year 1969 - ALL of the albums you list in your first post are from 1969 or later and would therefore be deemed to be AFTER the Proto Prog period.

Joolz

ClemofNazareth View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Prog Folk Researcher

Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659

Posted: July 06 2006 at 22:18

Charmed, I'm sure!

I don't really know anything about Samurai, Greenslade, The Web, or Brainchild, so you have me there. I am at the mercy of the various reviews and band bios here for Samurai and Greenslade, and a few forum posts, both sources which link the four bands (hence my obviously misguided assumption).

Anyway, your description of the various 'Top-100' listings is pretty much correct. However, as Joolz said, a lot of the bands you have called out are actually listed here under other genres (Art Rock, Symphonic, Prog-related, Jazz/Fusion, Canterbury, etc.), so they may show up under one of those genre's Top-100 lists.

The algorithm used to determine placement in the various Top-100 lists is based on the weighted ratings of the people who have reviewed the respective albums (you can find the formula listed at the top of each list). There are not nearly as many albums (or reviews) of Proto-Prog as there are of some other genres, so you will find that nearly all the albums in this category have made their way onto that list. If you look at Art Rock, Symphonic, or Metal, for example, you'll see that the bar is quite a bit higher for making it on to the list.

Hope that helps.

"Peace is the only battle worth waging."

Albert Camus