Reviews discussion

http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=212669

Now this I like, an allegorical review so cryptic that prog is hoisted by its own petard ?

I agree with Ivan,we can't Pink Floyd fanboys rating Pink Floyd albums at 5. And hell, he missed more than half of their output.
Is it possible that this person has been visiting PA for a while, finally joined up, and plunged right in once he felt comfortable ?
After all, not one group has its' entire discography rated, at five or one.

Now I might just be talking like that because I've seen some knowledgeable people here rate every one of their idols albums at 4 or 5. And I've had a spell recently where it seemed like every album mi reviewed was one that I seemed intent on cutting its' heralded status with some here.

So maybe, maybe , this is just an overreaction based on ?

See the FAQ's thread in the rules section for details.

I have a question , if I want to edit a review of mine or change the rating within that review... is there a way to do that.

This thread is for discussing reviews content. Thank you.

cacho wrote: Epignosis wrote: As a general rule, I will never rate something in Prog-Related 5 stars. There have been (and will be) some rare exceptions, however. Led Zeppelin's IV, in my opinion, is largely progressive rock; to boot, it has historical value, I like it a lot and it's overall a phenomenal album.  So IV got V.  I can live with that. As a general rule, I try to review non-classic albums(but yes classic bands), so the 5 stars are not for "obvious" masterpieces. There have been (and will be) some rare exceptions, however Come Taste the band, in my opinion(and everybody's opinion), not progressive rocc; however it's the album which introduced me to my eternal love to Deep Purple and the path to heavy Prog, metal, of the like. Certainly a favorite a mine, and overall it's a awesome album, which is very under-appreciated. So CTTB got 5 stars, a masterpiece, prog or not.

cacho wrote: ^yeah I know, sorry about it(even if I wasn't offending you *thinks*).

I know. It's just that I'm a recovering over the topper . So now I play the holier than thou guy.

^yeah I know, sorry about it(even if I wasn't offending you *thinks*). 

Diaby wrote: cacho wrote: Yeah, I know what you said about the ratings, but bands such as The Beatles, Deep Purple, Genesis Pop albums, etc, etc, it would be stupid(no offense) to rate ALL these low ratings just because they aren't Prog,  I think Raff and other members of here can explain this much better.   About your examples: 1. Which prog reviewer (or honest man) will rate Genesis pop albums high? 2. Lots of Deep Purple's albums CAN be treated as prog while a pure death metal album couldn't be. 3. don't know the Beatles   And if something on PA is not prog (e.g. early albums of Therion, if I understand it well), then it shouldn't get a high rating. We are on a prog site, and the star meanings should be clear to everyone who reviews.   Even himself admitted than it's 2 stars in his prog eyes. That's a bit ambivalent, guys, but I don't really mind it.

I'm sure there's some of 4 or 3 star ratings of Prog Reviewers from albums like Duke, And Then There Were Three, Bananas by Deep Purple, Rapture of the Deep by Deep Purple, A Hard Day's Night by Beatles, My Generation by The Who, etc, etc.

To be completely sincere, I think if you rate a album like Machine Head or IV(Zep) low just because the fact they aren't ''Prog'' then I think you're being quite stupid I'm afraid, please no offense, the site allowed these bands, Prog-Related ones  as well as Prog ones with Pop or Rock albums to review them and rate them as we pleasure. The "Prog Stars System", should be edited, or clarified for Prog-Related albums, etc, etc.

Because if that's the case(your case), then almost all Prog-Related albums and Proto-Prog albums should have a average of 3 stars going down...

BTW: sorry John, just my last post about this discussion

Nothing wrong with the review... it's his own opinion.