5 stars for prog-related?

Easy Money wrote: Logan wrote: The T wrote: Dean wrote: J-Man wrote: Why shouldn't you be able to give a prog related album a 5? Just because it's not full-fledged prog doesn't mean it can't be a masterpiece. For clarification for those too busy to look:   Essential: a masterpiece of rock music Excellent addition to any rock music collection Good, but non-essential Collectors/fans only Poor. Only for completionists   ...Prog Related and Proto Prog albums are not rated as PROG albums so you can award 5-stars to Kate Bush's "The Kick Inside" with a clear conscience.     I have to say it.  I really don't like the change as it's limited to rock music. Why not get rid of the rock criterion?  One of my favourite albums in the archives is Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain, but that is not rock, so according to the guidelines I could only rate it 3 or under. Non-rock music is not getting a fair shake. Hold on Logan, anything can be a great addition to a rock or prog collection. Personally I think having some Sun Ra or Les Baxter is an excellent addition to any collection, rock, prog or otherwise, easy 4 stars. Can a Herbie Hancock album be a prog-rock masterpioece? I think if it uses electronic amplified instruments and amped drums, yes. If it is one of his more jazz albums, 4 is as high as she goes. In other words the incredible Speak Like a Child gets 4, but Crossings gets 5, although on a jazz site they would both get 5s. That's how I see it.

It strikes me as a a kind of stone-age rock elitism. ;)

But I'm fine with rating as you say.  I'd get rid of the rock descriptor from the categories, but...

Even if one does interpret it that way (and I think many would see it differently if they cared enough to care about the descriptions), it's totally unnecessary to have the rock descriptor, and could cause confusion. Aside from jazz, we have folk, as well as more academic music etc recordings.  More important to the ratings to me than getting rid of the word progressive from the Prog-Related and Proto ratings system would be getting rid of the word rock.  I wouldn't mind if it was masterpiece of progressive music.  Right now, for instance, with the changes to PR and PP (removing the word progressive) it looks to me like it's fine to rate non-Prog rock albums 5, but if it's non-Prog and non-rock albums I should not rate it so highly (I don't know how many non-rock albums there in those categories, but as way of example) .  I expect that others would see it the same way.  That to me seems wrong and misguided.  Instead of using miles Davis or ones included in Prog categories, it would've ben better for me to use an artist/band in Proto-Prog or Prog Related (though I don't like the rock criterion for ANY category --  Aranis ain't rock really even if it's included as RIO -- I still think it should be here as it has a rock influence and CAN rock).  A lot of Electronic Prog isn't exactly rock either.  Incidentally, at least Hancock's Crossings is true Prog I would say.

Okay. since Dean was talking specifically about Prog-Related artists and Proto-Prog ones, I should use some ones from those categories, but I'd have to think of non-rock album examples from those categories by bands that had a progressive rock (of whatever variety) phase.  *Looks through PP* Hmmm.... Should be quite few Prog Related and Proto Prog ones that didn't start out doing rock -- or rock and roll. (must be quite a few folk ones), but my brain is frazzled.

Anyway, no time for research, but I would say that early jazz albums of artists included here are essential to the jazz-rock fusion aficionado, but not essential to any rock collection, progressive or otherwise.  It's not really relevant to a rock collection because, it not being rock. it would not be part of the rock collection itself, even if it wiull be relevant to the lperson who has a rock collection.


Edited by Logan - August 25 2009 at 21:54

Logan wrote: I have to say it.  I really don't like the change as it's limited to rock music. Why not get rid of the rock criterion?  One of my favourite albums in the archives is Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain, but that is not rock, so according to the guidelines I could only rate it 3 or under. Non-rock music is not getting a fair shake.

The same could be said for Chamber music in ZART, most Electronic Prog and all the metal genres, not just JR/F. I'm sure people will make their own interpretation of the rating descriptors already for those artists - I don't see them being miss-rated because they're not Rock.

Do people take heed of the start-rating descriptions anyway? Do the people who rated Kind Of Blue with 4 and 5 stars really think it is Prog and Rock? What about all the people who rate Invisible Touch with 4 & 5 stars? If an artist only released one album, then can that album ever be awarded a 1-star rating or 2-star rating? Why do so many people think a 3-star rating means the album isn't that good? By the rating system 95% of the albums here should be "good but not essential"? How can anyone who is not expert in all the subgenres rate any album as 4 or 5 star? How can anyone who is not a "fan" of particular genre award a 1 or 2 star rating in that genre?

Dean wrote: [The same could be said for Chamber music in ZART, most Electronic Prog and all the metal genres, not just JR/F. I'm sure people will make their own interpretation of the rating descriptors already for those artists - I don't see them being miss-rated because they're not Rock.

Of course, Dean, and I mentioned Electronic Prog and Aranis, a chamber music group in avant, as examples in my post to John.  One can extend it to folk and various more "academic music" albums in the archives.  As for metal, I think of that as a sub-category of rock, but that's by-the-by.  Using Miles Davis' album was merely an example.  As I said in my last post, since it grew out of your mentioning the PP and PR ratings descriptions, as well as you mentioning removing progressive from all categories, I should really focus on those "less Prog" categories (though I still think that the rock reference is less than ideal when one has so much non-rock, or less rock, music in different categories).  I wish I hadn't used an example of an album of an artist in a Prog category, but it was the first to spring to mind.  I wouldn't rate Sketches of Spain with a five because it's not Prog (Progressive Rock) in any form.  Instead, I'd rate Miles Davis relevant albums higher.  If I were to rate a band in a Prog category's two albums, both I like equally but one is Progressive Rock and one rock but not Prog, I would rate the Prog one higher to highlight it.  The same rules likely would apply for me for it not being Prog as it not being rock at all.  Never mind the less rock categories for the examples as I think we would all take the nature of a category into account provided we're knowledgeable enough.  Not everyone understands that, though, so I think the descriptions should be as clear as possible.  We also have the issue that we don't all agree on what is Prog, or even Prog-related of course.

Basically, my problem is with being able to rate non-Prog music (as it's often referred to here) high even though it's not Prog (using the PP and PR categories as a guide), but it may appear to someone that if an album in, say, Prog Related, is not Prog (and I consider various albums there to be full-fledged Prog) one can rate it five, but if it's not only not Prog but not rock, one should rate it lower. 

Now, and I'm half-asleep, where I see a problem with thinking that, say, a non-Prog but rock or rock related, and a non-rock album of equal quality should be rated the same (if of equal perceived quality) is because it's far more likely that such a band would have got in on its rock albums -- therefore the rock one is more relevant to the site, and one will find the, at least, quasi-prog or proto prog traits in the rock album, since you can't have true Prog without the rock element (though that rock element need not be that strong or obvious).  I think we have a lot of rock-related music in Progressive Electronic.

Now let's imagine that we have a band in Prog-Related that started off pure country then went electric, and this is where I must illustrate an important flip-side to part of what I was thinking.  Taking the rating description literally

Ultimately, our ratings could be expected to reflect, to an extent, ion what we think could be of particular interest to those who use PA.  I consider Manset's Le Morte d'Orion (an artist in Prog Related) to be Prog, and even if I considered his later stuff to be equally good, I would not rate it as highly because I'd rather highlight the album that should be of interest to people here.

I understand the usefulness of keeping the rock descriptor -- to lessen more people from rating highly albums of the type that are not so relevant to the site, or their category -- for instance instance, a pure folk album with no rock elements in Prog Folk, but I still find it potentially misleading and not correct (exact) enough.  That there are categories where the rock element can be far less important in gaining inclusion for a band or artist only makes that feeling stronger.

Or something like that... Just thinking, and almost snoring, out loud.


Edited by Logan - August 26 2009 at 03:44

No, 5 stars is also fair for prog-related material

I welcome the changes to the ratings descriptions as they go some way towards promoting 'organic' brilliance over 'brilliance with additives' 

TheSubhuman wrote: You know what, every time I see a thread like this, I can't help thinking of the adepts of a religious cult trying to keep heretic influences away. For crying out loud, all other prog websites have oodles of reviews of albums that do not qualify as prog (at least not 100%), and would not dream of having 'ghetto' ratings or definitions for any of them. If you don't believe me, have a look at the likes of ProgressiveEars or Sea of Tranquillity, to name but two. This obsession with not allowing anything 'non-prog' contaminate the purity of the site is ridiculous, as well as detrimental - there was nothing like that in the Seventies that you love so much. As far as I am concerned, I would NEVER write any review for a site that forced me to rate a prog-related album lower than a prog one - especially an album that is widely recognised as a masterpiece. But then, fanaticism has never been my thing.

I'll be honest in I liked the old rating system.  In my interpretation, a prog-related album could not be a 5-star album because by PA definitions, an album from a prog-related artist was not a prog rock album and thus could not be a prog rock masterpiece.  Just because it wasn't prog rock didn't mean that it couldn't qualify as a 4-star album, because there certainly could be non-prog albums that were an excellent addtion to any prog rock collection.  The newer separate rating system for prog-related albums means that I will have to go back and change a couple of my reviews or delete them entirely since they were written with the old rating system in place.    Oh well, it is what it is.  Good thing that I don't have 2000 reviews that are now wrong because of this change.  

SentimentalMercenary wrote: SaltyJon wrote: No way.  Some prog-related albums are, as was previously said, better than some prog albums.  Of course, but this is not the point !  The relevant question is if some prog-related albums are as good as the best prog albums...   In other words, could a Kate Bush album be as good as, say, Selling England by the Pound per this site's system of values?

In my view, Wishbone Ash's "Argus" is at least as good as several of the "best" prog albums.

Dean wrote: Logan wrote: I have to say it.  I really don't like the change as it's limited to rock music. Why not get rid of the rock criterion?  One of my favourite albums in the archives is Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain, but that is not rock, so according to the guidelines I could only rate it 3 or under. Non-rock music is not getting a fair shake. The same could be said for Chamber music in ZART, most Electronic Prog and all the metal genres, not just JR/F. I'm sure people will make their own interpretation of the rating descriptors already for those artists - I don't see them being miss-rated because they're not Rock. SentimentalMercenary wrote: Well then I'd like to point out that Bon Jovi made a 10mins song called Dry County which could legitimately be called prog by some. I guess you now see me coming with all those 5 stars Bon Jovi albums...   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_County_(song)#Song_Structure     If Bon Jovi ever get into the Archives then go ahead, however he/they won't be getting in just because they made a 10minute song. The criteria for inclusion won't change. SentimentalMercenary wrote: Of course, but this is not the point !  The relevant question is if some prog-related albums are as good as the best prog albums...   In other words, could a Kate Bush album be as good as, say, Selling England by the Pound per this site's system of values? Hounds of Love and Aerial probably get close to SEbtP for song structure, music-complexity and musicianship and surpass it in lyric-writing IMO. Those two albums could stand their ground as Prog albums anyway, so whether they are as "good" is purely personal preference. Man With Hat wrote: Now I just looked at a prog-related album...and it still has the prog in place. Which one?   Man With Hat wrote: And really isn't this a progressive rock archives? Not a rock archives. I don't see how changing it to pure rock is any better for the site. Sure, you're not calling it prog (which is a good thing) in the rating area (and thus not calling it prog by rating either), but if this is truely a prog-rock resource shouldn't the prog play an important part in the rating given? Do people take heed of the start-rating descriptions anyway? Do the people who rated Kind Of Blue with 4 and 5 stars really think it is Prog and Rock? What about all the people who rate Invisible Touch with 4 & 5 stars? If an artist only released one album, then can that album ever be awarded a 1-star rating or 2-star rating? Why do so many people think a 3-star rating means the album isn't that good? By the rating system 95% of the albums here should be "good but not essential"? How can anyone who is not expert in all the subgenres rate any album as 4 or 5 star? How can anyone who is not a "fan" of particular genre award a 1 or 2 star rating in that genre? It is pretty clear that many, many people do not rate to the literal intepretation of the descriptions, but to whether they like the album or not.

Man With Hat wrote: Also, a side question:   Was there a thread saying that there was a change of definition for the PR/PP albums?