| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: March 27 2011 at 03:43 |
 russellk wrote:
Example: DRAGON, the New Zealand band, put out two pure prog albums in the early 70s. I have them. They should be in the archives, and not as prog-related either, despite the fact they abandoned prog and became a rather successful pop band ('April Sun In Cuba', 'Are You Old Enough'). Had they stopped after their first two albums no one would dispute their inclusion here.
|
The Xover team has never worked like that - we always ignored any later pop album when evaluating an artist. Dragon were conclusively rejected after hearing their first two albums:
| Dragon (New Zealand)
12M Windhawk Crossover -> Rejected
2y Atkingani Crossover No (Atkingani)
2y darqdean Crossover No (darqdean)
2y Chris Stacey Crossover No (Chris Stacey)
2y Windhawk Crossover Yes (Windhawk)
2y Windhawk Crossover -> New
|
Of course, you are free to disagree with Guigo, Chris and myself just as Olav did.
Edited by Dean - March 27 2011 at 03:44
|
|
What?
|
 |
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: March 27 2011 at 03:52 |
|
^ Disagree? Absolutely not, not in the context of the site. I'm pleased they were considered. Doesn't stop me enjoying them!
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: March 27 2011 at 04:32 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
Dean, were the 'pure prog subs' circa 2002 broadly similar to what we have now?
Did forum debate circa 2002 drive the site owners or genre teams to move the artists in question from the pure prog subs to the new category of Prog Related? (or was it a unilateral step?)
|
No, in 2002 there were 4 subgenres listed but within a year most of the subs we know today had been established (prior to splitting Art Rock and Prog Metal of course).
Like you, I wasn't a forum member until 2007, but looking through the WBM and the forum: Prog Related did not appear until late 2005 (Dec?) - the Genre teams weren't formed until April 2006, the Admins took ownership of PR & PP in October 2006. So Prog Related was already established by the time any teams arrived on the scene and almost a year before Admins stepped in to take control, so my guess is that SCs sorted it out among themsleves in the forum. I did notice that over 2 years Supertramp were added as Art Rock, moved to Prog Related, then moved back to Art Rock and finally to Crossover when AR was split in 2007 and there are people here who still think they should be Prog Related.
|
|
What?
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: March 27 2011 at 05:24 |
|
^ No wonder Rick Davies is confused...
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: March 27 2011 at 15:55 |
[quote="Dean"]The "reforming PA database" is specifically about hte database - which is the artists discographies and the accompanying reviews - nothing else is associated with the database because that is what the database is. Interviews, blogs and articles are not part of the PA database.[/quote]Isn't this a little too restrictive. if we are discussing reformation of the PA database let there be room for what the database isn't at the moment.
Discussing visual design of the database is (also) about the database, and wanting it to be different is suggesting a reformation of the database. I think PA is very ugly.
But apart from visual design, I generally think it's a very impressive database and a good guide and I respect the people involved in the making of it. I've been a frequent user since 2004 - and at that time it was my no. one source for information about music, now it's more about entertainment and I get most of my information and suggestions elsewhere.
My suggestion would be that ratings should be unaccompanied by this 'guide'. (ideally - there should be no ratings at all - but that isn't very likely to happen)
 Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music(23%) Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection(55%) Good, but non-essential (15%) Collectors/fans only (4%) Poor. Only for completionists (2%)
The little text that goes with each rating is rather ridiculous. If it's a masterpiece, it's a masterpiece. If it's excellent, it is so regardless of what kind of collection you have. And I pity the poor completionist.
Edited by Paravion - March 27 2011 at 15:57
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: March 27 2011 at 16:01 |
|
^ I would prefer that to stay.
|
|
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: March 27 2011 at 16:38 |
Snow Dog wrote:
^ I would prefer that to stay. |
I really dislike it because it says any prog collection. It implies I should lower my personal rating of an album if I I think probably won't appeal to a wide audience/generic symphonic fan (and I see a lot of people doing that in their reviews), and I think that is the incorrect way to approach it. I find the for fans only very confusing. Only for completionists is a very clear statement of poor quality, but for fans only does not at all imply 2 stars.
Edited by Henry Plainview - March 27 2011 at 17:56
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: March 27 2011 at 16:50 |
|
I agree with Mr Air Mail, the rating should simply reflect the rating of the album, not whether it sits well in some idealised prog rock collection, but that's the way M@X wants it.
|
|
What?
|
|
AtomicCrimsonRush
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 02 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 14258
|
Posted: March 28 2011 at 00:36 |
Paravion wrote:
[quote="Dean"]The "reforming PA database" is specifically about hte database - which is the artists discographies and the accompanying reviews - nothing else is associated with the database because that is what the database is. Interviews, blogs and articles are not part of the PA database. |
| Isn't this a little too restrictive. if we are discussing reformation of the PA database let there be room for what the database isn't at the moment.
Discussing visual design of the database is (also) about the database, and wanting it to be different is suggesting a reformation of the database. I think PA is very ugly.
But apart from visual design, I generally think it's a very impressive database and a good guide and I respect the people involved in the making of it. I've been a frequent user since 2004 - and at that time it was my no. one source for information about music, now it's more about entertainment and I get most of my information and suggestions elsewhere.
My suggestion would be that ratings should be unaccompanied by this 'guide'. (ideally - there should be no ratings at all - but that isn't very likely to happen)
Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music(23%)
Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection(55%)
Good, but non-essential (15%)
Collectors/fans only (4%)
Poor. Only for completionists (2%)
The little text that goes with each rating is rather ridiculous. If it's a masterpiece, it's a masterpiece. If it's excellent, it is so regardless of what kind of collection you have. And I pity the poor completionist. |
The star rating with info is only a guide and can be used by anyone, but in a reveiw it all comes down to whether or not the album is poor, fair, good, excellent or masterpiece. Not everything I rate 2 stars is for fans or collectors only , but it is not quite good enough due to the whole album not up to standard, it may have one or two terrific songs nbut a lot of mediocrity to wade through. 4 stars reviews are easy to find - an excellent album that does not quite come up to the masterpiece status. I use 4 stars a lot, but sparingly use 5 stars, or for that matter 1 star. Theres usually something to find in an album lifting it to at least 2 stars. Its only when the whole thing fails dismally and has no redeeming value that one star applies.
Edited by AtomicCrimsonRush - March 28 2011 at 00:38
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: March 28 2011 at 06:35 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
^ I would prefer that to stay. |
I really dislike it because it says any prog collection. It implies I should lower my personal rating of an album if I I think probably won't appeal to a wide audience/generic symphonic fan (and I see a lot of people doing that in their reviews), and I think that is the incorrect way to approach it.
I find the for fans only very confusing. Only for completionists is a very clear statement of poor quality, but for fans only does not at all imply 2 stars. |
Not sure I follow your reasoning here Henry. Surely any means 'all inclusive?' e.g. Close to the Edge would still be an excellent addition to a Prog Rock collection that consisted of only Prog Metal/Heavy Prog and the Residents would still be an excellent addition to a Prog Rock collection that consisted of only Symphonic/Crossover Prog or am I missing the point/logic? Confused Rodent
|
|
russellk
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 28 2005
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 782
|
Posted: March 28 2011 at 16:04 |
|
I've long thought there's a difference between whether I think it would be an excellent addition to anyone's prog collection or whether THEY would think that. Such unvoiced considerations surely influence how one grades an album. You're thinking the former; Henry, I suspect, is thinking the latter.
|
|
Bonnek
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 01 2009
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 4515
|
Posted: April 05 2011 at 16:23 |
I think the star descriptions make kind of sense. But the problematic thing is that they invite the reviewer to argue how 'Prog' he thinks the album is. Which sort of contradicts this guideline: 5 - Do not voice general opinions on matters such as whether a
band/album/sub-genre should be included in the site ... So you need to establish and rate the Prog factor and quality, but are not supposed to discuss if an artist/album should be in the database at all (= whether it is Prog or not). ==> Fatal system error #AE3445DED@@  EDIT: not that this has bothered me so far, I'm still in good health and sanity
Edited by Bonnek - April 05 2011 at 16:25
|
|
scophone
Forum Newbie
Joined: March 21 2011
Location: california
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: April 07 2011 at 05:30 |
Very active BBS, very happy to join you
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17547
|
Posted: April 11 2011 at 20:53 |
I was thinking of making this easier ... like:
PA recommends this album to any Progressive Collection, to show the extent of the artist's work Very good music within the style, but not as strong over all as the first ones. Always nice to listen to. While not earth shattering, these usually are the odd bands that make a collection unique and great. In general, not thought of as "progressive" music and we feel the quality is not as good as others have done.
This way, I think the descriptions are a bit more sensitive to one's tastes and a bit more direct in relation to the music itself. I kept thinking in your description ... what is the difference between the 4* and 3* and I could not see it, other than preference. And I have the same concern with the PA ratings ... I don't see a nice, easy, logical, description that makes the ratings obvious and easy as pie!
I would like to see the ratings, the definitions, and the way we talk about these things ... NOT be some sort of arbitrary thought or idea ... and that we make the way we describe these things stronger and better ... when even the admins don't agree, is a sign of a democracy of some sort ... but also, at times, the sign that we simply don't know and can not agree on anything ...
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17547
|
Posted: April 11 2011 at 21:01 |
AtomicCrimsonRush wrote:
...
Its only when the whole thing fails dismally and has no redeeming value that one star applies.
|
With only one problem ... someone doesn't like bruhaha and rates it 1 ...
I am not a Gentle Giant fan, but I can tell you there is a lot of amazing musicianship in there ... and the question is ... is that reviewer fair enoug, and intelligent enough ... to not say ... that Wagner is stupid ... or that I don't like Stravinsky, therefore he sux ... kind of thing ... and this is the past of a lot of reviews in PA that is really sad for me ... we try to "hide" inside a "progressive" ideal, and in the end, we dislike something because it is not progressive ... and really ... by now, we should ahve removed all those? I can understand it being removed because the artist is not considered "progressive", but trashing an album or an artist because supposedly the music is not up to that person's wishful thinking ... is not objective and is not a fair review and the person in charge of that division should either request a rewriting of the review or remove it!
This would take out the fans and those trying to hype a lot of reviews superficially.
It is nice that we are "open", but in the end ... are we doing the music a favor? ... and the answer is ... probably not!
Now let's check Wiki for articles trashing "progressive" music ... not many ... and that tells you that they are making an effort to get consistent and help define it better and more ... than we have! For that reason alone, bad reviews and malicious reviews should be removed ... along with the 3 minute bathroom newspaper review! Gadddsss ... you would spend more time looking at a Playboy fold out than you would a review! ... now you know when the writing is bad!
(Just a fun analogy!)
Edited by moshkito - April 11 2011 at 21:03
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
|
Kilgannon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2011
Location: Cider Country!
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: April 12 2011 at 05:02 |
Say we did manage to eradicate 'bias' from the reviews on the site; we would be left with all our reviews completely based, as you say, on the merits of the skill of the musicians alone.
The problems I see with this are, if it was based only on skill, of the playing or the composition, then everyone would end up listening to the same select group of albums as these would be decided as the most technically prolific pieces.
Getting people to write based purely on skill inherent within the music also means that we're assuming this is what people want to hear in a review as this is what they're looking for from the music. But if they're writing their reviews on other areas of the albums, then surely this is what they're interested in when it comes to the enjoyment of an album, and what others are going to be looking for in their music.
I think the problem is, in the same way that people enjoy different genres, people also seek out different qualities within the music, and if it's a matter of poor spelling/grammar, then all we can do is set up an internet-based language school and train 'em up  |
|
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: April 12 2011 at 05:11 |
moshkito wrote:
I was thinking of making this easier ... like:
PA recommends this album to any Progressive Collection, to show the extent of the artist's work Very good music within the style, but not as strong over all as the first ones. Always nice to listen to. While not earth shattering, these usually are the odd bands that make a collection unique and great. In general, not thought of as "progressive" music and we feel the quality is not as good as others have done.
|
Easier? It would be way more confusing that way. Drop any guide to star giving. 5 means very good album, 1 means very poor album - it shoudn't be that difficult.
| Very good music within the style, but not as strong over all as the first ones. Always nice to listen to. |
Three stars can only be given to non-debut albums?
Edited by Paravion - April 12 2011 at 05:12
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Reforming the PA database in democratic manner
