What's with these poorly rated albums on Gnosis2000.net? (Mark-1, Ironia, etc.)
Poet Liar
So, I found a website that reviews prog with numbers called Gnosis2000.net.
It has good graphics, but the ratings seem weird.
I was curious about some of these albums. I can't believe some of these are
rated so low. Here are some examples:
Deyss - At King (4.68) - HAHA!?!?! I agree, this is a pretty cheesy
neo-prog album. I can understand why this would be rated low. But is it
deserving of THE lowest rated album of all time?
ELP - Love Beach (5.19) - Oh, c'mon now. This is not a classic, but one of the
top 5 worst albums? I think not.
Citadel - Citadel of Cynosure (5.24)- What is this??
Edith - A Space Between Ever and Never (5.36) - Don't know this one either.
Mark 1- Absolute Zero (5.49) What gives!? I love these guys!! I first
discovered them at Nearfest 2001, and I think they are one of the most
promising bands to come into the scene since Citizen Cain and Spocks Beard.
Why don't they like this?
Ironia - A Granite Scale (5.50) - I was just about to buy this. But after
seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
I'm not so sure what to think about this site. I really like some of the
stuff rated near the top (PFM, Genesis, etc). But I thought this was a prog
site? It's confusing to see all that metal and jazz mixed in there. You'd think
they'd at least find a way so that you could filter those out.
Also, it seems rather sterile to just post a number to a piece of art.
Personally, I think replacing reviews with ratings is not a good idea.
Any thoughts here?
Pete
"There's a heist to be pulled and I'll pull the wool over those star-gazing
eyes. Mark the words of the Poet Liar." - Crucible - Tall Tales
Garth Wallace
> So, I found a website that reviews prog with numbers called Gnosis2000.net.
> It has good graphics, but the ratings seem weird.
>
> seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
The ratings given by individual raters are usually more useful, because
you can get a feeling for what sort of music they like and how well it
matches up with your own personal taste. AIUI, that's really the point
of the site.
> I'm not so sure what to think about this site. I really like some of the
> stuff rated near the top (PFM, Genesis, etc). But I thought this was a prog
> site? It's confusing to see all that metal and jazz mixed in there.
And to think the prog-metal fans were complaining that there wasn't any
metal on Gnosis...
This group, and Gnosis, uses a very wide definition of "progressive",
which includes jazz-rock fusion, avant/experimental rock, prog-metal,
and all sorts of wacky stuff like R.I.O. and zeuhl. Some here would say
that neo-prog is the genre that doesn't belong.
> Also, it seems rather sterile to just post a number to a piece of art.
> Personally, I think replacing reviews with ratings is not a good idea.
Gnosis has reviews too.
Keith Henderson
>Edith - A Space Between Ever and Never (5.36) - Don't know this one either.
I have a spare copy of this CD. (*Why* do I have a *spare* copy of
this CD?? Honestly, I can't give you a valid answer!! I guess it
means that (for now) there's one less person out there who has one. I
bought a Hawkwind-Yuri Gagarin CD once in a used store for just that
very reason!) Couldn't find anybody to buy the Edith disc on Ebay.
If (morbidly) curious, I'll offer it to you (or anyone else) for $3
ppd in the US.
Anyway, I don't think it's *that* horrible. The drummer sucks huge
rocks though and so the whole thing sounds quite amateurish
accordingly. It's rather like iQ (and it's better than Nomzamo IMHO)
if their drummer had a BAC of like, 0.28 or something.
Keith H.
Maelcum Soul
>ELP - Love Beach (5.19) - Oh, c'mon now. This is not a classic, but one of
>the
>top 5 worst albums? I think not.
>
Listened to it lately?
>Citadel - Citadel of Cynosure (5.24)- What is this??
>
Frankly, it's not *that* bad, but I think some of the raters were present
at Citadel's infamous show at Progfest '93, which was so god-awfully cheesy it
was [unintentionally] hilarious, and are letting that memory filter down into
their opinion of the band's album.
>Edith - A Space Between Ever and Never (5.36) - Don't know this one either.
>
This one's got a reputation that precedes it like the smell of Gorgonzola
left out in the sun for five days. I haven't heard it either, but I can't
imagine it being worse than, say, Last Turion (Man, did *that* band suck!)
>Mark 1- Absolute Zero (5.49) What gives!? I love these guys!! I first
>discovered them at Nearfest 2001, and I think they are one of the most
>promising bands to come into the scene since Citizen Cain and Spocks Beard.
>Why don't they like this?
>
I think you just answered your own question there. %-{)>
>Ironia - A Granite Scale (5.50) - I was just about to buy this. But after
>seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
>
Then their work is done. I don't think the band will be as pleased with
your decision, though. ;-{)>
>
[snip!]
> Also, it seems rather sterile to just post a number to a piece of art.
>Personally, I think replacing reviews with ratings is not a good idea.
...which is part of the reason I chose not to take part. I'm sure if
they'd asked me back in '92, when I was still a wide-eyed innocent who'd never
met another prog fan, I'd probably be only too keen to take part. Nowadays, the
idea of assigning arbitrary numerical values to thousands of albums seems an
inordinate bother, and for less dividends than actually reviewing them. But
then, I'm not currently [officially] writing reviews anymore, mainly as I'm
burnt out on writing about other people's creative expression. I think it was
stifling my own (though I'm sure if Peter saw what I was currently working on,
he'd say something like, "You quit writing for the magazine for *this*?!?!!").
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
make GEORYN disappear to reply
"The only completely consistent people are dead" --Aldous Huxley
N.P.:"Asteroids"- M o r g a n / N o v a S o l i s
NJD
poet...@aol.com says...
> Ironia - A Granite Scale (5.50) - I was just about to buy this. But after
> seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
Some reviewers liked it a lot. I've posted excerpts at
http://www.ironia.net/press/reviews.htm . One review site ranked it as
one of the top ten records of 2001.
I don't know why, but people tend to either love it or hate it.
In any case, it's more of a hard-rock record than a prog one though it
has some prog elements. You can hear all the songs in MP3 format at our
web site.
These are high quality and I don't care if you download them all. I'm
not in this to make money.
--
Nick Delonas
"Friendlier than a consumer-electronics superstore."
Sven Milliam
> If you don't want to be bruised, then don't continue to question the rating
> system :-)
>
> Just accept the ratings as the opinions of those who participate in the
> web-site. Some of my favorite albums of all time are between the 8 and 10
> rating scale on gnosis. Many of the albums in the 11-15 range don't do
> much for me :-) Everyone is different and likes what they like :-)
>
> Gnosis is pretty darn good and complete in terms of discography, year and
> country.
I just started going to gnosis right about the time (lately, that is)
that there's been huge flamewars about it's relevance, and I tend to
agree with the side that says it's a great mechanism for filling out
your collection, maybe having already heard one or two albums by a
particular band, and wanting to see if they have any other worthy
stuff, or as a starting off point, possibly seeing which album seems
to be rated highest, and then asking someone what are the finer
points, and why one may like it or not. I could, of course, use
something like "All Music Guide", but lots of the obscure bands/albums
on gnosis aren't covered on there, and I feel like I'm getting a
better perspective, instead of some AMG reviewer who's ripping his/her
review from some text.
With time, if I've heard alot of stuff from a particular band, I can
use that knowledge, compare it to what's on gnosis, and how I like it,
and can come up with a rough estimation of why some albums are rated
higher than others. It *HAS* helped me so far, and the goods
(aforementioned) far outweigh the bads (high-rated Genesis album
anomalies).
L Perez
> Poet Liar wrote:
> > So, I found a website that reviews prog with numbers called Gnosis2000.net.
> > It has good graphics, but the ratings seem weird.
> >
> > Ironia - A Granite Scale (5.50) - I was just about to buy this. But after
> > seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
>
> The ratings given by individual raters are usually more useful, because
> you can get a feeling for what sort of music they like and how well it
> matches up with your own personal taste.
This is really the only way to view with regard to ratings. Find the
rater or two who best matches your taste and just view their top
albums to see if you might be missing something you would love. The
general averages of all raters are pretty heavily weighted toward
Symph, Avant and Zuehl. You wont see much highly rated Fusion,
Space/Kraut Rock, NeoProg, ProgMetal, Ethnic, Ambient, etc in general
but there may be an individual rater who rates those styles highly.
One day I'll look for a rater that rated 2 or more Santana albums at
14 or 15 if I'm looking to find out about some lost ProgLatin gem.
Another day I'll look at who rated the first 2 Mahavishnu albums at 14
or 15 to see if he has a rare Fusion gem I'm unfamiliar with. Also, if
you wanted to complete your collection of a popular progressive artist
you could look to see that artists total output (though there are
still quite a few holes in the more obscure artists catalogs) Overall,
if you know how to use it, it's a pretty good site.
LP
ScippyLisp
>The
>general averages of all raters are pretty heavily weighted toward
>Symph, Avant and Zuehl. You wont see much highly rated Fusion,
>Space/Kraut Rock, NeoProg, ProgMetal, Ethnic, Ambient, etc in general
>but there may be an individual rater who rates those styles highly.
Though this is not entirely accurate, I would tend to agree with it.
The sad truth is, it's pretty difficult to find raters who, say, have 1000
ambient and related titles in their collection and WANT to rate.
I think fusion, jazz, and krautrock though are starting to come along,
slowly but surely. I, for one, have Gnosis to blame for my recent nosedive into
jazz. So, I'm unintentionally helping that cause right now.
Flip Martin is a big fuse-head that was added about 6 months ago if your
looking some fusion recs. Just access his rater page and take a look at the
titles he ranked 11-15.
>Also, if
>you wanted to complete your collection of a popular progressive artist
>you could look to see that artists total output (though there are
>still quite a few holes in the more obscure artists catalogs)
There is a link on the homepage of Gnosis that allows users to suggest
titles to add. Anyone who is serious about this endeavor would most likely be
welcomed by the admin. to add albums that he/she thinks are missing.
s
e
a
n
ScippyLisp
Theron stated:
>If you don't want to be bruised, then don't continue to question the rating
>system :-)
>
I see we've beat you into submission. Good, good. ;-)
>Just accept the ratings as the opinions of those who participate in the
>web-site. Some of my favorite albums of all time are between the 8 and 10
>rating scale on gnosis. Many of the albums in the 11-15 range don't do
>much for me :-) Everyone is different and likes what they like :-)
>
Absolutely! Though I adore many of the titles in the 'top 100 averages',
I like many items (like the Flower Kings) in the 9 range myself. And I think
that you'll find that even though some of the ratings between Gnosis raters are
similar, we disagree amongst each other on a great many things!
s
e
a
n
Sven Milliam
> > Personally, I think replacing reviews with ratings is not a good idea.
>
> Gnosis has reviews too.
Damn right! I bought _65!_ by the Vander Trio, not because of + or -
things said in the review, but because it got down to the root of why
I would possibly like such an album. That is what reviews should do
(the anti-Bangs). And it's now one of my favorite albums.
Sven
L Perez
> >The
> >general averages of all raters are pretty heavily weighted toward
> >Symph, Avant and Zuehl. You wont see much highly rated Fusion,
> >Space/Kraut Rock, NeoProg, ProgMetal, Ethnic, Ambient, etc in general
> >but there may be an individual rater who rates those styles highly.
>
> Though this is not entirely accurate, I would tend to agree with it.
> The sad truth is, it's pretty difficult to find raters who, say, have 1000
> ambient and related titles in their collection and WANT to rate.
>
> I think fusion, jazz, and krautrock though are starting to come along,
> slowly but surely. I, for one, have Gnosis to blame for my recent nosedive into
> jazz. So, I'm unintentionally helping that cause right now.
>
> Flip Martin is a big fuse-head that was added about 6 months ago if your
> looking some fusion recs. Just access his rater page and take a look at the
> titles he ranked 11-15.
well Sean, as you can imagine, with nearly 5,000 albums I pretty much
have all of the very best stuff from each subgenre of progressive
music. I was simply suggesting a better way to use the site. I only go
there to see what my favorite rater thinks on newer releases before I
spend the $16 shekels ;-)
LP
Chris Bekhuis
LPerez...@usa.net says...
> well Sean, as you can imagine, with nearly 5,000 albums I pretty much
> have all of the very best stuff from each subgenre of progressive
> music.
How many albums did you say??
;-)
--
Chris Bekhuis
www.progwereld.org
the all Dutch site on progressive rock / music
TOIB
>> well Sean, as you can imagine, with nearly 5,000 albums I pretty much
>> have all of the very best stuff from each subgenre of progressive
>> music.
> How many albums did you say??
I seem to remember that until very recently Perez didn't even have
any Area albums.
Anyway, I know someone with closer to 15,000 albums and even he
doesn't think he has "pretty much all of the very best stuff" in
progressive music. One of the fundamental truths of music collecting seems
to be "want lists grow".
Regards,
--
Sean McFee
gondola bob
WhiningProfe...@usa.net says...
> > well Sean, as you can imagine, with nearly 5,000 albums I pretty much
> > have all of the very best stuff from each subgenre of progressive
> > music.
>
> How many albums did you say??
Yes...we were long overdue to get an update on LPerez's collection size,
weren't we? ;)
L Perez
> Chris awakens Beta 14 OK:
> >> well Sean, as you can imagine, with nearly 5,000 albums I pretty much
> >> have all of the very best stuff from each subgenre of progressive
> >> music.
>
> > How many albums did you say??
>
> I seem to remember that until very recently Perez didn't even have
> any Area albums.
If your idea of "very recently is 1 1/2 years ago then you win the
booby prize. Area is one of the few artists I discovered when I got
the web and quickly remedied the void.
>
> Anyway, I know someone with closer to 15,000 albums and even he
> doesn't think he has "pretty much all of the very best stuff" in
> progressive music. One of the fundamental truths of music collecting seems
> to be "want lists grow".
I guess that persons definition of "the very best stuff" is
"absolutely everything" since he has 15,000 and Gnosis only lists
20,000, hmm? My definition of "the very best stuff" is "the very best
stuff" and yes, my want list keeps getting additions but nothing
'classic' of late though I do still need that Wurtemburg album.
LP
Henry Potts
> So, I found a website that reviews prog with numbers called Gnosis2000.net.
>It has good graphics, but the ratings seem weird.
>
> I was curious about some of these albums. I can't believe some of these are
>rated so low. Here are some examples:
>ELP - Love Beach (5.19) - Oh, c'mon now. This is not a classic, but one
>of the top 5 worst albums? I think not.
There are a number of infamous albums by well-known prog bands that the
Gnosis reviewers seem particularly keen to give punitive ratings,
including _Love Beach_, Yes's _Talk_ and Genesis's _We Can't Dance_.
None of those examples are particular favourites of mine, but they
surely don't deserve quite such low marks, not given some of the dreck
that's out there.
OK, OK, I know we're meant to look at individual raters' marks and not
read anything into the averages, but the site makes it very easy to look
at the averages and less so to pick out individual raters...
>Ironia - A Granite Scale (5.50) - I was just about to buy this. But after
>seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
Nick kindly sent me a copy of this and I think it's definitely much
better than a 5.50 on the Gnosis scale!
--
Henry
NJD
he...@REMOVETOEMAILbondegezou.demon.co.uk says...
> Nick kindly sent me a copy of this and I think it's definitely much
> better than a 5.50 on the Gnosis scale!
Why thank you Henry (I'll take what I can get).
Ah but, the record continues its slide. It's now down to a whopping 4.5
after the last rater gave it a 1. So it earns the bronze as the third
worst record of all time!
C'mon guys, let's go for the gold!
TOIB
>>ELP - Love Beach (5.19) - Oh, c'mon now. This is not a classic, but one
>>of the top 5 worst albums? I think not.
> There are a number of infamous albums by well-known prog bands that the
> Gnosis reviewers seem particularly keen to give punitive ratings,
> including _Love Beach_, Yes's _Talk_ and Genesis's _We Can't Dance_.
> None of those examples are particular favourites of mine, but they
> surely don't deserve quite such low marks, not given some of the dreck
> that's out there.
In general I tend to agree. I don't think "Talk" or "We Can't
Dance" are classics, but I certainly don't think they are among the worst
albums ever made either. Personally I have a hard time not seeing it as
"revenge grading" against prog bands who went pop, but those people I've
talked to about it insist that the albums really are that bad, and that's
really the end of the discussion for a subjective issue like this. I think
it has to be kept in mind that mainstream pop/rock is generally not the
forte of many Gnosis raters, so grades on stuff like "We Can't
Dance" should be taken with a grain of salt.
Another thing is that if Gnosis had a "sort by median" option an
album like We Can't Dance would not be at the bottom, because there are
some truly terrible albums with lower medians that get "normalized" up
into the 7-8 range because only a handful of people have heard them. I
know you have complained about this normalization system in the past, and
I hate to give you another opportunity to take a crack at it, because I
think it's a good system on the whole and the "problem" is just that bad
albums don't tend to circulate the way good ones do. A "sort by
median" option would have its own grains of salt (album with only one
rating and it's a 15 goes to the top, for example) but would also be more
useful in certain situations, like this one perhaps.
>>Ironia - A Granite Scale (5.50) - I was just about to buy this. But after
>>seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
> Nick kindly sent me a copy of this and I think it's definitely much
> better than a 5.50 on the Gnosis scale!
I don't agree with the Gnosis "result" here either. I pretty much
hate the first two tracks (sorry Nicholas), but the rest of it, while not
really my cup of tea, doesn't seem so bad. Again, though, I've talked to
people on Gnosis who just can't stand it. Maybe with a different set of
raters it wouldn't be so low. Also I think there is a lot of stuff on
Gnosis that would be rated lower than Ironia if enough people heard
them.. that's really what all the "bottom" albums tend to have in
common.. lots of ratings, rather than the lowest ratings.
Regards,
--
Sean McFee
NJD
se...@nexusSP.AMcarleton.ca says...
> I don't agree with the Gnosis "result" here either. I pretty much
> hate the first two tracks
Did anyone read the lyrics?
> (sorry Nicholas),
That's okay.
> but the rest of it, while not
> really my cup of tea, doesn't seem so bad.
Did you happen to notice that Jim Rilko is a fucking monster? He ranks
with the likes of Dennis Chambers and Steve Gadd IMHO. And bassist Art
Hengst is no slouch either. Few prog bassists are in his league.
It's amazing to me that not a single reviewer noticed Jim's playing (in
the written reviews). Maybe the electronic drums give the false
impression that some of the percussion was sequenced or overdubbed.
That's not the case. He actually plays those songs (and some far more
difficult ones) live and sounds like two or three separate
percussionists in the process.
More likely, one has to be a good drummer to recognize just how great
Jim is. He's just about the best there is IMO and amazing to watch. I
should videotape him some evening.
Some drummers out there have noticed though. His drum tutorials are the
most popular pages on any of my sites.
> Again, though, I've talked to
> people on Gnosis who just can't stand it.
Perhaps they should try listening more closely with an open mind.
But to each his own. I certainly have been extremely surprised and
frankly stung by the reaction. People I thought would really like it
(like you Gnosis guys) absolutely hated it (in most cases). People I
thought would probably dislike it, loved it (in some cases).
So I don't know who the hell our audience is or even if we have one. I
do know this material isn't thoughtless crap. A lot of effort went into
the compositions and I managed to attract one of the best rhythm
sections in the business.
That's not to say I don't think there are problems with the record.
There definitely are. It was our first after all and we're still
learning how to produce and record.
But it doesn't really matter. The second record will be quite
different, if we ever finish it. Jim wants to release a CD specifically
for advanced drummers, so the focus will be on rhythm. We're going to
re-record or at least re-mix a couple of tunes from the first record and
then add ten others (Rhino Racing and Toe Jam). We'll offer a book of
drum charts with commentary to accompany them.
Unfortunately, I'm not feeling particularly motivated myself. My best
non-musician friends tell me I should pack it in and just join a local
blues band simply to have some fun with music for a change.
They might be right.
TOIB
>> I don't agree with the Gnosis "result" here either. I pretty much
>> hate the first two tracks
> Did anyone read the lyrics?
The lyrics, and the way they are sung, is specifically what I hate about
the second track. I understand if the idea was to be irreverent or humorous, but
it just doesn't fit in with my sense of humor (similarly to the way a lot of
Zappa doesn't fit in with my sense of humor). "Give me your hand and into it I
will pee... where are my glasses?" Sorry man, not my thing. If I'm missing
something here by all means fill me in.
>> but the rest of it, while not
>> really my cup of tea, doesn't seem so bad.
> Did you happen to notice that Jim Rilko is a fucking monster? He ranks
> with the likes of Dennis Chambers and Steve Gadd IMHO. And bassist Art
> Hengst is no slouch either. Few prog bassists are in his league.
I have heard plenty of albums over the years that I was either
indifferent to or disliked that had great musicians on them. I won't cast doubt
on the pedigree of your rhythm section, although others might choose to.
>> Again, though, I've talked to
>> people on Gnosis who just can't stand it.
> Perhaps they should try listening more closely with an open mind.
Well, I tried to come at your album with an open mind. I won't assume
that every other person who rated didn't do the same (nor will I guarantee that
they did... only they would know for sure).
> But to each his own. I certainly have been extremely surprised and
> frankly stung by the reaction.
I *am* sorry about this. Whether you are talking about a rating or a
review, one of the downsides of doing this kind of thing is that it can upset
the artists. That's why most artists have a "critics-r-scum" mentality :). I
certainly don't mean to affect your musical career decisions with a number I put
next to an album, and I don't think you should take too much stock into what
reviews (numerical or otherwise) you are getting as long as *you* like what
you're doing.
Regards,
--
Sean McFee
NJD
se...@nexusSP.AMcarleton.ca says...
> NJD awakens Beta 14 OK:
> >> I don't agree with the Gnosis "result" here either. I pretty much
> >> hate the first two tracks
>
> > Did anyone read the lyrics?
>
> The lyrics, and the way they are sung, is specifically what I hate about
> the second track. I understand if the idea was to be irreverent or humorous, but
> it just doesn't fit in with my sense of humor (similarly to the way a lot of
> Zappa doesn't fit in with my sense of humor). "Give me your hand and into it I
> will pee... where are my glasses?" Sorry man, not my thing. If I'm missing
> something here by all means fill me in.
I really don't like to explain my lyrics, but I will say that at the
time I wrote that song I was studying Nietzsche and had just finished
reading Dostoyevsky's "Notes from the Underground," which gave me the
basic idea for the tune. Both writers are all over the place in that
song.
There is some depth behind the tongue-in-cheek flippiness. Trust me.
:-)
I was 20 years old when I wrote that but I still really like it. To
tell the truth though, of all the songs on the record, I am the least
happy with the way that one came out. Paul never really understood the
tune. I should have sung it myself. The guitar tone also doesn't quite
cut it. I'm not sure I could ever get the tone I really wanted though,
given my low budget and modest recording facilities.
> I *am* sorry about this. Whether you are talking about a rating or a
> review, one of the downsides of doing this kind of thing is that it can upset
> the artists. That's why most artists have a "critics-r-scum" mentality :). I
> certainly don't mean to affect your musical career decisions with a number I put
> next to an album, and I don't think you should take too much stock into what
> reviews (numerical or otherwise) you are getting as long as *you* like what
> you're doing.
Hey, I understand. I can't help it that I don't have a thick skin. The
same thing that makes me a musician, makes me sensitive.
You're really not a bad guy Sean, despite your reputation. Maybe we'll
share a couple of drinks someday, listen to some obscure band, and
debate its merits. Or we could jam, if you play an instrument (as I
assume you do).
Or not. Whatever.
Take care.
No sense in belaboring my failure here.
:-)
Arthur Boff
news:ab6t5d$q9u$2...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
> Henry awakens Beta 14 OK:
> >>ELP - Love Beach (5.19) - Oh, c'mon now. This is not a classic, but one
> >>of the top 5 worst albums? I think not.
>
> > There are a number of infamous albums by well-known prog bands that the
> > Gnosis reviewers seem particularly keen to give punitive ratings,
> > including _Love Beach_, Yes's _Talk_ and Genesis's _We Can't Dance_.
> > None of those examples are particular favourites of mine, but they
> > surely don't deserve quite such low marks, not given some of the dreck
> > that's out there.
>
> In general I tend to agree. I don't think "Talk" or "We Can't
> Dance" are classics, but I certainly don't think they are among the worst
> albums ever made either. Personally I have a hard time not seeing it as
> "revenge grading" against prog bands who went pop, but those people I've
> talked to about it insist that the albums really are that bad, and that's
> really the end of the discussion for a subjective issue like this.
Could it be that in many ways a really bad album from a band that you know
can produce really fine music is more disappointing (and more deserving of
scorn) than a bad album from a band which has never been that good?
Wart
The Lord Thy God
>Could it be that in many ways a really bad album from a band that you know
>can produce really fine music is more disappointing (and more deserving of
>scorn) than a bad album from a band which has never been that good?
Yeah, I think expectations have a lot to do with it. People will rate an
album by a band they expect to be good lower than they'd rate the same album
by a band of whom they had no positive expectations. If, say, "Talk" was by
some obscure Brazilian band or something I doubt it would have the low score
it does. I mean, it certainly wouldn't have a _good_ score, but it wouldn't
be quite as low.
--
"Flames are discouraged, except for those which quote famous (or
not-so- famous) Stooge lines. For example, it would be acceptable to
threaten to 'tear out your tonsils' or to 'gouge your eyes out'."
- alt.comedy.slapstick.3-stooges FAQ
P}l Audun Jensen
TOIB wrote:
> In general I tend to agree. I don't think "Talk" or "We Can't
> Dance" are classics, but I certainly don't think they are among the worst
> albums ever made either.
Talk is the worst album ever recorded. It makes Love Beach look like a
progressive masterpiece in comparison.
Stuart Pledger
this is as an aside to the debate on Gnosis. I have recently been
listening to my old Al di Meola albums on vinyl
after a long time being locked away in storage and have been impressed
again by their musicality and percussion.
His picking is incredibly precise and lines delivered with great taste
over complex percussion.
I can't really pick a favourite although I remember when I first got
into him the album I listened to most was his
burning live album, "Tour de Force, Live".
I understand your knowldge of the genre is extensive and I am probably
giving you info you don't need but just
in case.....
Stuart.
Richard Barnes
news:F4RwRPAm...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk...
> Poet Liar <poet...@aol.com> wrote
> > So, I found a website that reviews prog with numbers called
Gnosis2000.net.
> >It has good graphics, but the ratings seem weird.
> >
> > I was curious about some of these albums. I can't believe some of
these are
> >rated so low. Here are some examples:
> [...]
> >ELP - Love Beach (5.19) - Oh, c'mon now. This is not a classic, but one
> >of the top 5 worst albums? I think not.
>
> There are a number of infamous albums by well-known prog bands that the
> Gnosis reviewers seem particularly keen to give punitive ratings,
> including _Love Beach_, Yes's _Talk_ and Genesis's _We Can't Dance_.
> None of those examples are particular favourites of mine, but they
> surely don't deserve quite such low marks, not given some of the dreck
> that's out there.
>
ever made by any prog band and since that's what Gnosis is limited to it
seems fair to me. Frankly most of the current pop scene is preferable
listening material that that embarrassing pile of crap.
--
Richard Barnes
Richard Barnes
news:ab6t5d$q9u$2...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
> >>ELP - Love Beach (5.19) - Oh, c'mon now. This is not a classic, but one
> >>of the top 5 worst albums? I think not.
>
> > There are a number of infamous albums by well-known prog bands that the
> > Gnosis reviewers seem particularly keen to give punitive ratings,
> > including _Love Beach_, Yes's _Talk_ and Genesis's _We Can't Dance_.
> > None of those examples are particular favourites of mine, but they
> > surely don't deserve quite such low marks, not given some of the dreck
> > that's out there.
>
> In general I tend to agree. I don't think "Talk" or "We Can't
> Dance" are classics, but I certainly don't think they are among the worst
> albums ever made either. Personally I have a hard time not seeing it as
> "revenge grading" against prog bands who went pop, but those people I've
> talked to about it insist that the albums really are that bad, and that's
> really the end of the discussion for a subjective issue like this. I think
> it has to be kept in mind that mainstream pop/rock is generally not the
> forte of many Gnosis raters, so grades on stuff like "We Can't
> Dance" should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
album. Talk is also an album I've always kind of liked a lot of. Far
better than Union or Open Your Eyes from Yes' catalogue and even those
aren't terrible. But Love Beach, sheesh.
--
Richard Barnes
Miciah
>they'd asked me back in '92, when I was still a wide-eyed innocent who'd
> never met another prog fan, I'd probably be only too keen to take part.
>Nowadays, the idea of assigning arbitrary numerical values to
Perhaps your feeling that the numerical values are arbitrary is the greatest
arguement for you not participating.
>thousands of albums seems an inordinate bother, and for less dividends
> than actually reviewing them.
See comment below.
>OK, OK, I know we're meant to look at individual raters' marks and
> not read anything into the averages, but the site makes it very
>easy to look at the averages and less so to pick out individual
>raters...
Actually, people keep saying this but I don't understand this idea at all. It
seems to me that this is ignoring the real strength of the site. The average
ratings are the main reason to go to the site. Who cares about long winded
reviews. I can get individual opinions and reviews anywhere - they are legion
on the web. Heck, the guy sitting next to me right now will give me his
opinion on anything in the world. I can pull out Progression or Expose, etc.,
and read reviews all day long. It's only on Gnosis that you get a consensus of
many people's opinions...and to me that's what makes it unique and is it's most
valuable feature.
Alex Temple
>
> Actually, people keep saying this but I don't understand this idea at all. It
> seems to me that this is ignoring the real strength of the site. The average
> ratings are the main reason to go to the site. Who cares about long winded
> reviews. I can get individual opinions and reviews anywhere - they are legion
> on the web. Heck, the guy sitting next to me right now will give me his
> opinion on anything in the world. I can pull out Progression or Expose, etc.,
> and read reviews all day long. It's only on Gnosis that you get a consensus of
> many people's opinions...and to me that's what makes it unique and is it's most
> valuable feature.
The only problem with that is that any album in the "love it or hate it"
category will average out to around 7 or 8, meaning that something you
might adore -- something that half the raters gave really high marks to,
even if the other half thought it was terrible -- wouldn't even be on
your radar.
--
Alex Temple - NP: Lárus Halldór Grímsson - Sambudar-Sundurthykkja
fiber_optiq at yahoo dot com
"Beispiele paranormaler Tonbandstimmen"
Henry Potts
>Henry awakens Beta 14 OK:
>> Gnosis reviewers seem particularly keen to give punitive ratings,
>> including _Love Beach_, Yes's _Talk_ and Genesis's _We Can't Dance_.
>> None of those examples are particular favourites of mine, but they
>> surely don't deserve quite such low marks, not given some of the dreck
>> that's out there.
>
> In general I tend to agree. I don't think "Talk" or "We Can't
>Dance" are classics, but I certainly don't think they are among the worst
>albums ever made either. Personally I have a hard time not seeing it as
>"revenge grading" against prog bands who went pop, but those people I've
>talked to about it insist that the albums really are that bad, and that's
>really the end of the discussion for a subjective issue like this. I think
>it has to be kept in mind that mainstream pop/rock is generally not the
>forte of many Gnosis raters, so grades on stuff like "We Can't
I feel any such raters should excuse themselves from rating albums in a
genre that they generally dislike, but I suspect they feel they have a
right to rate albums like, say, _We Can't Dance_ because they've rated
all the early Genesis albums.
>>>Ironia - A Granite Scale (5.50) - I was just about to buy this. But
>>>after seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
>>
>> Nick kindly sent me a copy of this and I think it's definitely much
>> better than a 5.50 on the Gnosis scale!
>
> I don't agree with the Gnosis "result" here either. I pretty much
>hate the first two tracks (sorry Nicholas),
I rather like the second half of "Chemical Moses", the first track, and
"Underground Stealing" could easily be a nu-metal hit single (distort
the guitars more)... although whether that's a good or bad thing... ;)
>but the rest of it, while not really my cup of tea, doesn't seem so
>bad. Again, though, I've talked to people on Gnosis who just can't
>stand it. Maybe with a different set of raters it wouldn't be so low.
>Also I think there is a lot of stuff on Gnosis that would be rated
>lower than Ironia if enough people heard them.. that's really what all
>the "bottom" albums tend to have in common.. lots of ratings, rather
>than the lowest ratings.
I realise it's a lot of work for someone, but the best way to counter
criticisms like this is to increase the functionality of the site.
--
Henry
Henry Potts
>se...@nexusSP.AMcarleton.ca says
[...]
>> but the rest of it, while not really my cup of tea, doesn't seem so
>> bad.
>
>Did you happen to notice that Jim Rilko is a fucking monster? He ranks
>with the likes of Dennis Chambers and Steve Gadd IMHO. And bassist Art
>Hengst is no slouch either. Few prog bassists are in his league.
>
>It's amazing to me that not a single reviewer noticed Jim's playing (in
The rhythm section can certainly be impressive.
>> Again, though, I've talked to people on Gnosis who just can't stand
>> it.
>
>Perhaps they should try listening more closely with an open mind.
>
>But to each his own. I certainly have been extremely surprised and
>frankly stung by the reaction. People I thought would really like it
>(like you Gnosis guys) absolutely hated it (in most cases). People I
>thought would probably dislike it, loved it (in some cases).
>
>So I don't know who the hell our audience is or even if we have one. I
>do know this material isn't thoughtless crap. A lot of effort went into
>the compositions and I managed to attract one of the best rhythm
>sections in the business.
>
>That's not to say I don't think there are problems with the record.
>There definitely are. It was our first after all and we're still
>learning how to produce and record.
I think that's obvious at times: re-record that album in a professional
studio with a top-notch producer and it would be much better. It's not
that the current production is especially bad, but it's very flat. It
doesn't bring out the strengths of the tracks.
>But it doesn't really matter. The second record will be quite
>different, if we ever finish it. Jim wants to release a CD specifically
>for advanced drummers, so the focus will be on rhythm. We're going to
>re-record or at least re-mix a couple of tunes from the first record and
>then add ten others (Rhino Racing and Toe Jam). We'll offer a book of
>drum charts with commentary to accompany them.
Well, I'd go as far as to say I'm intrigued... but tell the band to
shave. I'm suspicious of quite so much facial hair.
--
Henry
Henry Potts
>he...@REMOVETOEMAILbondegezou.demon.co.uk says
>> Nick kindly sent me a copy of this and I think it's definitely much
>> better than a 5.50 on the Gnosis scale!
>
>Why thank you Henry (I'll take what I can get).
>
>Ah but, the record continues its slide. It's now down to a whopping 4.5
>after the last rater gave it a 1. So it earns the bronze as the third
>worst record of all time!
I've just put _A Granite Scale_ on the CD player...
Well, it's not my favourite album of all time.
Look, it doesn't even get near my top 100.
However, it's perfectly listenable, competent stuff with some nice
moments. (Put that on your CD covers, Nick! "'Perfectly listenable,
competent,' says famous Usenet poster Henry Potts.") I'm struggling to
hear what makes this the third worst prog-related record of all time.
Rick Wakeman alone has released three poorer records in a single year
before now.
>C'mon guys, let's go for the gold!
No publicity is bad publicity!
--
Henry
NJD
he...@REMOVETOEMAILbondegezou.demon.co.uk says...
> Well, I'd go as far as to say I'm intrigued... but tell the band to
> shave. I'm suspicious of quite so much facial hair.
It hides my double chin!
On the other hand, I haven't gotten a single job offer or new client
since growing it. Up until now I've been blaming the economy and the
collapse of the IT market.
Hey, but maybe it's the damned beard.
Hmmmmm. Food for thought.
Maelcum Soul
Indeed, at least on WCD and _Talk_ they were trying. _Love Beach_, on the
other hand, is 100% contractual obligation. Each second screams out, "we made
your damned album, now please give us our money!"
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")
make GEORYN disappear to reply
"You can take the war out of the soldier, but you can't raise that soldier from
the dead."
--Shona Laing
N.P.:"Law like love"- Z y m a / P r o t o n - 1
Henry Potts
While I accept that musical tastes are an idiosyncratic matter that
needn't require justification, I feel that such an extreme claim, as
that _Talk_ is the "worst album ever recorded", should be able to
stand up to some critical analysis.
Pal, perhaps you could write a few words comparing _Talk_ to some
other albums to explain why you feel justified in saying that it is
"the worst album ever recorded". To make this easy, why don't you
compare and contrast _Talk_ to some other albums involving the players
on _Talk_. What about comparing _Talk_ to Trevor Rabin's early solo
album _Face to Face_, or indeed any of his three albums with Rabbitt?
Or what about a comparison with Jon Anderson's _The Promise Ring_, or
Detective's _It Takes One to Know One_ (feat. Tony Kaye), or
Wetton/Manzanera's _One World_ (feat. Alan White)?
How do you feel _Talk_ compares to ELP's _In the Hot Seat_, the
current #2 worst all-time record on Gnosis? What about comparing it to
Starcastle's debut?
If _Talk_ is "the worst album ever recorded", I'm sure you won't find
it difficult to write a few paragraphs illustrating how it's worse
than these other albums.
--
Henry
Jim Chokey
> > Talk is the worst album ever recorded.
Bollocks. That honor surely belongs to _Bring Me the Head
of Yuri Gagarin_ by Hawkwind.
-- Jim C.
The Lord Thy God
>TOIB <se...@nexusSP.AMcarleton.ca> wrote
>>Henry awakens Beta 14 OK:
>>> There are a number of infamous albums by well-known prog bands that the
>>> Gnosis reviewers seem particularly keen to give punitive ratings,
>>> including _Love Beach_, Yes's _Talk_ and Genesis's _We Can't Dance_.
>>> None of those examples are particular favourites of mine, but they
>>> surely don't deserve quite such low marks, not given some of the dreck
>>> that's out there.
>>
>> In general I tend to agree. I don't think "Talk" or "We Can't
>>Dance" are classics, but I certainly don't think they are among the worst
>>albums ever made either. Personally I have a hard time not seeing it as
>>"revenge grading" against prog bands who went pop, but those people I've
>>talked to about it insist that the albums really are that bad, and that's
>>really the end of the discussion for a subjective issue like this. I think
>>it has to be kept in mind that mainstream pop/rock is generally not the
>>forte of many Gnosis raters, so grades on stuff like "We Can't
>>Dance" should be taken with a grain of salt. [...]
>
>I feel any such raters should excuse themselves from rating albums in a
>genre that they generally dislike, but I suspect they feel they have a
>right to rate albums like, say, _We Can't Dance_ because they've rated
>all the early Genesis albums.
I don't know; I'd rate Mike and the Mechanics higher than "We Can't Dance".
>>>>Ironia - A Granite Scale (5.50) - I was just about to buy this. But
>>>>after seeing these ratings on Gnosis, I'll probably pass.
>>>
>>> Nick kindly sent me a copy of this and I think it's definitely much
>>> better than a 5.50 on the Gnosis scale!
>>
>> I don't agree with the Gnosis "result" here either. I pretty much
>>hate the first two tracks (sorry Nicholas),
>
>I rather like the second half of "Chemical Moses", the first track, and
>"Underground Stealing" could easily be a nu-metal hit single (distort
>the guitars more)... although whether that's a good or bad thing... ;)
I haven't heard it, and I don't plan to, but I sincerely doubt it is the Worst
Prog Album of All Time, and I think the fact that it's rated as such rather
undermines Gnosis' credibility.
NJD
wrong...@ekilat.com says...
> I haven't heard it, and I don't plan to, but I sincerely doubt it is the Worst
> Prog Album of All Time, and I think the fact that it's rated as such rather
> undermines Gnosis' credibility.
No, it's *THIRD* worst. Deyss' "At King" earned the gold.
We're gunning for them though. I note that they also received a 10, a
9, three 8s, and a 7. The best we got was a 6, so I really, really
think we've got a decent shot at the top spot.
Woo hoo!
--
Nick Delonas
Author of the third worst album of all time!
The Lord Thy God
>In article <ib3jdu02v8m7vkidf...@4ax.com>,
>wrong...@ekilat.com says...
>> I haven't heard it, and I don't plan to, but I sincerely doubt it is the Worst
>> Prog Album of All Time, and I think the fact that it's rated as such rather
>> undermines Gnosis' credibility.
>
>No, it's *THIRD* worst. Deyss' "At King" earned the gold.
>
>We're gunning for them though. I note that they also received a 10, a
>9, three 8s, and a 7. The best we got was a 6, so I really, really
>think we've got a decent shot at the top spot.
Sorry. The site is very difficult to navigate, so it's hard to get any actual
information out of it.
Henry Potts
>Henry Potts wrote
[...]
>> There are a number of infamous albums by well-known prog bands that the
>> Gnosis reviewers seem particularly keen to give punitive ratings,
>> including _Love Beach_, Yes's _Talk_ and Genesis's _We Can't Dance_.
>> None of those examples are particular favourites of mine, but they
>> surely don't deserve quite such low marks, not given some of the dreck
>> that's out there.
>
>I'd disagree about Love Beach - it definitely is IMO one of the worst albums
>ever made by any prog band and since that's what Gnosis is limited to it
>seems fair to me. Frankly most of the current pop scene is preferable
>listening material that that embarrassing pile of crap.
I can't agree. OK, the Lake songs that fill most of side 1 are pretty
awful, but I still don't think they're as bad as, to take the obvious
comparison, _In the Hot Seat_ (does anyone else find "Daddy" actively
offensive?). Emerson gets a couple of nice playing moments in them: you
can tell he's talented, even if the material's awful and he's not
bothering. There are a dozen or more Wakeman solo albums where Wakeman
*is* trying and doesn't sound as good.
Then there's "Canario", which is pretty half-arsed compared to past
ELP's classical adaptations, but half-arsed is better than none at all.
"Canario" is a better ELP pastiche than "Grendel" is a Genesis pastiche.
(By the way, speaking of Genesis pastiches, why does everyone praise the
mediocre _Smallcreep's Day_ by Mike Rutherford?)
So, _Love Beach_ side 1: very bad, but with occasional redeeming
features. I'd still take it over _In the Hot Seat_, Rick Wakeman's _The
Gospels_ and a bunch of other prog albums. But then we get side 2:
"Memoirs of an Officer and a Gentleman".
I really like "Memoirs...", but even if you don't, I can't see how
someone could consider it among the worst prog ever made unless they
dislike the entire ELP canon (in which case, how come they ever ended up
listening to _Love Beach_?). I like that is has a strong and somewhat
unexpected narrative, good development over the piece, strong
melodies... What's so awful about it?
So, _Love Beach_ side 2: good. _Love Beach_ in total, one side very bad,
one good makes an overall album that wouldn't be first on my list of
recommendations, but it ain't "one of the worst albums ever made by any
prog band". That's my case: what's your counter-argument?
--
Henry
Tony Elka
<he...@REMOVETOEMAILbondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> So, _Love Beach_ side 2: good. _Love Beach_ in total, one side very bad,
> one good makes an overall album that wouldn't be first on my list of
> recommendations, but it ain't "one of the worst albums ever made by any
> prog band". That's my case: what's your counter-argument?
Love Beach gets kicked around so much because it was SUCH a
disappointment for ELP fans and progressive listeners in general.
I waited a very long time after Brain Salad Surgery and Works Vol. 1
and Vol. 2 were not the payoff I hoped for. When Love Beach came
along, I knew it was all over.
So Love Beach isn't just friggin awful, it's also a case of "blame the
messanger", cause what Love Beach had to say was "This genre is dead."
Tony
Jeremy Weissenburger
"Henry Potts" <he...@REMOVETOEMAILbondegezou.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I can't agree. OK, the Lake songs that fill most of side 1 are pretty
> awful, but I still don't think they're as bad as, to take the obvious
> comparison, _In the Hot Seat_ (does anyone else find "Daddy" actively
> offensive?). Emerson gets a couple of nice playing moments in them: you
> can tell he's talented, even if the material's awful and he's not
> bothering. There are a dozen or more Wakeman solo albums where Wakeman
> *is* trying and doesn't sound as good.
Well, all I can say is that I have a dub of _Love beach_ on cassette from an
LP. I have yet to buy it on CD. However, I sold _In The Hot Seat_.
> (By the way, speaking of Genesis pastiches, why does everyone praise the
> mediocre _Smallcreep's Day_ by Mike Rutherford?)
Because Anthony Phillips is on it?
> That's my case: what's your counter-argument?
I think even with the directionless direction of _Works, Volumes I & II_,
the tour still was progressive. And with songs like "Pirates," and "Fanfare
For The Common Man," as well as Emerson's piano concerto and some of
Palmer's stuff, people thought that ELP was still progressive.
Then _Love Beach_ came out. As they listened to the first side, it just
seemed like the band probably wasn't even trying.
I wonder if, like _Tarkus_, they had put _Memoirs_ on the first side, people
might have a slightly better opinion about the album.
--Jeremy
Sven Milliam
> I really like "Memoirs...", but even if you don't, I can't see how
> someone could consider it among the worst prog ever made unless they
> dislike the entire ELP canon (in which case, how come they ever ended up
> listening to _Love Beach_?).
Because their tastes have been updated by exposure to musicians with
more artistic integrity/sensebilities, since then? (I do understand
what you're saying, though.) I used to like some ELP (I still like the
first album and side 1 of _Tarkus_), but one day it just hit me that
their music is really inconsistent. I don't mean stylistically. I mean
the underlying current that pervades all bands' music. Like, you
listen to King Crimson circa-'73, and you get a sense that the band
really *KNOWS* what it wants to do, musically. When I listen to BSS, I
hear a band that's more interested in their Rolls' and mansions than
artistic expression. The vocal melodies are superficial, the lyrics
full of pseudo-wit (which is a step up from Lake's attempts at them),
and the music is ponderous, at best. Still, there is an exuberance and
fervor in the performances. _Love Beach_ possessess all of the
aforementioned traits, as well as write-in performances. It is 100%
devoid of emotional context. That is why, I believe, it has such a low
rating, if I may venture to guess.
> I like that is has a strong and somewhat
> unexpected narrative, good development over the piece, strong
> melodies... What's so awful about it?
See my previous few sentences, above.
> So, _Love Beach_ side 2: good. _Love Beach_ in total, one side very bad,
> one good makes an overall album that wouldn't be first on my list of
> recommendations, but it ain't "one of the worst albums ever made by any
> prog band". That's my case: what's your counter-argument?
Think of the entire prog catalog. Is there any other album where you
get the feeling the musicians (every one of them, so don't bust in
with albums where one member doesn't care; you know who you are,
although that album sucks as well, for many of the same reasons,
stated above) cared less about the music than those on _Love Beach_? I
rest my case.
Sven
Steven Sullivan
: (snip)
:> I really like "Memoirs...", but even if you don't, I can't see how
:> someone could consider it among the worst prog ever made unless they
:> dislike the entire ELP canon (in which case, how come they ever ended up
:> listening to _Love Beach_?).
: Because their tastes have been updated by exposure to musicians with
: more artistic integrity/sensebilities, since then? (I do understand
: what you're saying, though.) I used to like some ELP (I still like the
: first album and side 1 of _Tarkus_), but one day it just hit me that
: their music is really inconsistent.
Indeed. Side one of Tarkus is enough to demonstrate that...and to demonstrate
how even 'exposure to musicians with more artistic integrity/sensibilities' is no
guarantee that all opinions will converge. I'd bet I've been exposed to as
least as many musicians of the sort you name, yet I rank Tarkus pretty low.
: really *KNOWS* what it wants to do, musically. When I listen to BSS, I
: hear a band that's more interested in their Rolls' and mansions than
: artistic expression.
You do? How odd. I hear a band that wants to top all the other bands working a
similar vein.
--
-S.
"AMY gets real boring when all you read is flames too" - jman.
Sven Milliam
Artistically, or to be the biggest "rock stars"?
Steven Sullivan
: Steven Sullivan <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message news:<SW%F8.3630$hi5....@grover.nit.gwu.edu>...
Both.
Wes Taggart
financially ignorant, I can only believe it was their decision to
artistically take the next step, as they saw it. Obviously a few years
before its time.
Wes
"Steven Sullivan" <sull...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:J8bG8.3637$hi5....@grover.nit.gwu.edu...
Henry Potts
[...]
>> _Love Beach_ in total, one side very bad, one good makes an overall
>> album that wouldn't be first on my list of recommendations, but it
>> ain't "one of the worst albums ever made by any prog band". That's my
>> case: what's your counter-argument?
>
>Think of the entire prog catalog. Is there any other album where you
>get the feeling the musicians (every one of them, so don't bust in
>with albums where one member doesn't care; you know who you are,
>although that album sucks as well, for many of the same reasons,
>stated above) cared less about the music than those on _Love Beach_? I
>rest my case.
_In the Hot Seat_? _Metal Machine Music_? And there was little
enthusiasm in Yes for _Union_ or _Open Your Eyes_.
--
Henry