Some Gnosis2000 questions

[Scrotum Scissor]

Of course you would. Honestly based on what I've read of your opinions, you may even be in the "majority" in Gnosisland.

What's even truer is the fact that it sounds pretty damn heartfelt to me. These cats meant their aspirations…

[Trane]

I personally find Gnosis the most reliable rating site I visit, I always visit there when assessing what I should explore. I thought about applying but I doubt I have the depth or breadth needed to make the grade. Great place, keep up the good work.

Ian, I think Richard and you would make perfect additions, if you don't mind my saying so.

Thanks L for the kind words. And of course I know what you mean here on the second paragraph. We used to call that "carpet bombing grades". We tried hard to discourage that, but you know there's really only so much you can do. But I think most raters avoid doing that.

Thanks Hugues, Eddie, Chris (and any other Gnosis rater reading this) as well for always being great Gnosis members!

Well, Tom, without you and Dirk (and Mike) we (or at least I) wouldn't be anywhere in our/my search for weird and great music.

I mean reading Asbjornssen and Joynson was great, but seeing the Gnosis ratings confirming or not their advices/assessments allowed for much better accuracy, IMHO.

As for "carpet bombing" ratings (love the term), I can dig/tolerate it if it's neutral rate (7 or 8), but if it's lower, we're dealing with a hateboy (we're dealing with a hateboy, an I don't pay attention) and if it's higher, then it's a fanboy (and this is more problematic to spot)

[moecurlythanu]

The thing that sucks is the knee-jerk raters who will give an entire catalog of an artist the same number rating based on the hits of that artist

Well now. All the Yes albums get 15s, and it has nothing to do with "the hits." What else could they possibly get? It's only natural, it's "the order of the universe!" Sing it with me! "The order of the universe, the order of the universe!"

(Sorry. I get carried away.)

[Zeuhlmate]

Ratings can be an indication.
But if I like an album, but the guys at gnosis doesn't... so what?

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

Ratings can be an indication.
But if I like an album, but the guys at gnosis doesn't... so what?

with over 90 raters, surely there is at least one that agrees with you on any given album

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

As for "carpet bombing" ratings (love the term), I can dig/tolerate it

it's both childish and irresponsible to the purpose of the website but I know why you think it's ok

[Trane]

it's both childish and irresponsible to the purpose of the website but I know why you think it's ok

I've learned indeed to "tole-rate" your hateboy attitude against the "Floyd soul" and your total fanboy attitude from the "Floyd-name thief" (12 & 11s, really?? )... I mean nothing above a 7 for RW is flabbergasting and just as carpet bombing as what you did for DG (you even spewed your bile/napalm on Geesin FTM, with a 4 for The Body down.gif)... and let's face it, my ratings on those two artistes are much more nuanced than yours will ever be

You should know that with almost 90 raters, your attempts at rate skewings have little chance to happen. sdiable.gif


OK, now that this cheap ignomous personal attack of yours has been totally defeated, would you care to stop your constant underlying piques and play nice or do you want to step up an echellon and start open warfare ??

[Scrotum Scissor]

^ This is my fave PA review:

Second Life Syndrome
PROG REVIEWER

I've seen so much hype about this new Knifeworld album that I seriously wanted to slap an even lower rating on it. But I'm not like that. Knifeworld's latest, "The Unravelling", has arrived from Inside Out, and people are eating it up. There's something about the quirk in this band's sound that has convinced people to bow before them. Yet, I refuse.
Knifeworld. KNIFEWORLD. What kind of name is that, anyways? This band seems overly concerned with appearing special or different. They seem to put tons of effort into looking the "prog part", if you will. On paper, then, this new album seems like it should be a spectacular display of eclecticism and brilliance. With male and female singers (including the venerable Kavus Torabi) and with many different instruments making regular appearances, such as an entire brass section and violin, this album seems like it will be special. Like I said, though, I think that's how the band wants it to look on paper. The band, however, is certainly skilled at playing their instruments, and the album is technically proficient.
In reality, much of this album is a pretentious mess. Melodies and instruments clash and play past each other. Spaces in the music are like gaping holes in a bucket, letting all the content just escape. The band seems to think that composing music is simply cutting and paste grooves and melodies from classic bands. Indeed, there are entire foundations of songs on this album that seem like they were ripped directly from a Gentle Giant album. It's one thing to include a tool used by an older band, it's entirely different to change very little and expect the listener not to notice. I speak specifically of "The Skulls We Buried Have Regrown Their Eyes", as the brassy, bassy groove sounds ripped from "The Power and the Glory". That isn't the only one either. Not by a mile. Other bands ripped off include Yes and even The Steve Miller Band. Generally speaking, then, this album is nothing but old material arranged slightly differently, and with absolutely no shame at all.
The entire persona of the band screams prog-wannabe, though. From the pretentious song titles to the lazy attempts to sound and look unique to even the freakin' band name, the band comes off as trying to be "prog" as hard as they can, but there's just no real content or real inspiration involved at all. It's sad, though, as many of the songs have very short moments that sound original, but the band abandons them as quickly as they came. Overall, then, I'm completely unimpressed, and I was glancing at the clock before the album was even halfway done.
2.5 stars

In other words, not only don't you know or 'get' the conext of the artist you're reviewing, nor the history or context of the entire idiom you're approaching, but you're not ashamed of admitting to such either. Thank Big Pharma (Yeah, they exist, like!) for the Internet.

I wkeep wondering how he'd 'feel' about Desperate Straights. Perhaps they'd be "influenced by Kate Bush [New boxset!]?"

[Zappathustra]

^
Here we get the opposite argument of "they didn't try enough to be progressive" - I believe it was directed against Discipline's latest by some PA dork.
The accusation now is "they tried too hard to be Prog".

The chances that the reviewer is older than 14 or not someone who went to school with Kavus and is fully jealous of his achievements are very slim indeed.

[Trane]

This is that reviewer's page (father of three - most likely unlucky - girls)....

http://www.progarchives.com/Collaborators.asp?id=42185


scroll down to the end (near-bottom) to see what his fave band is (the one with all 5* ratings >> he didn't bother to review thel) to get a good idea of how objective he can be. Fanboy to the point of using their second album's name as his username.

You generally get lobbied in as a PR collab, and I can see where his fave musical style might have played in his favour back in 2012

[AdventAlan]

Greetings,

I was kindly invited to join (as a rater) many years ago. From a personal perspective, it was a nice way to share feedback on a large amount of progressive music without spending the time (which I no longer really had) to write album reviews.

Cheers,


Alan

[ashratom]

GEPR was mentioned in this thread. I was always under the impression that the same founders and main contributers to that site were the creators of Gnosis. They were both great sources (Gnosis still is) back in the early Internet days.

No - I was never involved directly with GEPR, though was certainly aware of them when Bob Netherton introduced me to what they were doing all the way back in 1993. I did assist with some database entries via phone calls, but it was behind the scenes (I didn't even have a modem back then). Dirk wasn't involved with GEPR I don't think either. Mike was however, as were a few of the Expose guys. Gnosis was originally a merging of the prog guys in Dallas with those in Northern California - and our respective global friends.

Ratings can be an indication.
But if I like an album, but the guys at gnosis doesn't... so what?

Well... we used to say that if you always disagreed with us, then that's a great data point. Whatever we like, you don't, and vice-versa. I don't think as a whole that would happen often, but it definitely could with certain raters.

[moecurlythanu]

I like PA's term "collaborator." It has an almost sinister, criminal ring to it. One can almost imagine it being used as evidence is presented at trial.

[Zappathustra]

I like PA's term "collaborator." It has an almost sinister, criminal ring to it. One can almost imagine it being used as evidence is presented at trial.

Is a collaborator's intelligence correlated to his love for the Prog? Or is his intelligence fully collaborated to his correlation to Prog? That is the crucial question.

[NogbadTheBad]

I like PA's term "collaborator." It has an almost sinister, criminal ring to it. One can almost imagine it being used as evidence is presented at trial.

We're a cabal.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

I've learned indeed to "tole-rate" your hateboy attitude against the "Floyd soul" and your total fanboy attitude from the "Floyd-name thief" (12 & 11s, really?? )... I

I already used the term "childish"... nothing need be added

except that "carpet bombing" is giving an artist's entire body of work the same low number with no variation. Something I have not done since I rate each album by listening thoroughly to it at least 3 times through before rating.

[NogbadTheBad]

I already used the term "childish"... nothing need be added

except that "carpet bombing" is giving an artist's entire body of work the same low number with no variation. Something I have not done since I rate each album by listening thoroughly to it at least 3 times through before rating.

Well carpet bombing can also be giving everything 5 stars on a bands discography.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

Well carpet bombing can also be giving everything 5 stars on a bands discography.

that's his next move... just watch

funny thing is... the albums that I rated by his hero Waters are all differing ratings AND I'm NOT the lowest rater on any of them, so I don't know why his panties are in a wad over that?

[John Doe]

You need to find a rater that has similar tastes to your own and then use that as ways of recommendations..

The site would be so much better if a bit more information would be displayed about the raters, only the name pops up, however if next to the name, styles the rater like and dislike would be shown ... that would be really useful

Many times I check an album, a few raters go for 7-8, others for 12, if a little window would open when I point out a rater and I discover he loves styles I dislike then the 12 is meaningless to me or the 8 becomes relevant.

As it is is complicated, I can't learn/ check or know 120 raters.

[Trane]

The site would be so much better if a bit more information would be displayed about the raters, only the name pops up, however if next to the name, styles the rater like and dislike would be shown ... that would be really useful

there is a dedicated page for every rater, which you can access via the stats pages or via the individual rater search. I should take time to refill mine , though
http://gnosis2000.net/stats.shtml


I wasn't aware that this genre page has been developped, though
http://www.gepr.net/genre2.html

is this recent, with the genre attirbution and search features??

funny thing is... the albums that I rated by his hero Waters are all differing ratings AND I'm NOT the lowest rater on any of them, so I don't know why his panties are in a wad over that?

not wetting anything (I was almost surprised you didn't carpet bomb RW with 3 to 6s)... you've been ranting about objectiveness (as if personal ratings can be objective )
And about childish attitudes, I just pointed out that you seem to be prone to it or at times be a champion at it.

[Poisoned Youth]

Criteria is a wide range of exposure to worldwide Progressive Rock music, all eras. People who are limited in scope would probably not be accepted.

Tom has already weighed in, but my general recollection is that a rater needed to be able to rate at least 2,000 titles. It was an arbitrary number, but it was suppose to be an indicator that the more music someone has heard, the better they are able to evaluate it within the broader context. This is as opposed to a free-for-all. If you were to ask everyone to post their top 10 2018 albums (which is the kind of things we would do in polls on PE in the past) you'd always get the same predictable albums floating to the top as sometimes people would vote who haven't even heard 10 albums or could barely cultivate a top 10. So the thought is that someone who has heard 100 albums from 2018 has a better cross-section of albums to evaluate a top 10, then someone who has heard 15.

Back to Gnosis, over time, the guys were trying to vary up the rater pool by bringing in those who had different musical interests. For example, I could rate more jazz than the average person. That said, there are clear "inclinations" on Gnosis towards Avant Prog, 70s music, and Italian prog. But some of that is to be expected.

[Poisoned Youth]

More recent music tends to be overlooked in my opinion. I understand that there are guidelines, but one rarely sees a new record crossing the "11" ceiling. Seems a bit unfair, I don't know.

I think it's a valid observation. From my perspective, there is music you either grew up with and/or were part of what made you a music lover that competes (and usually loses) with more recent music in comparison. As a result you may get a lot of "this is really great, but not *Larks* great" impressions.

My feeling is that the raters are too Prog-oriented.

Another valid observation. This is to be expected when one considers that the common denominator of most of the raters is their love for progressive rock music.

the 15 scale is certainly what attracted me to the site and the definitions linked to each rating is perfect.

I think that ratings explanation is very helpful, but it's very clear that there are different interpretations of what constitutes a "10" (for example) between various raters. As such, it's best for anyone not to assume the ratings follow that definition to the letter.

[Poisoned Youth]

Many times I check an album, a few raters go for 7-8, others for 12, if a little window would open when I point out a rater and I discover he loves styles I dislike then the 12 is meaningless to me or the 8 becomes relevant.

As Hugues mentioned, there is a bio page for each rater. The information for many is probably outdated, but should give some indication.

In my opinion, if you want to dig deeper into people's profile, the Gnosis search function can really be helpful.

If you go to the "GnoSearch" page, click on "individual raters". At that point, you can select a single rater and then either get their top rates by country and/or by year(s).

[Poisoned Youth]

So about the ratings, "carpet bombing", personal grudges on rates, personal dislikes for an artist or music style, etc...


While there are a few raters that I align with that I follow, for the most part I trust the aggregate rating an album receives. For example, we have one person who (in)famously rates Close to the Edge a "3" and stands by that rating. In spite of that, it remains one of the highest rated albums on the site.

Also consider that everyone rates differently. Some listen to an album several times before rating, others do not. Some adjust their ratings over time (others do not). Everyone interprets an "8", "10, or "12" differently. And most importantly, you have differing philosophies on if the music should be rated subjectively (how much one likes it), objectively (in spite of one's feelings about it), or within historical or stylistic context (e.g. ItCotCK is a benchmark album in history, therefore it should be rated a 15 no matter what).

Since there is no hard standard (and I'm not necessarily arguing there should be one), I feel it's best for users not to get too caught up into specific raters and ratings and more the bigger picture.

[NogbadTheBad]

Great bunch of posts.