Some Gnosis2000 questions

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

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.

excellent points all...

still, it is a reflection of the maturity and responsibility to the process of that rater if they "carpet bomb" an artist with all of one number when every other rater has clearly taken the time to listen carefully to the albums and rates each one individually with different numbers for each album. Carpet bombing an artist is simply childish and shows an obvious mental problem (as in certain bias') of the rater.

Better, if one hates an artist, to not keep buying their albums... ya think?! It seems pretty obvious that a carpet bomber likely has NOT bought the albums they rated. They merely rated according to a personal bias.

[Trane]

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.

i must say that I'm always a bit disappointed with how few are rating jazz albums, though whatever hierachy is revealed with (sometmes much) fewer ratings still remain quite trustworthy

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 The information for many is probably outdated, but should give some indication.

If only I could remember how to update that page ...

[John Doe]

[QUOTE=Trane;858850]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



Exactly my point, try to go back and forth and check 5-6 raters and do that for 3 albums you are curious about.

It's a horrible experience and kills the page for that purpose, but if instead of getting the rater name when you put the cursor on any of those 3 mysterious letters you get the whole information you stay on the page and chan check as many raters as you want.

Gnosis will suddenly be a lot more fun.

[Zappathustra]

Exactly my point, try to go back and forth and check 5-6 raters and do that for 3 albums you are curious about.

It's a horrible experience and kills the page for that purpose, but if instead of getting the rater name when you put the cursor on any of those 3 mysterious letters you get the whole information you stay on the page and chan check as many raters as you want.

Gnosis will suddenly be a lot more fun.

It's a very good point. I also catch myself clicking on the 3letter name...but in vain.

[Kavus Torabi]

^ 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!]?"

Ha! Thanks for posting that Richard, it’s my favourite bad review. And, given that we’re on InsideOut but don’t sound like an IO band we’ve had quite a few, particularly from the more metally/ shiny prog Euro press,
one of which started with ‘I can’t stand the sound of horns’.
I love the comparison to The Steve Miller Band...it’s so obtuse. Which bit could he possibly be talking about?

[Trane]

It's a very good point. I also catch myself clicking on the 3letter name...but in vain.

Yup, I've wanted to do that many a times....

But just imagine how incredibly heavy and slow to load a Gnosis rating page wouold become with these hundreds of hyperlinks to individual raters repeated a few times par pages.

Ha! Thanks for posting that Richard, it’s my favourite bad review. And, given that we’re on InsideOut but don’t sound like an IO band we’ve had quite a few, particularly from the more metally/ shiny prog Euro press,
one of which started with ‘I can’t stand the sound of horns’.
I love the comparison to The Steve Miller Band...it’s so obtuse. Which bit could he possibly be talking about?

If it makes you feel better, Kavus, this review actually gave me the need/envy to hear that album.

[Kavus Torabi]

Thanks! Yeah, I genuinely liked that review because he seemed so pissed off about the album.

[oilersfan]

I still refer to the site on a regular basis when making purchases, especially for albums that have been around for a while. I've always thought of Gnosis attitudinally as more along the lines of 'Hey, I liked this album--you may find something to like here too' rather than 'This is amazing/this is horrible', a notable difference IMO. Sometimes I'm surprised by an album that has only a small number of ratings but, beyond this, I find it to be remarkably useful.

[Poisoned Youth]

I still refer to the site on a regular basis when making purchases, especially for albums that have been around for a while. I've always thought of Gnosis attitudinally as more along the lines of 'Hey, I liked this album--you may find something to like here too' rather than 'This is amazing/this is horrible', a notable difference IMO. Sometimes I'm surprised by an album that has only a small number of ratings but, beyond this, I find it to be remarkably useful.

Agreed. That's my take on it as well. I use it primarily for these reasons...

1) Recommendations. Looking to see what's rated high for a particular year (especially for current music) and then looking for samples. Additionally, Gnosis raters tend to add jazz and relative obscurities to the database. So while you can come to PE and hear about the new Tangent and Roine Stolt releases, you can go to Gnosis and realize there's new releases by Alco Frisbass and Nat Birchall as well.

2) Sorting features. I like to sort to isolate albums by year(s), country, or both. So when you want to see "top albums from 70s Spain", it opens up new possibilities.

3) Rating. I keep up with my rating, which is admittedly a bit more self-indulgent at this stage since I can sort to isolate just my individual ratings as well. This can also be useful for updating one's ratings over time.

[Steve F.]

I love the comparison to The Steve Miller Band...it’s so obtuse. Which bit could he possibly be talking about?

The part where the bassoon flies like an eagle, of course!

[Zeuhlmate]

The part where the bassoon flies like an eagle, of course!

Abracadabra !

[Zalmoxe]

All the credit goes to the 15degrees scale. The division of "thirds" is quite accurate in expressing one's opinion on a record. Of course what could ever beat Pitchfork's decimals...

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.

My feeling is that the raters are too Prog-oriented. Let's take Love's Forever Changes as an example, an album which is the definition of 15 for me. Many people have not even rated it, and it gets 3 15s. Wtf? This is a cornerstone of rock-music.

Anyway, the non-prog choices are the most interesting to me - I love to see some Morbid Angel thrown next to Miles Davis 15s!

You should not be offended because someone else does not share your views. I remember the nasty emails I got from a fellow Gnosis rater when he noticed that I gave a 4 to an album which he rated as a 15. A few days later I noticed he gave a 4 to a Radiohead album which I rated very high at the time (14 or 15, I can't remember). I could have fired back, but did not want to get into the discussion about how "his 15" is way batter than "my 15" and we shouldn't even compare them.

We are all different (thank goodness for that) and we all have different tastes (thank goodness for that too). I celebrate diversity rather than take offence from it. I do not consider myself the smartest man alive, but rather look around to learn from everyone's experience. Your recommendations are gold for me. I listen and if I like, I cherrish the new album/artist I got acquinted with. If I don't like, I move on.

[Zappathustra]

You should not be offended because someone else does not share your views. I remember the nasty emails I got from a fellow Gnosis rater when he noticed that I gave a 4 to an album which he rated as a 15. A few days later I noticed he gave a 4 to a Radiohead album which I rated very high at the time (14 or 15, I can't remember). I could have fired back, but did not want to get into the discussion about how "his 15" is way batter than "my 15" and we shouldn't even compare them.

We are all different (thank goodness for that) and we all have different tastes (thank goodness for that too). I celebrate diversity rather than take offence from it. I do not consider myself the smartest man alive, but rather look around to learn from everyone's experience. Your recommendations are gold for me. I listen and if I like, I cherrish the new album/artist I got acquinted with. If I don't like, I move on.

Yes, of course, no offence taken. After all it's been ages since the last time I murdered someone because of his views on music (I believe it was back in 2014...)

But apart from attempts to humor, and to make myself clearer, not only do I not mind different opinions, I welcome them: I love all the variety, and I love it when someone gives a high rating to an album I wouldn't consider. It makes me want to go there and check out what I've missed, or what I didn't miss.

But there are a couple of things that make me appreciate someone's preferences more, that make one's choices more valid to my eyes. One is coherence, that the ratings obey to some inner logic which reveals the personality and taste of the rater. And the other is a certain degree of respect to the historical significance of an album (that's why I used Forever Changes as an example). I may not like Tangerine Dream for example, and maybe they are not to my taste, but I wouldn't go there and throw 6 and 7 to their albums, since I understand how important a band they were in the development of music. I would pprobably not rate their albums at all, or would lift their ratings taking into account their significance.

A certain degree, and not blind submission to it. That would also be wrong.

But even if this didn't happen, I wouldn't be offended. I would just not take the other person's opinions that seriously.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

You should not be offended because someone else does not share your views. I remember the nasty emails I got from a fellow Gnosis rater when he noticed that I gave a 4 to an album which he rated as a 15. A few days later I noticed he gave a 4 to a Radiohead album which I rated very high at the time (14 or 15, I can't remember).

heh... something like this happened with me as well! A weird bunch but the diversity is great, and as Sean said above, the ability to sort by Country, Year, Number of Raters, Decade, etc. to get more precise results is a fantastic tool!

[Zappathustra]

we have one person who (in)famously rates Close to the Edge a "3" and stands by that rating.

It's not even a "3". It's a "2". Which makes it a bit odd, since his other choices are decent enough. I mean, how could anyone give Grobschnitt, or Trietoarriga Kriget (bands heavily influenced by Yes) 15s and 14s and bury Close to the Edge with a 2? It doesn't make sense to me (that's why I am making these references to the coherence factor).

[Poisoned Youth]

It's not even a "3". It's a "2". Which makes it a bit odd, since his other choices are decent enough. I mean, how could anyone give Grobschnitt, or Trietoarriga Kriget (bands heavily influenced by Yes) 15s and 14s and bury Close to the Edge with a 2? It doesn't make sense to me (that's why I am making these references to the coherence factor).

Ahh he lowered it.

It's best not to think about it. I know that this rater is not a Yes fan, but we also speculated that Bill Bruford must have had an affair with a close relative of his. But this is why I think it's best to focus on the overall ratings and not try to make logical sense of people's feelings on music.

I gave Love - Forever Changes a 7 and Stardust We Are a 15, which is more offensive?

[Steve F.]

I gave Love - Forever Changes a 7 and Stardust We Are a 15, which is more offensive?

It's definitely a hard choice....

[Zappathustra]

Ahh he lowered it.

It's best not to think about it. I know that this rater is not a Yes fan, but we also speculated that Bill Bruford must have had an affair with a close relative of his. But this is why I think it's best to focus on the overall ratings and not try to make logical sense of people's feelings on music.

I gave Love - Forever Changes a 7 and Stardust We Are a 15, which is more offensive?

Yeah, those aces he used to adorn the Brufford albums did not go unnoticed.

Apart from some spicy rhetoric on my part - the same I would use in an everyday discussion with people the closest to me - the one thing to stretch here is that any kind of evaluation has to stem from some specific understanding of progressive music. It would be insane to give Henry Cow a "5" and then Sleepytime Gorilla Museum a 14. Or Black Sabbath a "4" and then Candlemass a 15. When someone isn't really into psych music, a "7" is expected for Love.

To me rock music between the years 1966-1974 has a "secret" unity that we tend to overlook. In my book what Love did is not considerably different than what Pink Floyd did, or Yes did, or even Velvet Underground did. They were all aiming in a sense at the same objective by different means: experimentation, change in all levels - political, social, emotional, spiritual -, dionysian knowledge, revolt -why not? I would also argue that this unity can be traced even in the beginning of the 80's, before the market and the segregation of genres took completely over.

I can live with a 7 for FC, and a 15 for FK, but A Love Supreme "13"? what were you thinking man? (hopefully you might get a chance to see - and trounce - my own ratings soon)

[Trane]

It's not even a "3". It's a "2". Which makes it a bit odd, since his other choices are decent enough. I mean, how could anyone give Grobschnitt, or Trietoarriga Kriget (bands heavily influenced by Yes) 15s and 14s and bury Close to the Edge with a 2? It doesn't make sense to me (that's why I am making these references to the coherence factor).

Well, that rater used to be posting here regurlarly, but isn't in the last few years: only 87 posts since post counter was enabled and not posted since March of this year. And I can see his Yes ratings making sense when you know his tastes:
1- Sure CTTE gets a 2, Tales a 5 (that one makes a bit more sense, IMHO), Relayer a 7 and he hasn't rated posterior albums... However he gave TYA a 10, Fragile a 8 and the first two are also 8
2- when you know Jim, he's a mega-fan of "proto-prog" (you know , the early 70's raw prog), and TYA is their last where the hammond is the main lead KB.
3- he is quite an opiniated man like him: look at his WTF page, with over 200 entries and only 30 of them are positive WTF should give you an idea of what he likes

It's definitely a hard choice....

Yup, both of them would be almost WTF rates for me, but FC at 7 is more shocking for me, despite a lesser gap in my own rating (10 for FC and 7 for Stardust)

[Mascodagama]

I love the comparison to The Steve Miller Band...it’s so obtuse. Which bit could he possibly be talking about?

He probably just saw that picture of you in your macho slacks.

[nosebone]

Yeah, those aces he used to adorn the Brufford albums did not go unnoticed.

Apart from some spicy rhetoric on my part - the same I would use in an everyday discussion with people the closest to me - the one thing to stretch here is that any kind of evaluation has to stem from some specific understanding of progressive music. It would be insane to give Henry Cow a "5" and then Sleepytime Gorilla Museum a 14. Or Black Sabbath a "4" and then Candlemass a 15. When someone isn't really into psych music, a "7" is expected for Love.

To me rock music between the years 1966-1974 has a "secret" unity that we tend to overlook. In my book what Love did is not considerably different than what Pink Floyd did, or Yes did, or even Velvet Underground did. They were all aiming in a sense at the same objective by different means: experimentation, change in all levels - political, social, emotional, spiritual -, dionysian knowledge, revolt -why not? I would also argue that this unity can be traced even in the beginning of the 80's, before the market and the segregation of genres took completely over.

I can live with a 7 for FC, and a 15 for FK, but A Love Supreme "13"? what were you thinking man? (hopefully you might get a chance to see - and trounce - my own ratings soon)

Great post!

The bottom line on my ratings (and arguably others) are based purely on my enjoyment factor of the albums.

[Camelogue]

Sounds like raters are not as active as they might have once been.

[Zeuhlmate]

Yeah, those aces he used to adorn the Brufford albums did not go unnoticed.

Apart from some spicy rhetoric on my part - the same I would use in an everyday discussion with people the closest to me - the one thing to stretch here is that any kind of evaluation has to stem from some specific understanding of progressive music. It would be insane to give Henry Cow a "5" and then Sleepytime Gorilla Museum a 14. Or Black Sabbath a "4" and then Candlemass a 15. When someone isn't really into psych music, a "7" is expected for Love.

To me rock music between the years 1966-1974 has a "secret" unity that we tend to overlook. In my book what Love did is not considerably different than what Pink Floyd did, or Yes did, or even Velvet Underground did. They were all aiming in a sense at the same objective by different means: experimentation, change in all levels - political, social, emotional, spiritual -, dionysian knowledge, revolt -why not? I would also argue that this unity can be traced even in the beginning of the 80's, before the market and the segregation of genres took completely over.

I can live with a 7 for FC, and a 15 for FK, but A Love Supreme "13"? what were you thinking man? (hopefully you might get a chance to see - and trounce - my own ratings soon)

"It was possible during the late 1960s & early 1970s to talk of aspiration, the hope that we could change the world by playing music "
Robert Fripp

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

this rater is not a Yes fan, but we also speculated that Bill Bruford must have had an affair with a close relative of his.

He hates Bruford so much that he rates ALL albums with Bruford a 2... especially the ones he has not ever heard!!!

[Trane]

2) Sorting features. I like to sort to isolate albums by year(s), country, or both. So when you want to see "top albums from 70s Spain", it opens up new possibilities.

3) Rating. I keep up with my rating, which is admittedly a bit more self-indulgent at this stage since I can sort to isolate just my individual ratings as well. This can also be useful for updating one's ratings over time.

Indeed, I can have fun with the isolation features to see if my ratings are coherent (in my system of personal values) or not
For example, isolate the later 70's Basque prog folk to see whether I didn't place Izukaitz way too high compared to the classic Haizea or Itoiz

The bottom line on my ratings (and arguably others) are based purely on my enjoyment factor of the albums.

I'd say that my rates go for 65% on pure enjoyment, the rest being for historical significance/importance and smaller other issues

Sounds like raters are not as active as they might have once been.

I guess only Dirk could tell who hasn't logged in to rate in recent times, though you can already get an idea by looking in the individual stats and see the numbers of unrated albums - actually, in the column "new" on the right hand side, since the "unrated" column is those that you willingly chose not to rate
When you know that every year you get between 4000 and 8000 (if not more) new entries being added, it can give you an idea of who is even remembering the site anymore. Of course, when you got 140000 albums to still rate/unrate, it 's probably a dauting task, which you'd rather forget ASAP.