Some Gnosis2000 questions

[Zappathustra]

So, I am quite in the dark about this site and perhaps you all-knowing members of PE could shed some light:

Who are these raters? Is it a fixed club? Who chose them and under what criteria? Any of these raters active members here in PE?

I have to admit that Gnosis is a useful tool for me, if only for peeking on our own Spacefreak's ratings (with whom I rarely disagree on anything). Any other raters you would recommend to me to check out?

I really like the 15points scale. Is there a way to rate my own choices just for personal use (I mean without starting my own excel program)?

Thank you all.

[Scrotum Scissor]

^It's a very good place to go, even though I don't always agree with the raters I keep thinking I should agree with. And yeah, there are at least 6-7 folks who also post in here.

Its level of "authoritative" positions mostly stems from the reasonable fact that it's not all about "prog" but rather concerns more explorative musical forms in general. It's a vast horizon, beyond rock and popular musics. And it's not too fixed a club either; you can apply for admittance if you feel sufficiently at home with their standards and criteria.

It might take a digital handjob or two, though.

[Zappathustra]

It might take a digital handjob or two, though.

Of that, there's a plenty, I could afford to spare some

[JKL2000]

I can't remember - was it always called Gnosis2000 or was it just Gnosis at first?

[moecurlythanu]

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. I am not one who decides such things, so that is speculation on my part.

I believe raters are selected by invitation, rather than application, but I could be wrong.

[Scrotum Scissor]

^ B-but my tastes are thoroughly eclectic, Moe! Everything from Marillo to YQ through Isopotta by Neuschweinstein to Genathip passed Unifaunamangalaballis… Will I get in?

[nosebone]

Ive been rating there (by invitation) for over ten years.

15 =A+
14= A
13= A-
12= B+
11= B
etc, etc

[ashratom]

Yea, it's just Gnosis. Gnosis2000 came about when we (Mike, Dirk, and I) first created the site and couldn't find anything useful at the time, as all the Gnosis domains were taken (which was predictably in 2000). I went ahead and purchased gnosisratings.com years ago in an attempt to rewrite and reprogram the site. I got pretty far, but just ran out of time, and the work career never afforded me the time (this was back in 2005). Still own the site. Maybe one day lol. I have since moved onto other interests, but still rate on the site regularly. Spyros is indeed one of my favorite raters too (and friend). My ratings are kind of close to his, so maybe mine might help too

Anyway it's not a special club or anything like that. Originally we just wanted serious raters and not casual drive-bys. This was before sites like RYM and ProgArchives existed. So if any of you are interested in rating, I suspect Dirk would love to hear from you (he runs it on his own pretty much). I think this is the best way to get in touch: http://www.gnosis2000.net/cgi-bin/contactgnosis.cgi

If you don't hear anything back - let me know.

[moecurlythanu]

^ B-but my tastes are thoroughly eclectic, Moe! Everything from Marillo to YQ through Isopotta by Neuschweinstein to Genathip passed Unifaunamangalaballis… Will I get in?

Indubitably. They probably just don't know you yet.

[Zalmoxe]

I am also a member there and even used to write reviews for some of the albums that were submitted by the bands. I haven't done any reviews in ages as my spare time is very limited. Even with the ratings, I am way behind. I still go there every so often, to check ratings on an album I want to consider. Like Tom mentioned above, You need to find a rater that has similar tastes to your own and then use that as ways of recommendations. Lately, there are so many opportunities to sample an album online prior to making the decision on whether to spend the money to buy it, I don't need to rely on other raters, not to mention that new albums are not immediately added to the database. Kudos to Tom, Dirk and Mike to have carried the torch for so long.

[Zalmoxe]

^ B-but my tastes are thoroughly eclectic, Moe! Everything from Marillo to YQ through Isopotta by Neuschweinstein to Genathip passed Unifaunamangalaballis… Will I get in?

You will but most likely your ratings will tip the WTF scale big time !!!

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

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. I am not one who decides such things, so that is speculation on my part.

I believe raters are selected by invitation, rather than application, but I could be wrong.

this is what I've always understood the criteria to be. I was there early on and there are near 100 raters there now so it is easy to find a rater that mirrors your taste since it is quite an eclectic bunch. There are 4 raters similar to me there and I check their ratings of recent stuff to see if there's anything I may have missed.

^ B-but my tastes are thoroughly eclectic, Moe! Everything from Marillo to YQ through Isopotta by Neuschweinstein to Genathip passed Unifaunamangalaballis… Will I get in?

aren't you a rater there already?

Yea, it's just Gnosis. Gnosis2000 came about when we (Mike, Dirk, and I) first created the site and couldn't find anything useful at the time, as all the Gnosis domains were taken (which was predictably in 2000). I went ahead and purchased gnosisratings.com years ago in an attempt to rewrite and reprogram the site. I got pretty far, but just ran out of time, and the work career never afforded me the time (this was back in 2005). Still own the site. Maybe one day lol. I have since moved onto other interests, but still rate on the site regularly. Spyros is indeed one of my favorite raters too (and friend). My ratings are kind of close to his, so maybe mine might help too

Anyway it's not a special club or anything like that. Originally we just wanted serious raters and not casual drive-bys. This was before sites like RYM and ProgArchives existed. So if any of you are interested in rating, I suspect Dirk would love to hear from you (he runs it on his own pretty much). I think this is the best way to get in touch: http://www.gnosis2000.net/cgi-bin/contactgnosis.cgi

If you don't hear anything back - let me know.

Dirk does an amazing job... it can not be easy

[Zappathustra]

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!

[Progbear]

“Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.” —Groucho Marx

I was there on the ground floor, asked to join just as the website started. They wanted me to submit an ordered Top 200 as part of my membership, and I could think of better uses of my free time. Plus I didn’t really understand the point of the website, assigning numerical values to albums based on a scale I found completely arbitrary and incomprehensible (seriously, who thinks in Base 15?). Rather than argue with the people taking part in it or take potshots at them for the whole concept, for they seemed really excited by the project, I opted out of the whole affair. I never regretted my decision.

[Scrotum Scissor]

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.

Forever Changes is my fave rock/pop album, and it HAS been since I first heard it nearly 30 years ago. It changed absolutely everything I thought I "understood" about the medium of "rock/pop"; its possibilities as artform, its levels of communication, its sense of mental commitment to emotion as release. And its musical gusto and power on a completely human stage of comprehension.

But thus it's also an intriguing and essentially difficult work in the same breath as Pet Sounds or Song Cycle or even (This Heat's) Deceit may be. Either one "gets" it or one doesn't.

Yet I basically agree; the "prog" focus sometimes becomes the heel against authority of judgement; it's simply the spectacle through which all other standards are upheld and so marks its own criteria of, er, goodness.

[Zappathustra]

But thus it's also an intriguing and essentially difficult work in the same breath as Pet Sounds or Song Cycle or even (This Heat's) Deceit may be. Either one "gets" it or one doesn't.

I am not too sure about that, and I am not talking about my own experience, which was that of instantaneous and total submission. I know plenty of people, who have a more casual relationship to music than us here, and also "got" it immediately. Of course there are many intricate details in there, but the force of music is very direct and it shines through its songwriting quality mostly, if anything else.

[Scrotum Scissor]

my own experience, which was that of instantaneous and total submission. I know plenty of people, who have a more casual relationship to music than us here, and also "got" it immediately. Of course there are many intricate details in there, but the force of music is very direct and it shines through its songwriting quality mostly

But that was supposed to be my point!

Seasoned "prog" listeners may rather submit a work like Forever Changes to endless interpretations and analysis which might fall back on some external logic as to "why/why not" in terms of quality - whereas others simply allow for themselves to be taken in by its awe. I've had the exact same experience myself, not least WITH myself - as I was highly sceptical on first buying the album back in '89. And then it caught me on first spin. I think it may have been the sense of contrast there; from the trumpet solo in "Alone Again Or" to the shellshocking rawness of the double guitar outro to "House Is Not a Motel"; I had never heard anything as intimately stressing, comfusing, disturbing and wholly fascinating in all my life, and I'm still not sure that I ever will again.

[Zappathustra]

^I see now, you mean difficult for seasoned, prog dorks. Yes, it is!

That "sense of contrast" is definitely the core of Forever Changes' brilliance. Angels paddling in the mud.

[moecurlythanu]

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

I could be wrong, not anecdotal, just me looking in, but I believe the original focus was supposed to be 100% rating Prog-Rock albums. The mission expanded when guys wanted to rate their whole collections, but I think this happened sometime after the site's inception. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Trane]

^It's a very good place to go, even though I don't always agree with the raters I keep thinking I should agree with. And yeah, there are at least 6-7 folks who also post in here.

Its level of "authoritative" positions mostly stems from the reasonable fact that it's not all about "prog" but rather concerns more explorative musical forms in general. It's a vast horizon, beyond rock and popular musics. And it's not too fixed a club either; you can apply for admittance if you feel sufficiently at home with their standards and criteria.

Well, one of the reasons why I joined was that I was always floored at how the average ratings always coincided (give or take a few decimals) with what I thought of the albums I checked out ... and therefore enticed me to check and take chances with whatever "they" were rating highly... I must say that I was never (ok very rarely) disappointed.

as a collective force, I find Gnosis to be more infallible than all of the popes and prophets

Sure I check individual ratings sometimes, but it's the collective force that I'm impressed with.

I believe raters are selected by invitation, rather than application, but I could be wrong.

I sold my mother to get in

Yea, it's just Gnosis. Gnosis2000 came about when we (Mike, Dirk, and I) first created the site and couldn't find anything useful at the time, as all the Gnosis domains were taken (which was predictably in 2000). I went ahead and purchased gnosisratings.com years ago in an attempt to rewrite and reprogram the site. I got pretty far, but just ran out of time, and the work career never afforded me the time (this was back in 2005). Still own the site. Maybe one day lol. I have since moved onto other interests, but still rate on the site regularly. Spyros is indeed one of my favorite raters too (and friend). My ratings are kind of close to his, so maybe mine might help too

Yup, only GEPR existed prior to your initiative... and TBH;, I could never really trust the raters (well reviewers/commenters, since there were no ratings) there

You will but most likely your ratings will tip the WTF scale big time !!!

love those WTF ratings

this is what I've always understood the criteria to be. I was there early on and there are near 100 raters there now so it is easy to find a rater that mirrors your taste since it is quite an eclectic bunch. There are 4 raters similar to me there and I check their ratings of recent stuff to see if there's anything I may have missed

Dirk does an amazing job... it can not be easy

yesssss Kudos to Dirk... thankless job for which he gets sometimes a verbal or written appreciation

I believe we never reached 100 (not even sure we went over 90, FTM) and a few have either left (Alex Dewolf, for ex) or appears a fair bit rarely update their ratings or rate new stuff at all.

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.

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

15: One of the best ever, perfect. We suggest to raters that, at most, the top 1% of all albums receive a 15. While any rating from 12 through 15 can accurately be described with the superlatives "masterpiece" or "classic," only the 15s should appeal to the rater in as profound a manner as possible.
14: A near perfect classic. In many ways, the difference between 15s and 14s are barely existent; 14s are fantastic albums that either have a very minor flaw or just dont take it to the next level. We suggest to raters that, at most, the top 5% of all albums receive either a 14 or 15.
13: A classic, but not one of the very best. 13s are exalted grades. They are used for albums that the raters consider a classic or a masterpiece, yet did not make the very peak of the hill. A 13 is still an extremely highly recommended item, one that has few flaws. This rating can also be considered an "in-between" grade between favorites and borderline classics.
12: A borderline classic. A 12 is an album that one might instantly apply the word "classic" to, but on deeper reflection, one might not be so sure. There may be slight flaws that would have one hesitate on an intensely specific and critical level, yet a 12 is still an album that would have one mesmerized.
11: Excellent. While not a classic, an album that is very enjoyable and an important part of ones collection. We recommend that raters not give grades higher than 11 on the very first listen.
10: Very good. An album that, while not great, is definitely worth keeping and is very enjoyable.
9: Pretty good. While an album better than most, one may or may not keep an album with a rating of 9.
8: Slightly above average. An album with noticeable flaws, although few permeate the album entirely. Perhaps half the album is superb but the other half is so-so. Or there's a sentimental connection and little else.
7: Completely mediocre. Neither good nor bad. In the greater scheme of things, an album rated as a 7 has been buried under a pile of much superior titles, and while one is not ready to pan it, the rating implies, that, ercan you put something else on?
6: Slightly below average. Just a tad worse than mediocre. Perhaps some parts are outright annoying or distasteful.
5: Below average. Maybe not outright "bad", but definitely a poor effort.
4: Pretty bad. A grade of 4 indicates a strong recommendation to avoid.
3: Bad. An album that contains a handful of decent moments in an otherwise atrocious outing.
2: Very bad, but there are worse. Although an incredibly poor effort, not one of the very worst. However, thats not to say that there are any redeeming values.
1: The worst thing ever. Intolerable. Godawful. A frisbee. A perfect example of something that one loves to hate.

One thing the site likes its members to do is to update regularly their ratings
I for one like to see if my ratings that I made on the spot can make sense with the other ratings I did years before: I can do that by inside a band's discography, by year of release and according to my own top ratings.
For new stuff, it's recommended not to rate higher than 11 at first, because of the enthusiasm created by a good new release... Nothing stops you to go back and rate higher a few weeks/months/years later, though; FTM, it's recommended.

as for Forever Changes, I tend to think it's over-rated and think it attracts psych fans, and there are a lot of RIO-weenies on that site.

[arturs]

Seasoned "prog" listeners may rather submit a work like Forever Changes to endless interpretations and analysis which might fall back on some external logic as to "why/why not" in terms of quality - whereas others simply allow for themselves to be taken in by its awe.

That was my experience with FC; I was immediately taken with it after reading a cd reissue review and buying it (early '90s). Instant masterpiece rating: a 15 on Gnosis for sure.

But...
When the "new" Love (Arthur Lee plus the band Baby Lemonade) did some impromptu shows in LA after Lee's prison release , I tried to convince some of my then work colleagues to go so I loaned them FC. They laughed at me and one guy called it "fru fru lounge music". And these people actually were pretty big music fans. I'm still dumbfounded by that. I went by myself and had a great time; Lee was physically fit, in great voice, and in good humor. Saw them again a few years later on the official FC tour. More polished and a little less vital because of it. But still great.

[Scrotum Scissor]

^ I saw them here in Oslo myself (at Rockefeller) in 2006, ca. half a year before Lee's passing - and they were splendid. 600 folks packed at the gig, they did "Singing Cowboy" with the 'Comin' thru daYOU-HOO' bit and Lee laughing, larger than life, parodically acting the pop star. He was really skinny and ill at that poing though, and realizing how it was basically all over.

I truly wanted them to do some Out Here material, like "Gather Round", but alas it obviously didn't take place. The performance of "The Red Telephone" was absolutely magic though, and that's one of the greatest tunes ever written. He STILL possessed that voice of mysteriosly intrinsic force, enough to convince even the doubters.

I had the exact same experience with musical tuffers, however; noise /industrials/avant-gardists laughing at the very idea that some hippie combo might be transcendent enough for their formatted views on "otherness". But then again these were the same geeks who got shocked by Zorn releasing that Burt Bacharach-collection etc.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

I think that Gnosis is excellent *for the very reason* that the raters usually are NOT *just* Prog fans but have widely varying tastes *in addition to* their love of Prog. Raters enter the albums in their collections and someone actually entered Madonna. Now, while I do not like Madonna (I think I've only heard one or two albums more than once) I am glad that the tastes of the raters are eclectic in that way.

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
I mean, if one has taken the requisite time to listen to an album by an artist a minimum of 3 times through, there is NO WAY that a creative artist's works could be of exactly the same rating over their career. For example: some knee-jerk rater actually went in to Stevie Wonder's catalog and gave every single album a 7. I mean, really?! His albums vary in quality quite a bit, from master piece level to mediocre... C'MON MAN... just dont rate the artist if you have not taken the time to listen to any of their albums a minimum of 3 times through

[NogbadTheBad]

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.

[ashratom]

^ B-but my tastes are thoroughly eclectic, Moe! Everything from Marillo to YQ through Isopotta by Neuschweinstein to Genathip passed Unifaunamangalaballis… Will I get in?

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

I could be wrong, not anecdotal, just me looking in, but I believe the original focus was supposed to be 100% rating Prog-Rock albums. The mission expanded when guys wanted to rate their whole collections, but I think this happened sometime after the site's inception. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right Mark. That was the original intention. But it didn't even last a month with that premise before we gave up that idea. Some of the early invitees said "no thanks" to a prog-only site (and we agreed with their counter argument - I mean honestly trying to figure out "what is prog" is really nauseating). So that debate ended before we went live nearly 20 years ago. But the original invitee list certainly did come from the progressive rock landscape. So of course that was always the driver. But over the years, some of that has tarnished as well.

I think that Gnosis is excellent *for the very reason* that the raters usually are NOT *just* Prog fans but have widely varying tastes *in addition to* their love of Prog. Raters enter the albums in their collections and someone actually entered Madonna. Now, while I do not like Madonna (I think I've only heard one or two albums more than once) I am glad that the tastes of the raters are eclectic in that way.

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
I mean, if one has taken the requisite time to listen to an album by an artist a minimum of 3 times through, there is NO WAY that a creative artist's works could be of exactly the same rating over their career. For example: some knee-jerk rater actually went in to Stevie Wonder's catalog and gave every single album a 7. I mean, really?! His albums vary in quality quite a bit, from master piece level to mediocre... C'MON MAN... just dont rate the artist if you have not taken the time to listen to any of their albums a minimum of 3 times through

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.

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.

Thank you! And I'm sure you would make a great rater. All these years I've read your posts, and you're clearly informed with great insights.

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!

Throw your hat in the ring and make your vote count!

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