Defining the value of "5 star" ratings?

Originally posted by ClemofNazareth If I find myself staring numbly into space at least several minutes after the album finishes playing, that's usually a good sign (unless the music just made me brain-dead - if someone can't tell the difference they shouldn't be writing reviews).  If that happens even after several spins over several months then that would be a 5-star album. If your life is inexorably changed as a result of playing an album, do the right thing and give it 5 stars. If you're pretty sure your grandkids will rediscover an album 25 years from now and rate it highly on a prog website themselves, get a jump on the bandwagon and rate it 5 stars yourself. And then there are some records where you just feel good by rating it 5 stars. Plus of course rate Dark Side of the Moon 5 stars or you're just a douchebag.

I'd be glad taking the title Douchebag in order to be able to rate Dark Side of the Moon two stars! It's a nice popalbum though.

Wow, I feel so liberal after reading this. I give 5 star ratings based on 1 isn't worth reviewing so I don't give 1-star reviews, 2 is mediocre, 3 is good, 4 is great, and 5 is amazing. I have lots of 5-star reviews on here, because I basically look at my 4 star reviews and ask myself if this is a step up, if so I give 5 stars. I'd be much more hesitant towards awarding top marks on a 10 or 15 point scale, but a 5 point scale is so coarse, I can't help but give a lot of 5-star reviews.   

I just got my first Banco on Vinyl and I knew after the second spin that it was five star material beyond doubt. I have the strong feeling this might become a band among my selected favourites one day... if I ever get my hand on those '70 vinyls...

As for Pendragon. It is apparent to me that most neo-prog records have a way of listening to it. When listening from an technical approach the music is quite often not very good, but when you are 'inside' the music, the feel, the atmosphere, and you loose that mental noise which you use to listen to music so often, neoprog can be very original and thouchy. I myself have this with bands like Arena, it's like they understand me! The way emotions are experienced. It's kind of hard to rate an album based on such music experiences though.

Originally posted by kingfriso Originally posted by progrules Originally posted by Atavachron Originally posted by Moogtron III Originally posted by Atavachron simple; the rating is objective, the review subjective It's not that simple, because in your standards of what is, for instance, an excellent addition to any prog collection, there is some subjectivity involved. It isn't a complete exact science like math. no but it's close, as you say -- Originally posted by Moogtron III I'm very strict in it, actually. Often giving albums that I absolutely love but not think that they are an excellent addition etc. a 3 - star, while giving albums that I don't love that much but still think that they stand out within prog a 4 - star etc.If I would rake on the grounds of what I would like, I would give almost all of my Allan Holdsworth - albums 5 stars, Close To The Edge 3 stars. But I don't... Because of the description of the star rating. -- that's my point about ratings being a platform for a dispassionate & balanced assessment, while reviews can be for details, commentary and opinion.   Even if you are right here, I'm sure the community is divided about this. I'm pretty sure 90% of all guest raters and reviewers rate subjectively and also many prog reviewers and collabs. On the other hand I've been reading opinions like Moogtrons and yours (and also Mickey) more often and that puzzles me. Shouldn't we do something about this and mention it in our groundrules about rating and reviewing ?? It's a big difference between rating objectively and subjectively and so it's a big deal I feel. My problem with rating objectively (see my earlier post): who decides what the objective rating is for each album ?? And why should everybody stick to that ? And even if that is possible and reasonable: wouldn't it lead to monotous ratings and is that really what we want ? This is not a valid discussion. Objective means without human emotions and opinions involved. One could objectively say that the moon is bigger than a tennis ball, but a piece of art can not be viewed at in an objective way. Art is representative, so there's a gap.

Of course emotion is involved, but I can see that some albums that I don't necessarily love, do have something more to offer in terms of innovation than albums that I do love, but are more of the same.

I'll give an example: I love some Pendragon albums like Kow Tow, The Window Of Life and The Masquerade Overture, but the first one is not very prog except for "The Haunting", and the other two are very much prog but score very low on the scale of innovation.

An example as contrast: Banco albums like Darwin and Io Sono Nato Libero are very original and have very intricate compositions and playing, and they are something quite different for the prog fan who hasn't heard them yet, but I don't like them as much as Pendragon. In this case I would tend to give Banco four stars because of their qualities, but withhold them their fifth star because something is lacking in terms of emotion. So in this case I would be addressing both emotion and more objective aspects.

I would love to give the Pendrags 5 stars but I would probably give Kow Tow 3 stars and the other two that I mentioned 4 stars. Kow Tow 3 stars substraction because of their lack of prog and because their is a lot that is not right about the production, and because I know that not many prog fans will like the album anyway. The Window Of Life and The  Masquerade Overture I would give 4 stars because they are very solid prog albums that many neo prog fans will like, but I could never give them a fifth star because of their lack of originality.

(I haven't written the reviews yet due to lack of time but that's another story.

In both cases I would my heart as well as my mind speak.

I rated some non-prog albums with 5 stars (a santana album, a couple of zeppelin ones, etc) because they're brilliant.

One thing I have to say is that when I click on "5 stars" it says "not every album you enjoy is a perfect masterpiece". That's a bit too strict, something being completely free of a single flaw, even if it's a minor one. It's almost like rating the best jazz fusion workout with 4 stars because the trumpetist played one bum note.

Originally posted by infandous I'll never understand the notion of NOT taking the progginess of an album into consideration.  This is the progarcives after all, not the goodmusicarchives, or the everythingunderthesunarchives.  I most definitely consider proginess as a major factor in ratings and reviews (even though what is prog is not always a cut and dried matter).  I won't even write reviews for The Doors or Led Zeppelin for instance, because I don't consider them prog bands and don't understand why they should even be on the site (prog related should not be a sub genre here I don't think.........but thankfully, I'm not in charge). Sure, the determination of progginess is fairly subjective.....but then, so is a music review.

Although I can understand why you feel this way about both Zep and the Doors, PA does not ask you to consider either as prog bands, as Prog Related and Proto do not confer 100% prog status on such inclusions. Yes, you could argue that neither band was either influential to or influenced by prog (and some do at extraordinary length) but many would agree that there is a strong case for Zep and the Doors being of interest to prog fans.
Perhaps it's better they are both here so that you can ignore them with such shrill indifference.

As for removing both sub genres, I'll gladly vote for you to be in charge, if it means you have to take the pooh out of the puppy...

Originally posted by J-Man Usually if I have any doubt in my mind whether an album's a masterpiece or not, I give it a four.

Very good principle.

Edited by The Block - November 08 2009 at 18:31

I think that it would be interesting to factor in significance of an album outside of the 1-5 star rating, for example, a separate 1-5 stars for rating an album based on significance and impact. Comus' First Utterance will most likely not get a five star review from most people, but it is, IMO, a significant enough album to warrant highly recommending that people listen to it anyway, knowing that they may not like it.

Originally posted by earlyprog Well I haven't reviewed many albums. Yet. One reason being that I'm not sure how to rate the albums.   But as of now, my starting point is always to ask myself if the album is above or below average, average being 3 star rating.   I'm in that fortunate state (comes with experience/age) that I rarely buy below-average albums. I did that alot when I started my album collection.   For a long time I thought that 5 star ratings were only for the perfect album, that is every segment of every song on the album being perfect (and the album being consistent). Well only very few albums attain that status in my opinion (King Crimson, Gentle Giant). I have found that I need to moderate this requirement  so that nearly-perfect albums get 5 star (Genesis, Pink Floyd). These albums are the ones that usually give me the goose bumps.

Not much wrong with this rationale, but it should be borne in mind that three stars is a GOOD album and not necessarily by inference a mediocre one.

I'd be personally satisfied to know that the bulk of the reviews and ratings were sincere and personally as consistent as a person can reasonably be.