Defining the value of "5 star" ratings?

Originally posted by Slartibartfast why bother even reviewing 1 star albums?  If you buy an album that you consider 1 star even if someone gave it a 5, it's your own damn fault for not sampling it first.

I write hefty one star reviews to maintain my street cred. 

I sometimes try record I find on vinyl for 1 euro on secondhand markets and the like. I also sometimes trade vinyls with my brother I can't get into and vice versa. Of course most these records aren't that good..

When I rate an album I rate individual songs and then average my ratings for the whole album...only I ended up not liking this method because it was far too difficult for an album to qualify as 4 stars let alone 5 even if you round up from .5. 

Edited by sealchan - November 05 2009 at 17:09

When I rate an album, I rarely rate it on historical importance. I feel that many mediocre albums are overrated simply because they "helped popularize this" or "began making this type of music". While sometimes I do add an extra star for such important albums as In The Court of The Crimson King, I rate it on personal preferance, and of course quality.

I also hate it when people will rate an Iron Maiden, Led Zeppelin, or Beatles album lower simply because it isn't "prog" enough. While there are many times that I do this, it seems outrageous when people give what they call an essential masterpiece a 3 star rating for not being progressive. Sometimes I will take a point off because it might not appeal to as many people on this site, but sometimes it seems like people use the terms "prog" and "good" interchangeably, and that can really get on my nerves.

When I give an album a 5 star status, I put these things into account:

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do I personally enjoy this album? I don't take into account what anyone else thinks, the production qualities, or the overall musical quality of the album. This is simply how much I enjoy the album. If it is a 9 or a 10, it is worthy of a 5 star in this section.
2. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much will this appeal to my audience? If I really like an album, but I wouldn't recommend this to every single fan of that subgenre (Tech/Extreme Prog Metal, Symphonic Prog, Progressive Electronic, etc.), than it is not worthy of the highest score in this section. If it is a 9 or a 10, it is worthy of  5 star in this section.
3. On a scale of 1 to 10, what is the overall quality of this album? Some albums just don't appeal to me because of the genre they're in, but you can't deny quality whether you like it or not. If it is a 9 or a 10 in this section, it is worthy of a 5 star rating.
4. Where does this album stand in the context of the artist's discography? Many albums that would be worth a 5 normally are sometimes given a 5 because the artist has released better material. Of course, bands like Genesis and Pain of Salvation have multiple masterpieces IMO, but sometimes a band has an album that absolutely demolishes the other ones, so I would recommend that one before the one in which I'm reviewing. While if it is a masterpiece, I still do give it a 5, but if the band has released better, I usually give it a 4 simply because it isn't what your first taste of the band should be.

If I give the first three points a 9 or a 10, and if it is the band's best work, I give it a five without a doubt.

If I give the first three points a 9 or a 10, but it is NOT the band's best work, It could go between a 4 and a 5.

If I give one or two of the points less than a 9 or 10, but it's the band's best work, it's either a 4 or 5.

If I give one or two of the points less than a 9 or 10, and it's NOT the band's best work, it's a 4.

If it's anything less than that, it's not a 5 for sure. Usually if I have any doubt in my mind whether an album's a masterpiece or not, I give it a four.


Edited by J-Man - November 05 2009 at 17:45

Am I the only one that decides how many stars something gets based on the description of the star rating?
If it's a poor album that is only for completionists I will give it a 1 star. Collectors/fans only 2 and so on.

Personally, I believe since this is your way to rate music, according to your taste and preferences, then whatever system works for you is fine. When you are a music critic, things get a little more complicated.
On a personal level, I have many albums that I rate with 5 stars, and all I need is to like and love the music, never getting tired of it, and being able to enjoy it whenever I listen to it.
As other people said, it should be listened to with a very high quality sound to be appreciated properly, and to have a quiet place for it, so you can absorb and concentrate your mind in the music.

Originally posted by J-Man Originally posted by TheCaptain Am I the only one that decides how many stars something gets based on the description of the star rating? If it's a poor album that is only for completionists I will give it a 1 star. Collectors/fans only 2 and so on. No, you're not the only one. I was stating how I determine what is a masterpiece and what isn't. Obviously, everyone who has every rated or reviewed an album uses those descriptions.

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.

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.

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.

Here is what 5-star albums mean to me:

1. I always rate an album as a whole. For example, I gave Pink's Can't Take Me Home a 5-star rating. (it's not prog, I'm just trying to explain.) If I were to rate the actual songs on that album, the result would be something like this:

"Split Personality" 3.5 stars

"Hell wit Ya" 2.5 stars

"Most Girls" 4.5 stars

"There You Go" 4.0 stars

...

As you can see, the song ratings tend to be much lower than the album rating. This is true with ALL of my 5-star albums. Why? Because I'm not rating the songs, I'm rating the album, as a whole. The sum is greater than the parts. 

2. Five-star albums usually have had tremendous impact on my life

Four-and-a-half-star albums usually have had huge impact on my life

Four-star albums often have had big impact on my life

Three-and-a-half-star albums often have had small impact on my life

3. Above all else, five-star albums are those that have given me the best personal experience and enjoyment.

4. I don't necessarily listen to five-star albums more often than other albums. Actually I tend to abstain from listening to five-star albums, because they're too good to be overheard.  I only listen to them, when I'm absolutely in the right mood for it (this happens approximately three times per year).

I learned the lesson from OK Computer. I gave that album a five-star rating. And I kept listening to it, numerous times. And finally I got bored with it. Right now it feels like a four-star album to me, but I won't change my rating because of that.

Some people might say that "What are you talking about, you should never get bored with a five-star album." Sorry, I have to say I strongly disagree with you. Lasting appeal doesn't mean much to me. Some of my all-time favorite albums have little to none lasting appeal.

Edited by paganinio - November 06 2009 at 04:46