Defining the value of "5 star" ratings?

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.

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Originally posted by Epignosis 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.  Are you sure this isn't a case of musical masochism?  I mean to write a good review of a 1 star album, you're going to actually have to listen to it.

I do listen to it, and for more than one reason.  For instance, as a musician and songwriter, it helps me to expose myself to "bad" music and try to understand why it's awful.  Writing reviews serves me well in this regard.

Originally posted by ExittheLemming Lots of very well reasoned posts here certainly and some, less so. I think we might all agree that one critters 5 heavenly bodies is another's 1 dwarf star and no amount of objective posturing will ever change this. Having said that, it still leaves the ticklish dilemma of the dichotomy between an albums historical importance for any given PA genre and that of its erm..aesthetic merit for the reviewer. Perhaps it's the word essential here that causes much of the ambivalence ? eg I rated In the Court and Close to the Edge as 3 stars because I feel they're both good albums but for me, contain sufficient flaws to preclude them from either excellent or masterpiece status. It's only from a 3rd party journalistic perspective that such albums could be deemed essential i.e. for a full and historical appreciation of the genre and its pivotal developments such albums would certainly be considered compulsory listening. (It stands to reason that the caveman who invented the wheel will never receive as many design awards as Michelin) Sorry to ramble, but it does beg the question, were the ratings ever designed to make allowance for an albums historical importance to the genre ? (Me ? I don't believe so after all, that's what the body of the text is for ain't it ? and we're fans, not museum curators)

This post has more sense than all of America's politicians.

Okay, so that's not saying much, but still.

Well, I generally go by the rating descriptions.  BUT, I only apply them to myself.  After all, how can any one of us possibly decide whether something is "essential" to the prog community as a whole?  This is simply impossible.  Now, whether it is essential to understanding the genre is perhaps another story.  But honestly, if someone unfamiliar with prog comes here looking to understand it, they can pretty much look at the top 100 and start working through it and get a pretty reasonable picture of prog (a broad overview,  but enough to get a good start and an idea of what they like and dislike, etc.).  How many of us started our prog journey with In The Court?  I certainly didn't.  To me, it's only essential for a prog fan to hear it, not to have it in their collection.

So, I just write the reviews I feel like writing and try to give as much detail and explanation about an album as I can.  Then I rate it based solely on how much I like it (there have been a couple exceptions to this, but this is how it usually works for me).  It is possible to be somewhat objective about music, if you understand music theory, technique, and composition and arrangement.  But how many listeners really understand that stuff (or even prog musicians, for that matter)?  Not very many, I'd bet.  So I just try to express my experience with the album in words and hope it helps someone else decide whether or not they want to try the album (or at least gives them some entertainment value).

 

^ yes and in some cultures imperfections are crucial to a piece of art

I used to managed a record/CD store.  Since I could get just about any new release from the vendors, I have plenty of albums that I requested just for who played on it.  Because of that, I have plenty of one star albums. 

Originally posted by Atavachron simple; the rating is objective, the review subjective

Well I haven't reviewed many albums. Yet. One reason being that I'm not sure how to rate the albums.

Edited by earlyprog - November 07 2009 at 06:34

My mentality with this is simple.

A masterpiece album is an album that I can come back to and enjoy just about every moment no matter how many times I listen to it that I come to have a very close personal love and respect for the album overall. When I think of Crime of the Century or Close to the Edge, this what goes through my mind.

Of about two thousand or more albums I've heard, only about twenty or so fall into this category. That's a five star rating to me.

And the reverse for 1 star albums, where I grow a near personal hatred for the album overall.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by ExittheLemming it should be borne in mind that three stars is a GOOD album and not necessarily by inference a mediocre one.

yes the dreaded 'pretty good' rating, never has there been such a wide gulf between a 3 star rating meaning '"fine" and meaning "disappointing"