Was 2013 really that good?

Re the ratings ... perhaps a 1 or 5 star rating should not be possible without written justification. As enthusiastic as people can be it does result in hype, devaluing by inflation.

When scanning reviews I check (some of) the lowest, the highest and some mid way, I usually get a reasonable idea if the content is well written. The more personal and nostalgic, the more overtly subjective content gets short shrift with nasty ol' me. Not that I don't appreciate enthusiasm but the considered assessments get the most reading from me anyway.

There's a review of Yes' debut on the front page which is a rather good example of how a review should be written. A good read and fair assessment of the album. He can do mine - I gave up...

Slartibartfast wrote: Yeah the '80's weren't all that awful btw...

Very much agreed.

Slartibartfast wrote: If it wasn't that good you might have picked the wrong stuff to listen to....

Lynx33 wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: I think people forget that 3 stars means a good album.

Edited by Horizons - February 22 2014 at 11:27

2013 was the best year for progressive music in a long time.

It was damned good for me, but then I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention in 2012 because I was too busy discovering some older stuff.  A lot of the stuff I discovered in 2013 though was post rock and post metal, which has become a rather important genre for me.  But I really loved quite a few albums from this year.  I had a tie for No. 1 but one of those was not prog.

As for the ratings...from the day I joined this site I found the ratings generally inflated.  Five-star albums should be exceedingly rare beasts but around here they are as common as dirt on the ground.  The no half-star option doesn't help, and I too tend to round up rather than down.  I usually point this out at the start of my review though, if I have done that.

I think I have written only one five-star review.  Quite a few 4-star though, but either they deserved it or they were rounded up from a 3.5.  But I do have 3-star reviews as well.  Anything I think is worse than that...it is unlikely I will muster up the interest to write a review for an album like that. 

2013 is not that memorable in terms of music but it was better than 2012 as i recall. The list of albums in the best of 2013 are definitely worth listening to even if they may not all be masterpieces.

richardh wrote: Horizons wrote: No. I can get through 20 listens in a day. It doesn't matter - it's time that changes your view of an album and really shows it's true value.  I wouldn't want to put a number on the amount of time you need for each "stage" but i would wait a least a month.  so is there a point when your view of an album becomes 'fixed'?

bloodnarfer wrote: Polymorphia wrote: Horizons wrote: Polymorphia wrote: Horizons wrote: No. I can get through 20 listens in a day. It doesn't matter - it's time that changes your view of an album and really shows it's true value.  I wouldn't want to put a number on the amount of time you need for each "stage" but i would wait a least a month.  I've reviewed during my first listen (once). My opinion of and thoughts on the album (Laughing Stock) has not changed (which is a rare case). I should say that I listened to it once all the way through, and wrote my thoughts as I listened to the album, and then ping ponged between tracks especially to listen to mood transitions while reading bios and interviews. I was really just testing the approach of writing down my first impressions, and have kept doing that for my other reviews, although with my other reviews I've made sure to listen to the album many more times. Honestly, I don't have a problem with reviewing like that.  First impressions are just as important as last impressions.  I think 20 listens might be overkill, dulling the senses to what made that album so great in the first place, and you forget how strong your feelings were when you first listened to it.  An album that holds up for that long may have the 'classic' quality but IMO there are five star worhty albums that maybe aren't supposed to be listened to that many times.

20 listens for the sake of a review is certainly overkill. Who would want to listen to an album that took 20 listens to like?

Most of the time, my opinion is fully formed by third listen, give or take. I still listen to the albums after that, but I like to let them have some space.

Logan wrote: I wouldn't argue the semantics here too much.  A personal truth (also known as subjective truth as opposed to objective truth) is in the realm of opinion.  To say that something is my truth is commonly synonymous with saying that it is my opinion (though there are often differences in nuance).  Personal truth is about personal perspective as I use it, and what's true to one person need not be true to another.