Standing up for the 3 star rating

LakeGlade12 wrote: Looking at all the posts here I can't find anyone who dosen't like the idea of half stars. So who exactly do we need to convince?

Cal it a wild stab in the dark if you like, but how about the site owner?

ExittheLemming wrote: richardh wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: richardh wrote: I think 0 stars would be abused liberally so quite rightly was removed. DO NOT BRING IT BACK back on the subject of 3 stars. I tend to give to albums I don't really 'get' but I know are well respected. I thought English Electric Part One was a bit bland and lacking real bite so 3 stars seemed appropriate. I listen to it regularly and quite enjoy it.  I gave In A Glass House 3 stars .Probably my least favourite GG album from their 'classic' period but I love the albums released just before and just after so it would be silly to give it less than 3 stars. 3 stars does offer a reasonable buffer to offer a 'protest' without going over the top. I just don't follow this line of reasoning at all. You can still be respectful of any album's place in the grand scheme of received opinion by expressing such in your review without any need to feel obligated to award three stars. Why would or could you tell us you think an album is good if you don't get it? Lots of us round here value your contributions so at least have a bit more faith in your own opinions. It's your review/rating not ours. Why pander to conventional wisdom when it is at odds with your own feelings? because I don't actually dislike those albums its I just don't understand why they are so highly rated. I always give my opinion about anything I review. If I don;'t like something I will say. I was a bit on the fence about BBT's album so 3 stars seemed about right. there is a lot of music that is like this for me. I think Camel are the classic example. I find them very pleasant but I sometimes wonder why they are so highly rated. In my mind there is a confusion. I should probably give their albums 3 stars and not the 5 stars I think I gave Moonmadness ( I would need to check). I can find nothing wrong with their music it just doesn't excite me like ELP or Yes. So I am second guessing myself. Is that really showing a lack of confidence or does it mean that I am less arrogant and less precious about my opinion compared to some others?  I get from your post that you are troubled by something that does not offend your aesthetic sensibilities compared with something that does and only one slot to choose from i.e. how could you give both phenomena 2 stars?, so you grant the former 3 stars but admit to finding the content not unpleasant but bland. Would the introduction of half stars solve this for you? I think I'm luckier than you in that I consider not unpleasant but bland to be just as offensive as obnoxious and spiteful (but I guess that makes me very arrogant)

Mellotron Storm wrote:  I think that's why if your going to use a reviewer as a guide to buy music it's important to know their rating tendancies and tastes.

ExittheLemming wrote: richardh wrote: I think 0 stars would be abused liberally so quite rightly was removed. DO NOT BRING IT BACK back on the subject of 3 stars. I tend to give to albums I don't really 'get' but I know are well respected. I thought English Electric Part One was a bit bland and lacking real bite so 3 stars seemed appropriate. I listen to it regularly and quite enjoy it.  I gave In A Glass House 3 stars .Probably my least favourite GG album from their 'classic' period but I love the albums released just before and just after so it would be silly to give it less than 3 stars. 3 stars does offer a reasonable buffer to offer a 'protest' without going over the top. I just don't follow this line of reasoning at all. You can still be respectful of any album's place in the grand scheme of received opinion by expressing such in your review without any need to feel obligated to award three stars. Why would or could you tell us you think an album is good if you don't get it? Lots of us round here value your contributions so at least have a bit more faith in your own opinions. It's your review/rating not ours. Why pander to conventional wisdom when it is at odds with your own feelings?

Edited by richardh - March 11 2014 at 02:34

^ I see both sides of that argument--  what I would say is a reviewer need not point out they're giving us their opinion; it's an unnecessary qualifier that suggests a lack of confidence.   We know it's an opinion, we want an opinion, and we don't need to be reminded of that fact.

I think 0 stars would be abused liberally so quite rightly was removed. DO NOT BRING IT BACK

It is tempting, I remember once saying in a review "if I could've given zero stars I would have."

Here we go. Another wordy epic.

On of the things about "poor only for completists" is that this can be misinterpreted ...... e.g Genesis 3 CD compilation which according to my review is for new comers to Genesis; not really for the time served. It is sometimes derided as a cash in - though I doubt it (maybe Turn It On Again Tour Edition ) but the 3 CD set is a real find for the newbie (6 LPs worth for a few bucks). I think it is a good intro to Genesis and both for those who have to buy everything. Yet it excites 1 star bashes as well as 5 star histrionics. I gave it a 4 star rating with the proviso that it is not something for everyone, yet a genuinely well considered collection. Great content and type of album (dodgy compilations of otherwise fine if possibly out of context material) e.g. certain Pink Floyd compilations.

And I tried not to let the absence of One For The Vine and the inclusion of Your Own Special Way influence my review.

I think the guidelines should stipulate that one is addressing a general listener, a theoretical someone who might enjoy the album and need some information to help.

The wholly subjective issue should also be addressed. " I absolutely love...." is all very well, but does little for me.

How is the production? Drums to the front or not? Is the bass clear? How are the vocals? Pitch of the lead, harmonies. What are the kyrics about at least generally. What is so inpressive about the writing and / or performance? Details, facts, evidence. Significant missing numbers. Good stuff. Enthusiasm is fine (last paragraph.)

I think a 1 or 5 star rating should only happen to the accompaniment of a review.

I doubt the site admins want to [police all the opinion on albums but the 1/2 star (or 1 - 10) idea isn't bad. Maybe encourage a Richter type scale. A 2 star review is 10 times as good as 1, 3 is 100 times as good as 3. By the time a five star rating is beholden the sheer awesome nature of the record under attention must have truly seismic impact.

There is the oddity of the impact on music, rock and subgenres such as prog. Things like Dark Side which have general appeal, are a part of popular culture, near classic culture that anything less than 3 stars is mere spite. It doesn't mean someone doesn't, or should like it but recognise the significance. Like one album I like / dislike - The Pistols Bollocks record. Thankfully it's not a prog album but even I have to recognize it has a cultural impact. I'd rate it a 3 star punk record but iconic. It does have interesting lyrics and some fun punk numbers but is way too noisy for me.

Much as I'd rate Dark Side with 5 stars under the present system. It's not my favourite Floyd but it is impeccable in concise lyrics, almost perfectly arranged (Money has a certain free form element to it) and is quite well recorded too. Even if I did not like it it still rates this review. Whether I like something is beside the point. Theoretically I like the new Rush album but don't give a jot about it. It still gets 3 stars from me for the performance.

Does that make it better or worse than the Pistols album? Both are good but the Pistols has good socially applicable words while Clockwork Angels doesn't. It's a story but not one I can relate to or care about much. Yet I'd listen to the Rush long before the Pistols.

So what then? This is what I would tell anyone who asked whether they should buy either album. It's a recommendation to a relatively informed listener. Unlike all those Thick As A Brick (..."couldn't get laid in 1972 so listening to Tull was an acceptable alternative") type reviews. Lots of high ratings influenced by nostalgia.

Another thing that I am not absolutely clear about is genre specific ratings. e.g. The Beatles' earlier albums get rated low because they are not prog rock. Yet highly regarded elsewhere, apparently The Beatles had some sort of popular cultural impact at some time. Who'd know here?

 Some people review albums with acknowledgment that the "prog content" is less so, but it is still a fine album and rate it appropriately. Perhaps we could review albums for what they are, not for what they are not. Because this is a prog site an album that is not a prog album is rated lower. Imagine, prog elitism.

It doesn't seem quite right to me. We are dealing with people and their art and should (try and ) treat their music with respect even if we don't like it. But do say so and why. Ratings stars get lopped off and rounded with ease.

So yes, 1/2 stars, (even a 1  - 20 scale), good review guidelines so the reviewer can demonstrate familiarity with the recordings and content - especially important with this age of the remaster and versions of albums with or without bonus content.

Thank you for reading.



 

aapatsos wrote: The current rating system is as easy and as self-explanatory as it can be. Reading the reviews explains the author's reasoning.There is no need for 0 stars, unless you are more interested in maths than in music.