5 star ratings

jamesbaldwin wrote: Logan wrote: ^ I said that, although Pedro might have as well somewhere. When one sees long posts, it is easy to confuse us. And sorry Steve for writing in such a long fashion considering your vision issues. I want people to recognise their subjectivity, instead of claiming objectivity where it exists very dubiously. I'm for explicit subjectivity and not confusing what is inherently subjective for objective truth. I have argued for ratings to be a reflection of one's taste, which is subjective, and with reviews one can take a more balanced approach. That said, if others choose to try to be objective in their ratings, fine, but due to the subjective nature of the experience, and one's expectations of what is good, which is partially due to our inculcation, but doesn't make it truth writ large, I question how successful they will be. It becomes especially difficult when one is exposed to new forms of musical expression. Musical enjoyment is subjective, {quoting myself from another recent topic}, we all bring our own cultural baggage and expectations, intellects, life experiences, associations and psychology to the music experience. No two people experience music in an identical way as it must be translated and interpreted by our brains..., and I think based on our limits, thinking we can we really objective about the quality of music is problematic. We can be more objective when it comes to the qualities of the music. While I do care about how the music is described, and that needn't say anything of the perceived quality of the music, I like to hear what people think in reviews, and in posts. I'm not so keen if they come across as telling me what to think and feel about the music. Please don't expect me to feel the same, or project your biases on me, but do tell me how the music affects YOU. Some balance is a good thing. It would be boring to read a review where someone is trying not to share their opinion on the music but is just trying to describe it as best they can: "On track one it starts with trumpet. It is a G note. Then comes in a string instrument. It is a G-string. Following those things that I mentioned, there is another sound, and then another. Then other instruments play a succession of notes. There are drums too. There is a hi-hat. Then enters electric guitar. It starts with an F minor chord. This is followed by a b minor. The singer starts singing as the guitarist plays a C chord. He sings, "I".   At this point the drumming gets faster. Right after singing "I", while the drumming is happening , he sings "Want". There is the sound of a trumpet, the guitar is still playing as are the drums, the drumming is still fast with many beats. Following "Want", at a higher pitch now, he sings "This", more bass, then he sings "Song", drums guitar and bass play in sync, then "To", there is a farting noise before it finishes with the last line of the verse, "End". Then he sings "I want this song to end" again, but not for the last time". Now that's a review I would want to end before it even started. EDIT: Micky once tried to make the most objective review and rating ever for an album he hated by simply copying what others said, as I recall, but in doing so I would say that he merely duplicated others subjectivity. I'd rather a sincere, and explicitly subjective rating and review -- a review that tells me something about the reviewer. In part I'm saying let's bare our subjectivity explicitly, even if it gets rated R for, um, I'm usually good with finding the right synonym for the right letter, um, I'll cheat with eccentRic. If I write a review I will share my perspective on the album, I just won't claim that my perspective is absolute truth, even if it is a sort of subjective truth. And if I get rated X for eXentric by those who feel differently, so be it. To each his or her own tastes, one man's trash is another man's treasure, one man's fish is another man's poisson, to err is human; to purr canine, to bark; canine, my old man's a mushroom etc. About objective and subjective evaluations, and mathematical judgement:

kenethlevine wrote: yeah I'm guessing that's one area where Pedro and I are in total agreement.  Basing a rating on the mathematical average of each song's ratings is as anti-art as you can get

Grumpyprogfan wrote: Lets say a reviewers favorite band has been together 40 years and has put out 20 albums. Reviewer has all the albums. Now there is no way all 20 albums can be five stars. So will the reviewer only hand pick only what they want out of the bands entire output, so they all get five stars? I don't think this is fair to those reading the reviews. There is no benchmark of what the reviewer would rate less than stellar, and that makes me cautious to trust the reviewer's opinion.  Other have mentioned they only review what they like. What about bands that send you material you are unfamiliar with? I'm sure the more active PA reviewers receive solicitations often. Do you not review it if you don't like it?

SteveG wrote: ...  But our rationalization or arguments of what's right or wrong in ratings should not detract from the criteria of "5 star = Essential/Masterpiece". To rate otherwise would be making up one's own rules and making all of this more of a subjective exercise then it already is. I cannot stress that more clearly.

I give my favourite albums five-star ratings simply because they ARE "essential masterpieces" in my own subjective opinion.  

^ I'll posit that none of them would be would be considered universal masterpieces.

moshkito wrote: Logan wrote: ... Musical enjoyment is subjective, {quoting myself from another recent topic}, we all bring our own cultural baggage and expectations, intellects, life experiences, associations and psychology to the music experience. No two people experience music in an identical way as it must be translated and interpreted by our brains..., and I think based on our limits, thinking we can we really objective about the quality of music is problematic. We can be more objective when it comes to the qualities of the music. But here is one problem that we forget ... there is only one truth ... the source of the music ... and that has nothing to do with the listener and all the bits you mention ... otherwise we would not even be able to enjoy Mozart, Beethoven and whatever else we do. That "source" is basically "untouchable" in the sense that it doesn't change on its own ... it only changes in our perceptions depending on all the reasons mentioned, but again, that has NOTHING to do with the music itself....

It even changes for the source as listener.

I haven't forgotten the importance of the source, although when we listen to Mozart and Beethoven we listen to different performances by them, with different conductors. Some recordings/ performances I enjoy more than others. With Beethoven, I favour my Herbert von Karajan as conductor CDs, but I do own various other versions.

Where I seem to disagree is that there is only one truth, the source, and that that has nothing to do with the listener. Of course without the composer we would not have the chance to experience it, but our experience will be different from the composers when they hear it or imagine it. When the composer first hears an orchestral score performed, it probably will be a different experience from what what they originally had in mind (it's a process for all). And with each new performance and over time, the composer's perceptions will also vary, as well as the audiences.

Conductors and performers bring their own interpretations into re-creating the music, and music is more than sheets and original intent, it's organised sound waves to be translated and interpreted by mind. What every individual experiences as music is different, including the composer's and even for each individual, including the composer, the experience will be somewhat different every time they hear it.

Music for the subject is the relationship between organised sound and their brains. We each bring our own meaning to the music, literature, art, and that sense of meaning and purpose may differ from the artist's intent. And that experience will differ from that of the artist, but as I said, even the artists experience of his/her own creation will differ at different times.

The artists matters, and the audience matters. Without the artist there would be no audience, and without the audience there would be no one to perceive it as art but the artist (who also is of the audience when witnessing his or her own creation come to fruition).

If a deaf composer performs music in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound, and is it music? He may seem to hear it in his own head, but in a sense, no. His performance creates vibrations in the air, but sound in a sense does not exist without being heard, and ears are not enough to hear something, it requires a brain to filter and interpret the sound/ music, and brains are different.

I believe that the individual listener is important, as he/she does bring meaning to the music -- this is in the realm of audience reception aesthetics, or reception theory. The sound of music (the hills are alive with it apparently) consists of soundwaves that enter the ear and is then interpreted by a brain.   As music is more than just sound, it's an experience of organised sounds to be interpreted/ translated by a mind, each individual's experience brings individual meaning.

Not only are there physiological differences in the inner ears that affect what is heard, but our neurology and psychology affects how we interpret/ hear the music. Definitely people hear things differently, and our memories, associations, emotional state, experiences and physiology affect how we interpret the music. When we see or hear something, it is not direct, it is our mind's interpretation/ processing of information.

So, no, I don't think there is only one truth, obviously not in terms of perceived truth, and even for the creator, the perception of that truth changes. Each listener bring their own truths to the proceedings, and what is true for the creator may not be true for the beholder of the creation.

Creators matter and so do audiences. Without any audience, the creation would not hold as much value.

^ There is a collective appreciation of the arts, and a pantheon of accepted greats within a given set. There is a relationship between the artist's music and the individual listener and sorts of relationships between the individuals who listen to and like the same music, as well as a relationship between those who accept certain music as great without necessarily being "fans" (a well-accepted canon).

I wrote several paragraphs on the pantheon of accepted greats for the above post, but then deleted it before posting as I felt my post was already too long, mostly due to the repetition, but also that I was having difficulty explaining it well. Basically, I accept composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, and many others, as being great composers. I don't say, "I think Rachmaninoff was a good, skilled composer", I am confident that he objectively was according to well-accepted metrics, or standards. There is a consensus on such things -- a generally held opinion. I love music by all I mentioned, but I recognise a certain genius as well that others who are far more knowledgeable and skilled in music also accept. I also think the same with artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, and a particular favourite of mine, Rembrandt. I don't with very popular musical acts such as Madonna, or, at least it was, Nickelback (the drummer was my neighbour, and of course that has always been a divisive group). But for the fans, I won't negate their collective appreciation.

In terms of the history of music, while very different, I would not put Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis or Jethro Tull on the same level as the greats of classical music, and not just because none of those mean as much to me, but I don't recognise as much compositional genius. I don't place rock on as high a pedestal as classical, but those are my biases showing (one might say apples and oranges, and such comparison is not worthwhile anyway).

I don't like most Steven Wilson music, and am no fan, but I can appreciate that many do (he is rather divisive) While not personally a fan of Yes, Tull, or Genesis (or most "Symphonic" Prog) I appreciate the significance, certainly much more than I appreciate the music

That said, for the individual, and we are all individuals (cue Monty Python), while there is a sort of collective experience, it is still an individual experience. Others share a similar experience, but no two experiences are identical.

A reason why those bands are appreciated by so many is because people are, generally, social animals, and we like to share our interests and share in other people's interests. Interest breeds more interest, and on a side-note, I would argue that popularity does not equal quality, but then quality can be so much in the ear of the behearer. There is something of a mob mentality when it comes to appreciation, and there is inculcation.

Yes, people can relate, that's part of having relationships. We aren't raised in vacuums, we are influenced by others, and influence others. We learn and develop to appreciate some things, and not appreciate other things. Some things we are more naturally evolved to appreciate than others.

Given the right social conditions, perhaps Yes, Genesis, KC, Floyd and Tull wouldn't have the same level of respect or adulation. Instead, perhaps, Magma, Can, Tangerine Dream, Amon Duul II, and Pentangle would be the big five.

I edited this but out of my last post: In terms of what music is enjoyable, a lot of that depend on culture, exposure, inculcation, and expectation as well as individual psychology (and I think there are evolutionary reasons why some types of music resonate more than others with more people aside from exposure -- so a natural inclination rather than just social constructs etc.). There are standards, so certain types of music will be be more popular generally than other types.

Logan wrote: ^ There is a collective appreciation of the arts, and a pantheon of accepted greats within a given set. There is a relationship between the artist's music and the individual listener and sorts of relationships between the individuals who listen to and like the same music, as well as a relationship between those who accept certain music as great without necessarily being "fans" (a well-accepted canon). I wrote several paragraphs on the pantheon of accepted greats for the above post, but then deleted it before posting as I felt my post was already too long, mostly due to the repetition, but also that I was having difficulty explaining it well. Basically, I accept composers such as Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, and many others, as being great composers. I don't say, "I think Rachmaninoff was a good, skilled composer", I am confident that he objectively was according to well-accepted metrics, or standards. There is a consensus on such things -- a generally held opinion. I love music by all I mentioned, but I recognise a certain genius as well that others who are far more knowledgeable and skilled in music also accept. I also think the same with artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, and a particular favourite of mine, Rembrandt. I don't with very popular musical acts such as Madonna, or, at least it was, Nickelback (the drummer was my neighbour, and of course that has always been a divisive group). But for the fans, I won't negate their collective appreciation. In terms of the history of music, while very different, I would not put Yes, Pink Floyd, Genesis or Jethro Tull on the same level as the greats of classical music, and not just because none of those mean as much to me, but I don't recognise as much compositional genius. I don't place rock on as high a pedestal as classical, but those are my biases showing (one might say apples and oranges, and such comparison is not worthwhile anyway). I don't like most Steven Wilson music, and am no fan, but I can appreciate that many do (he is rather divisive) While not personally a fan of Yes, Tull, or Genesis (or most "Symphonic" Prog) I appreciate the significance, certainly much more than I appreciate the music That said, for the individual, and we are all individuals (cue Monty Python), while there is a sort of collective experience, it is still an individual experience. Others share a similar experience, but no two experiences are identical. A reason why those bands are appreciated by so many is because people are, generally, social animals, and we like to share our interests and share in other people's interests. Interest breeds more interest, and on a side-note, I would argue that popularity does not equal quality, but then quality can be so much in the ear of the behearer. There is something of a mob mentality when it comes to appreciation, and there is inculcation. Yes, people can relate, that's part of having relationships. We aren't raised in vacuums, we are influenced by others, and influence others. We learn and develop to appreciate some things, and not appreciate other things. Some things we are more naturally evolved to appreciate than others. Given the right social conditions, perhaps Yes, Genesis, KC, Floyd and Tull wouldn't have the same level of respect or adulation. Instead, perhaps, Magma, Can, Tangerine Dream, Amon Duul II, and Pentangle would be the big five. I edited this but out of my last post: In terms of what music is enjoyable, a lot of that depend on culture, exposure, inculcation, and expectation as well as individual psychology (and I think there are evolutionary reasons why some types of music resonate more than others with more people aside from exposure -- so a natural inclination rather than just social constructs etc.). There are standards, so certain types of music will be be more popular generally than other types.

A very good post. Let's just say that like most pairs of opposites, individual and collective experiences go together. I cannot image having one without the other to some extent. Even listening to some artist, I'm aware that he/she may be well liked or be quite the cult phenomenon, even without consciously thinking about. Someone besides myself has some degree of involvement in that artist's music.

Edited by SteveG - October 31 2019 at 12:19

For several years prior to joining PA, I spent a considerable amount of time visiting the review section of the site. But for the most part, I would read reviews of albums that I already had, often while I was listening to those albums. I wanted to read what other people thought about the albums with which I was already familiar. I didn't read reviews of albums I didn't know in order to find out what the album is like. That's what YouTube is for.