interpreting reviews ratings

• A masterpiece! Excellent music all the way through with really few, or none weak parts.
• Excellent. Very even and balanced, though may have some weaker bits or generally less good than a 5 star album.
• Good. Not bad, though lacking.
• Average. Uneven effort, some good and some awful songs.
• Poor. Nothing interesting or appealing here, and generally weak and directly bad.

5= An album that I can find no serious fault with and all songs are good to great.

4.5= A really good album but with some small problem that stops it being a masterpiece, rounded down to 4 stars on this site.

4= A very good album with only one or two week parts.

3.5= An album with very good parts but with major flaw(s), rounded up to 4 (as with all half stars below 4).

3= An average album, good and worth a listen but lacks any thing to really make it stand out.

2.5= An album that has some really strong qualities but also many major flaws.

2= Poor album but with a few redeeming qualities.

1.5= A bad album that may have only 1 or 2 good things, but mostly rubbish.

1= A very bad album that has nothing to recommend.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: inpraiseoffolly wrote: I think that most people have misunderstood what I was getting at. It's not what YOU mean when you review an album, it's how you interpret the usually too high ratings on the site generated by lots of fans who review only their favorites (not a bad thing, but it does skew the ratings somewhat). You're not making much sense. Either someone submits ratings that are too high (fanboy), or the person submits mainly ratings/reviews for his/her favorite albums but doesn't exaggerate. But the mere fact that someone's profile contains unusually many high ratings doesn't tell you *why* the reviewer submitted them, or which of the above mentioned principles apply.

    
I'll try to make some sense, then. What I meant is the fact that many people (especially non-members) only review their favorite albums, and accurately give them high ratings. However, this tendency generally exaggarates the actual rating of albums, as people who don't like them are underrepresented.

I don't interpret ratings, I interpret the reviewers who's rating is expressed.

without meaning too much (as my words-in my review-actually comprise how the album is).

and of course, I don't mean here ratings definition, just what I understand and how I adapt to a rating (subjective) :

• 1 star: an absolutely mediocre album, one that also damage to the artist's "talent", to the music beauty and to the intellect of one fine accomplished thing
• 2 stars: a modest album, of no major significance, deficits being more prominent (usually), the music intention being in a loose or just unsatisfying situation; a usually left out recommendation, meaning much can be better; (rarely) an itch
• 3 stars: a good album, a fine example of the artist's value, style and so on, but in the reasonable hopes of liking it and of promoting it; now, here, the lower extreme can mean that there are a lot of thing to appreciate in the album, but there are also lot of dismissables errors; and the higher extreme means the album has true value, only that either some are better than the good, or it doesn't get too much of an actual representativeness (uh...sp?)
  
• 4 stars: a great album and an always interesting music experience; lots of values, more than maybe subtleties, and more than once the feeling that everything is splendid
• 5 stars: a masterpiece and/or a definitory work; music that conquers heights, music that breaks the atmophere with something ecclectic, wonderful; or, mainly, a Schulze or a Tangerine Dream classic album
  

Edited by Ricochet - November 17 2006 at 03:57

Australian wrote:     This is the way I think when rating. 1 star: they are asking money for this?  2 stars: Not 'bad' but getting there. Or a pointless album (ie. best of album) 3 stars: Ranging from good to very good, not quite what it could be though. 4 stars: Excellent album, essential for some people but just generally a fantastic album. 5 stars: Essential masterpiece for all prog listeners.

That's about right. Most experienced reviewers here are not really biased. I'm certainly not. In fact, I have a lot of low ratings, telling people what not to waste money on is almost as important to pointing out masterpieces.

If I love an album that's not very good on this site's scale, I will still rate it 2 stars but mention that it means a lot to me and on my personal liking scale it's a 5 star album.

I'm not quite sure where to post this, so feel free to move it if it's in the wrong place.

Now, given that this is a fan-based review site, reviews are generally biased in favor of the album, as not everyone is going to have time to review albums they don't like.

So, this thread is for you to share your techniques for interpreting average ratings. For example, here is my strategy:

4.5+ stars: probably 4 stars, often 4.5 stars or above, possibly a true masterpiece
4-4.5 stars: probably 3.5-4 stars, occasionally 4.5 stars or above, occasionally a masterpiece
3.5-4 stars: 2.5-3 stars, not a very good release, occasionally 3.5 or so stars, and very occasionally 4 or more stars
3-3.5 stars: 2-3 stars, probably only for fans of the band
2-3 stars: definitely only for fans of the band
1-2 stars: poor, for completionists only
1 star: clearly not enough ratings to be accurate, but probably poor anyway