"5 star" albums and masterpiece.

Nathaniel607 wrote: 5 Masterpiece 4 amazing 3 good 2 alright 1 kind of rubbish 0 appaling

Edited by moshkito - September 01 2010 at 14:21

Vompatti wrote: Logan wrote: Vompatti wrote: Masterpiece is: the most outstanding work of a creative artist or craftsman an outstanding achievement wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn I'd give 5 stars to such an album. But there is such a level of subjectivity. What is outstanding to one may be poor to another, and what is considered the best work of the act by one may not be for another. Even amongst official Prog Reviewers (people who were chosen, partially because of their analytical abilities and significant music knowledge, as well as their outstanding powers of expression/ writing skills) you will find great variance in opinion on what is masterpiece.  One may rate it five, another may give the same album a one or two.  I would also give an album 5 stars that I felt fit that definition. Of course it's subjective. The albums themselves are subjective pieces of art, how could they possibly have an objective value?

And then there's the question of what is art (no I don't need a definition).  One can assign value within frameworks of analysis (one might say that the frameworks you choose to use reflect your biases, however). On the performance level, for instance, one can say that one performer is more technically able than another, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll enjoy the performance more.  Some compositions are more advanced than another, but that doesn't mean you'll enjoy it more.  If my now seven year old daughter composed and played a piece of music on her xylophone and you compared it to a  professional composer/ xylophonist, you would hear a difference in quality (would one be wrong to say that one is objectively better/ more accomplished than the other?  Should she continue practising if there are no objective measures for her artistry, and no real standards of success beyond the subjective level?).  Some might still think her music is art. She did an art class recently, and painted her version of a Modigliani painting.  I think it's amazing, and would call it art, but if I saw a Modigliani and hers in an Art Gallery, and didn't know the background, I would consider hers inferior.  There are models one can utilise to judge music, paintings, novels etc. in a quite objective way. Music is not my background, film is, and there are many ways that I feel that I could judge the artistic, as well as technical merits of a film. But its simple when one thinks in terms of techniques rather than bandies the rather nebulous word "art" around. That said, what may sound badly composed and played to me may be a masterpiece to another, but I don't think one should divorce all objective measurements from the equation. And I would say that the more musically knowledgeable an individual is, the better their analysis will be, as will the determinations of artistic and technical merit.


Edited by Logan - September 01 2010 at 15:46

I cant undrestand why you want to say There is no masterpiece. I believe many of musics or draws or books are masterpiece and its not about taste. Maybe I love them or not. Masterpiece is masterpiece!!!!!!!!

EnderEd wrote: 3 does not really = "meh" on ProgArchives. Here's the ProgArchives official rating designations: Essential: a masterpiece of progressive rock music Excellent addition to any prog rock music collection Good, but non-essential Collectors/fans only Poor. Only for completionists I prefer leaving 5-star for "Masterpiece" rather than for an album that I really love and think is awesome. Is there an objective (vs subjective) criteria for defining Masterpiece? I think so, but many on ProgArchives would have a hard time with that. For example, I love almost anything and everything by Coheed & Cambria and Rush (except for their latest rehashes, Caravan/BU2B) -- But I would never give their most recent albums 5-stars, cause I know that I know they are not Masterpieces. On the other hand, I cannot stand Edvard Munch's painting The Scream, but would list it as a Masterpiece nonetheless.

If a site has guidelines (not all do), one should try to follow them to the best of their ability, so that readers have a reasonably consistent idea of what ratings mean.  Most non-members perusing reviews are not going to look at the member profile to see a person's "personal definition" of the 5 stars.  5 star ratings should be very rare and entail much more than just "an album you like", as requested by the site pop-up explanation window. 

Some are naturally going to thumb their nose and give 5s to everything they like.  I think many readers eventually just ignore writers who they notice overuse the 5, I know I do, and I've had others tell me they do.  If the rating is used excessively, it loses the impact/value it should have to a reader.  When I notice a reviewer uses the 5 very rarely, then it has some meaning to me when they actually do pull the trigger. 

Collabs especially should try to follow the site guidelines as their ratings are weighted. 

Exactly

This should consider some respects.

Masterpiece and five stars' viewpoints. As for it, the part where the subjectivity mixes with objectivity might be included. And, the characteristic of PA joins this part.

It will be judged whether the person who listened to the album as a result is a masterpiece. And, general information and knowledge will mix there of course.

When the review is submitted, I often mix the characteristic of PA.

Review for sales promotion
Album and information on musician

This is deliberately investigated. It recognizes it as work as Reviewer.

However, I also often submit a subjective review. However, the subjective opinion cannot be submitted if restrained to work and the sales promotion of the review. And, it is also impossible to unite all the reviews safely in three-star.

Knowledge and information might often be necessary for us. And, the experience concerning music forms everything. Perhaps, the listener who listened to the album should judge the final assessment.

The discussion concerning ranking the album is often done. However, we think should not the restraint to this discussion. The musician and the album are always offering good music with the technology that always exceeds our category. We should love music.

 

 

 

O666 wrote: I cant undrestand why you want to say There is no masterpiece. I believe many of musics or draws or books are masterpiece and its not about taste. Maybe I love them or not. Masterpiece is masterpiece!!!!!!!!

Sorry guys. I want to confess. I MADE MISTAKE. I shouldn't write like this and my hands up!!!  I know many of you dont agree to "absolute" opinions and you right. One of my friends warn me and when I thought about his warning, I see he right.

Edited by O666 - September 02 2010 at 05:43

I love discussions like this!  Lots of good points from all sides.

My opinion: the main reason this discussion comes up repeatedly is (IMHO) because there are multiple reviewers each interpreting the general guidelines in their own way to the best of their understanding and appreciation.  This means that there is not, and can never be, any consistency in the reviews.  So as long as reviews are invited from anyone who wants to contribute one*,  threads of this type are inevitable (but I hasten to add, I am not complaining about this!  Varying perspectives are fascinating.)  Single-reviewer sites have the advantage of a consistently-applied vision and (should have anyway) clearly stated criteria and biases so we know from the outset what we are dealing with.

So basically on this site, in terms of reviews, it's a crap shoot. It's the main reason I have to take all reviews here with a grain of salt: the cumulative scores have less meaning than they do on a single-reviewer site.  I read the reviews more with the "Does this guy agree or disagree with my opinion" and less "is this album worth listening to?" attitude.

I don't know what a masterpiece is in any objective sense.  My own feeling is that a masterpiece is a retroactive label, and one that can really only legitimately be applied in a historical context.  I think all the definitions so far are correct, but maybe the descriptor has been applied prematurely to too many recent albums.  Give 'em a decade or so, and see.

A half-star increment in ratings would be a brilliant idea.  It seems from the comments that a lot of reviewers are uncomfortable giving the full 5 stars because they know the album isn't really a masterpiece but it comes very close.  However, the system may not be set up to deal with that, I don't know.

And yeah, it's pretty much subjective.  One hopes one can generally distinguish between "favourite" and "important", but that can take some work and reflection.  Of course, my  personal taste is impeccable and beyond reproach!!


*I haven't contributed a review yet, but I'm working on one.

kole wrote: Halves would make everything OK.

I look at it like this - I would only award 5 stars to an album that I consider to be of exceptional and consistent quality but me saying that alone doesn't make it a masterpiece, even if I think it is. However that album could be considered a masterpiece when that high opinion is  universally echoed by many other people. At the end of the day though, no matter how highly an album is rated there's bound to be people who don't like it which will pull the average rating down.