Objectivity in rating albums

Maybe the complexity, or not, of the composition.

I'm totally subjective when rating albums. 

Quality of production is a out the only objective piece.

There are no meaningful objective criteria (if any at all) when it comes to reviewing an album. As Chopper says, you could come up with some criteria that are as close to being objective as possible, but they would add nothing to the review.

Edited by nick_h_nz - March 13 2022 at 12:33

nick_h_nz wrote: [EDIT] I’d add that even Ian’s suggestion that quality of production might be the only objective criterium is one which could still be meaningless without subjective opinion of it. Dark Side of the Moon is pretty much universally lauded for its production, but that is of no interest to me when I’m reading a review, so much as how people experience it subjectively.

As I see it, popularity is the only objective measure of quality. But to account for the widely different tastes in music, the popularity should be from the fans of the particular types of music. Thus, the quality of prog should be assessed by the popularity among prog fans, the quality of metal should be assessed by the popularity among metal fans, the quality of jazz should be assessed by the popularity among jazz fans, etc. And if one is a fan of avant-prog rather than symphonic prog, the quality of avant-prog should be assessed by the popularity among avant-prog fans rather than symphonic prog fans.

JD wrote: I guess the real question is of what possible use would an objective only rating be within a music rating? It's like rating paintings by how much magenta is used. Without the subjectivity a rating wouldn't really tell you anything relevant about the music. Other than say meter, amplitude, frequency and wave form.

Edited by David_D - March 13 2022 at 14:10

Objectivity requires measurement, but how can you measure art? You can look at all the technical elements - complexity of composition, virtuosity of performance, production standards, and the like, but none of these can create a good album themselves. Any element can be taken to an extreme, but none of those necessarily equal quality.  Yet, a good rating, that is one that is worthy of examining even if one disagrees with it on the surface, must include these technicalities. A rating that requires exclusively on them is a rating from a technician. Now, a technician can also appreciate artistry, but by doing so goes beyond the technicalities. Objecitivity also requires clear standards. The Archives here provides a list of characteristics common to Progressive Rock and those are the best we have for this. The more knowledgeable about music a reviewer is the more objective that person can be. But this still will not remove any subjectivity. For me, the best reviews combine knowledge with informed subjectivity.

Edited by David_D - March 14 2022 at 01:00

David_D wrote: JD wrote: I guess the real question is of what possible use would an objective only rating be within a music rating? It's like rating paintings by how much magenta is used. Without the subjectivity a rating wouldn't really tell you anything relevant about the music. Other than say meter, amplitude, frequency and wave form. So would you say, JD, that the criteria, I know that you use in your rating, are purely subjective, and you might as well not use them at all?   Production Song Writing Originality  Performance

100% subjective. How could it be any other way. But I don't see that as being a reason to not use them. I see it as the ONLY way to use them.