Your rating system

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: rogerthat wrote: But I do not subscribe to rating an album ONLY based on personal taste, especially an older work where the listener has had the time to work out its context and possible significance or lack thereof.   When you say an album is essential or not, you must consider whether it could indeed be an essential album for the general demographic of this website and I don't believe that is anywhere as hard as is made out to be a lot of times. Au contraire, I don't believe historical importance makes an album more 'essential'. Above all, I want to listen to good music, not music that influenced other people. I think it's perfectly possible and fine for a member of this website to never have heard In the Court of the Crimson King, and I wouldn't increase my rating for it just for reasons of influence. I think it's worth 4 stars on its own anyway, and that's recommendation enough. The Thoughts of Emerlist Davjack is probably one of the most important albums to the history of prog rock, but its rating is currently 3.32. If we were to consider historical importance, we'd have to conclude that because every prog fan should hear it, it must get five stars. But clearly the album isn't generally considered good enough to deserve such a rating. On the other side, should I refrain from giving Agalloch's Marrow of the Spirit, one of my favorite albums of all time, 5 stars just because it doesn't have any historical importance? According to PA's rating criteria, an album that is both a 'masterpiece' and 'essential' should get five stars. An album that is 'good' but 'not essential' should get three stars. What should an album that is 'essential' but not 'good' get then?

The Agalloch example is not relevant here because I talked about context and significance with respect to older albums, not new ones.   And the logical flaw in your argument is you have presumed that significance and influence are synonymous in this context.  They are not.  An album may have been important to the development of a genre simply for introducing new or at least relatively unknown directions.   But an album that was essential from the point of view of innovation need not necessarily be essential listening.   An essential album is a high watermark for the genre and a benchmark for future efforts and it usually would have to present excellence in several facets. 

I have also not said everybody should listen to ITCOTCK or such other essential albums so I don't know where you got that from.   But I don't believe that a high consensus rating for a decades old album has absolutely no basis in taste because it has stood the test of time and resonated with listeners who were not of the same generation that first heard it.    So if you still must make a case as to why DSOTM is just a crappy pile of s***, please do so but attempt to make a solid case why.   Present arguments that demonstrate that there is nothing particularly great about several aspects of the album and that it is overrated.   It doesn't matter that you may not convince everyone with it because music is subjective, but if you are just going to say, "Hey I don't like it, so it sucks"...that's not very informative.  I cannot stop anybody from doing that, mind, but I do discourage that tendency.   I think the website asks for extreme ratings to be carefully considered for a good reason.  It is best done supported with a thorough review.   Even if it is a new album, you should be able to bring out what fresh perspective does it bring to the genre and just what is it that makes it a masterpiece (as far as studio albums go, not talking about live albums).   After all, a 5 star album is a masterpiece and masterpieces are supposed to be few and far between. 

And I don't agree with your interpretation of PA's rating criteria.   According to the criteria, it is essential BECAUSE it is a masterpiece and therefore gets 5 stars.   A 4 star album is an excellent addition to any prog rock collection and a 3 star album is good but not essential.   I think the criteria are quite clear.   I am not aware of any correlation between influence and 'essential' in the guidelines, please correct me if I am wrong there.  


Edited by rogerthat - January 08 2013 at 10:53

SolarLuna96 wrote: 5 - Good 1-Bad

Sadly, some see it that way.

....or rather

5 - I like it
4 - OK
3 - sucks
2 - sucks
1 - sucks!

^ This.

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ You are missing the point. An artist works so hard, puts so much love and care into a work that cannot be understood by everyone on this globe, and he gets a f$%king star or two for the work? Who are we to say that we are at the liberty to judge someone's music based on what we like? Discrimination is what it is, and the rating system is a means to do that.* * Sorry for sounding a bit like a radical. Just trying to sell a point.

Green Shield Stamp wrote: 5.  Great - the best 4.  Not as good as 5 but better than 3 3.  Not as good as 4 but better than 2 2. Not as good as 3 but better than 1 1. Crap - the worst

Yep. 

smartpatrol wrote: What does each star rating mean when you give it? 5.0: Masterpiece; perfect or just about perfect 4.5: Amazing; almost a masterpiece but not quite 4.0: Great; no major flaws 3.5: Got some bad songs, but mostly awesome 3.0: Mixed; a lot of ups and downs 2.5: Forgettable and 2.0 to 0.5 are varying degrees of bad

5- Nearly flawless, mindblowing, perfect
4.5- Nearly flawless, superb
4.0-Some minor flaws but excellent
3.5-Substantial flaws, but still great
3.0- Substantial flaws, but still quite enjoyable
2.5- Deeply flawed, has some enjoyable elements while many elements are either poor or mediocre. Mediocre
2.0- Listenable, with a few enjoyable elements, but very flawed.
1.5- Barely listenable, but listenable nonetheless. Poor.
1.0- Terrible, and unlistenable.

No, I didn't have that kind of technical sophistication back in those days.

Alitare wrote: I can fit my mind into any rating system. Some use a five point system (Progarchives: 1-5 stars) There's a nine point system (All Music Guide: 1-5 stars with halves) There's a ten point system (Mark Prindle: 1-10) There's a fifteen point system (Starostin's site: 1-15 even though he never used anything below a 3 I think) There's a 41 point system (Game Informer: 0.00 - 10.0 with 0.25 intervals) There's a percentile/100 point system (0 - 100% or 0.0 - 10.0, several) There's the 'school' point system. That's basically a thirteen point system (F - A+, excepting the potential for F- and F+ as an option - Guys like Christgau use this one) There's a sixteen point system, or hexadecimal. John McFerrin, a member of this website, uses that on his own album reviews site. There's even a two point system 'Good or bad', 'thumbs up or thumbs down', 'yes or no' (0-1). This is the only system I don't like using.  No matter if you use hexadecimal, letters, numbers one to ten, percentages, or some other goofball rating, you got a number of 'points' or 'potential ratings' to dish out. If you wanted to have a whacked out system that only utilized prime numerals that involved a fifty-six point system, that's as plausible as anything else. I use what I use in my head for myself alone. When I write reviews (personal, journal-entry type things I use mostly for my own reference and practice) I jump from a 15 point system because it makes more sense to me, to a letter system which is easier on my head. If I am writing about albums, I use a 15 point system. If I'm writing about single songs (like with Hank William's 40 greatest or the Duke Ellington centennial boxset or The Bear Family Shadow of Clinch Mountain Carter Family boxset or whatever) I like using the letters 13 point system. The ratings are only useful to me in relating how I feel about an album to myself. I'd never pretend that saying 'I'd give blah blah an eleven point nine out of fourteen' means anything specific to anyone but myself.  It takes a special kind of record or collection of songs for me to give this rating (or higher): A-(11/13), 13/15 (13/15), D/10 (hex - 13/16), 4.5/5 (8/9), 9/10 (9/10), 5/5 (5/5), 8.75/10 (36/41) 90%/100% - 9.0/10.0 (90/100), etc. So far, out of the two and a half thousand albums I've heard, about 140 of them fall in that 'golden' category of major works that have heavily influenced me emotionally. This ranges from Peter Gabriel's "Melt" to Jesus Christ Superstar, from Wish You Were Here to Portishead's Dummy, from Ziggy Stardust to Abbey Road, from Gunfighter Ballads and Trail songs to Songs of Love and Hate. The only way a rating would be viable to someone is if they included a detailed explanation of what each number meant to them.

You left out the personal and completely arbitrary system I designed for a movie review blog I used to run.
It was called "Llamatinees" and I awarded a scores based on llamas. The score would range from negative infinity to infinity llamas. Here is the review I did for The Illusionist, so you can see how it works.

 

Llamatinee: The Illusionist

WARNING: This Llamareview may or may not contain spoilers. The only way to find out is to read it.

 

Huzzah for magic! Who doesn't love a good magic show? If the answer is you, then you should probably leave now.

Plus two llamas for Edward Norton's smashing performance, with just a hint of an Austrian accent. Norton is one of my favorite actors and I feel he gets far to little recognition. Hopefully, that will change soon.

Plus a llama for Eastern Europe, the best part of Europe (sorry, Scandinavia.)

Plus three llamas for exquisitely wonderful facial hair all around. It's going to come back into style, mark my words.

Minus a llama for never getting to see Budapest. I was so looking forward to that.

Plus two more llamas for the illusions themselves, perhaps the most elegant and charming that I've seen, which is surprising since Hollywood special effects should have made such things unimpressive by now.

Plus a llama for Rufus Sewell's drunk acting. Lots of actors have a hard time making drunk look realistic. This is unacceptable, given the amount of real life practice they've had. Well done, Rufus. Also, I like your name. Rufus.

Finally, plus 4 llamas for an ending which I don't think anyone expected. I won't spoil it for you, but it's great.

 

Grand Total: 12 llamas! Even with David Bowie, the Prestige is going to have to work really hard to top this one.

I can fit my mind into any rating system.