Your rating system
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=90801
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 16:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Your rating system
Posted By: smartpatrol
Subject: Your rating system
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 22:48
|
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 ------------- http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">  The greatest record label of all time! |
Replies:
Posted By: Eria Tarka
Date Posted: November 27 2012 at 22:50
I agree with this just fine.
|
smartpatrol wrote:Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 01:06
|
My rating criteria list is pretty loaded. In it are things like originality, capability to blow my mind, musical and lyrical talent, consistency, etc. It's simple math there. That means that the record under my current review would have to be one hell of a record to get a five from me. The less criteria the record passes, the lower the rating. There was a time when I used to write pretty heavily for a few days on the grounds of enjoyment (which was just not fair to the authors whose works I've rated). I'm intent on re-doing all of my reviews and ratings, making them as objective as I will see them to be whilst retaining a hint of personality in the reviews.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 01:09
|
I increasingly find rating standards to be trite and unnecessary-- 'what do I think?' is my rating system |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 01:14
|
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 06:12
This, more or less. Mostly I'll have an idea of what rating I will give in my head by the time I listen a few times. ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: zravkapt
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 07:01
|
Rating is overrated.
------------- Magma America Great Make Again |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 07:34
|
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 08:15
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 08:20
|
For what it's worth, here's what the stars mean to me. 5 stars = Album with few to no weak spots, I am truly awed by it. My enjoyment is likely to translate to others, and the album has a "special place" in my heart and soul. 4 stars = Excellent album that I would recommend. Either very consistently good, or so strange and original that it makes up for any flaws or shortcomings. 3 stars = A good album that I enjoy, but would probably not place on a "favorites" list. 2 stars = A so-so to decent album that's fairly flawed but can still be a bit of fun if I'm in the right mood. (edit: typical of this category could be albums where I really like just one or two songs a lot) 1 star = I haven't given any of these yet. Just a bad album. I just haven't been inspired to spend the time reviewing, let alone listening carefully enough to produce a thoughtful review, something I truly consider bad. Plus, I kind of like "bad" albums in a perverse sort of way, so I'd be torn as to whether to really give it the 1. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 08:31
I pretty much agree with these, although my two star is a little harsher and my three star covers a broader basis from album I quite like, but are significantly flawed, to albums that are merely decent throughout. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 08:40
|
Very cool thread.....
My general rating system works like this..................as an example ; an album featuring 8 cuts..........I rate each piece out of 5...............then, because the rate is out of 5, then, 8 tracks X 5 score = 40. Then, the total track-by-track rating, divide by, in this case, 40, times 100 then gives me the percentage. It is with this calculation I establish whether an album is 1 star (0-19), 2 stars (20-39), 3 stars (40-59), 4 stars (60-79) then 5 stars 80-100. Sure, a masterpiece should end with 100%, but this is a damn near impossible thing. Even on my favourite albums, I've never come across the entire track-list being all 5's in quality for each song..........It may be geeky, but this is how I rate my albums.........
|
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 08:49
|
Seems to be a sensible system. Quite different from mine which is more holistic, but I can definitely dig where you're coming from.
------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 08:57
For me, an album is more than the sum of its parts, and so I would never use a system similar to yours. For example, I rate 2112 as a five star album, even though no song on side two would get a five from me. If I used your system, 2112 would get about 67%. But I think the album as a whole is stronger than that despite the weakness of some of it's songs. The title track being so long and so good gives it more weight than a single five star song of say, 4 minutes on another album. -------------
|
Posted By: Sagichim
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 09:02
|
Every album I rate or think about rating, I feel has an accurate rating like 3.2 or 4.1, it's easier this way for me to explain myslef and to be exact. It's not only 5 levels of quality, every star is like an area of quality. If I have to generalize it I'll say: 5+ is a rating I'll mention in my review it means not only is the album a masterpiece it's also reinventing the genre (reserved for a very few albums) 5 stars - Masterpiece, or no weak tracks. 4 stars - Very good album, or not all tracks are in the same quality but still enjoyable. 3 stars - Good album with some weak or forgettable tracks. 2 stars - An album with only few good tracks. 1 stars - A bad album, have no good tracks. |
Posted By: menawati
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 09:10
|
I end up putting a lot at 5 that would be 9/10 if the rating system was more fine grained. ------------- They flutter behind you your possible pasts, Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost. |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 09:22
Emotional factors also play a role for example albums which for any reason have a special place in your heart may get a higher rating than a clinical analysis would.
Or the context, for example if the album was particularly special for the timing of its release, how original or groundbreaking it was, it's a debut album or the 20th in a band's career...
Or the quality of a concept story, even the artwork and packaging can contribute. So many factors can play a role, I am not in favour of mathematical approaches, I just pick my rating from my overall general feeling.
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 09:41
|
5: Incredible, like nothing I have ever heard before, can't stop listening to it 4: Wonderful, enjoyed it very much,it's going to be in the playlist for a long time 3: Pretty good, not something I can't do without...just meh 2: Decent at best, pretty dull/weak, get it away 1: Horrible, never ever gonna listen to this |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 15:53
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 16:00
|
5 stars - Either its Close To The Edge or Red or its one of my favourite bands and I will give it top marks even though others think its a pile of ****
4 stars - Its not perfect (ie its not Close To Edge or Red) but its worth owning and taking seriously
3 stars - I'm bored and really can't be bothered to review it although I know its not bad
2 stars - currently the album has an average rating of 4.89 which is plain stupid. I will do something about that!
1 star - What is this band doing in the database anyway??
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 17:04
|
Ivan posted a great rating system a few (probably more) months ago. I'll see if I can find it. But, for my personal rating system, it's based purely on my enjoyment of the album. If I enjoy it very very extremely immensely than it gets a 5. If it's a piece of garbage which is less enjoyable than being lauled by tigers it gets a 0. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 17:30
|
5 stars - consistently amazing. At best it's flawless (Close to the Edge). At worst there's a slight amount of weaker material (Selling England by the Pound), but rarely more than one song (unless it's a double or the songs are really short) and even that one is usually at least decent. This is the kind of album that I can always listen to from start to finish. 4 stars - mostly great, but not consistently so. For example, an album with one half great tracks and one half merely good tracks (Absolutely Free). Or an album with mostly great tracks but one or two bad ones (Songs from the Wood). Or anything in between that (In a Glass House). In any case, the good has to significantly outweigh the bad. Usually also an album I will want to listen to from start to finish, even though I may skip a track occasionally. 3 stars - The good outweighs the bad, but not by that much. This might be an album with some great songs but also some really bad ones (Starless and Bible Black). Or it might consist primarily of songs that are decent but unspectacular, with few outliers in either direction (Foxtrot). Sometimes I will listen to the whole album, but more often I will skip some songs or only play my favorites. 2 stars - My overall impression is negative, but there's some good material. This is the choice rating for bad albums with some great tracks on them (Wind & Wuthering) or albums that are often interesting but never quite successful (Lizard). I usually don't listen to the entire album, but I will pick out what I consider the highlights and discard the rest. 1 stars - A flat-out bad album. Either all of the tracks suck (Atom Heart Mother) or there are some okay moments here and there (Train of Thought), but nothing that I would miss if I were to get rid of the album. Even if the rest of the album is atrocious, the presence of just one honestly good track is enough to bump the entire album to 2 stars. I never listen to 1-star album except for 'academic' purposes. Usually determining the rating is a rather mathematical thing (which tracks do I like how much and how much album space do they take up?), but keeping in my mind things like sequencing and the aggregate effect of the songs. |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 18:38
Only 3 stars for Foxtrot and 2 for Wind and Wuthering or Lizard?
 man you're harsh... |
Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 18:46
|
Foxtrot, WaW, and Lizard are all masterpieces in my book
------------- http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow"> The greatest record label of all time! |
Posted By: Andy Webb
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 18:50
So you rate all albums based off how similar they are to those albums? edit: Did not see OP. I take that back.
 ------------- http://ow.ly/8ymqg" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 19:43
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:00
|
I believe when you participate in a site that means to convey information to site users, one should follow the site's ratings definitions as much as possible so that users actually know what your rating means, and have useful information about the average rating. Your own personal definitions are fine on your own blog, but users of the site are not likely to know your personal system. I guess I've just never understood what is so hard about making a good faith effort to follow the intent of the site's rating guidelines, and what we gain from all the hand wringing and over-thinking about ratings. Maybe I've just seen this topic one too many time. Do what thou wilt.  |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:03
I'm not harsh in general, just on those particular albums, which I happen not to like much. I have rated the vast majority of albums that are well-regarded here with 4 or 5 stars. I just tried to pick some examples that most people have heard of. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:12
|
An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star. Rating systems don't account for this and important things can be lost in translation. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:15
|
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:18
Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:20
|
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:23
I would say it's a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense in which factors such as quality and importance are mixed into certain combinations, but leaving no room for other combinations. In the PA rating system, every essential albums must also be a masterpiece and vice versa. But that's not a flaw with rating systems in general, it's just a flaw with this particular one. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:30
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:30
|
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:46
You're reversing my statement. The fact that every flawless record gets the highest grade does not mean that every record with the highest grade is flawless.
I have no idea what you're saying.
You may say that every masterpiece is essential. But is every essential album a masterpiece? Even ignoring the fact that I don't think there's such a thing as an 'essential' album, In the Court of the Crimson King is about as close to essential as a prog album gets. Yet I don't think it's a masterpiece, and on a quality-based scale, I think it deserves four stars. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:53
1) Why would you say that the PA rating system is "a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense"? 2) It just seemed like you were having a problem with the system considering "factors such as quality and importance" that "[leave] no room for other combinations". I linked the two together, and that's where my previous question came from.
|
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 21:28
Absolutely.  For this topic, I assumed the OP was talking about your own personal scales. For the purposes of reviewing on this site, I follow the guidelines provided (just like I would if I was reviewing on a different site with different rules). I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 21:41
|
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 21:47
Thank you so much for saying this. I can't stand it when people will give something a lower rating because they do not see it as "a masterpiece". It all matters on how you interpret it which is why the overall rating of an album is complied of individuals' ratings. ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 21:49
I give this thread a 1.5 rating. It's just a half-step up from banal. 
------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 28 2012 at 22:08
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 01:22
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 01:32
| ^ I've heard a lot worse - |
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 02:39
I'd like to think we all stay true to the site's guidelines for rating albums. The overall 'score' we give an album is still personally judged by our own selves, we have an 'inbuilt system' with which we determine what an album does for us - it's our own individual perception of an album - a great example is National Health's debut album. To me, it ticks all the right boxes to label it a 'masterpiece', but to many others, it may be a fairly average album. Dave Stewart's fuzzed organ is pure bliss to my ears but obnoxious to many. I love Anglagard's stop/start approach, few bars of this, then let's fly off in this direction. FANTASTIC !! To certain folks, this just doesn't suit. Personal taste counts for a lot in ratings. No one person is right or wrong.
|
Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 05:27
Perfect. ------------- https://gabebuller.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - New album! http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385 |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 05:43
One word for each is enough - but I rather review than rate - poor - fair - good - excellent - masterpiece------------- 
|
Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 06:08
|
5 stars - As close as things come to perfect. 4.5 stars - Very close to being a full-blown masterpiece, often not much difference between a 4.5 and a 5. 4 stars - Relatively solid and excellent. 3.5 stars - Very good, but occasionally some slight clangers here and there maybe. 3 stars - As others say, either has some good tracks with some bad ones, or is just inoffensive and relatively unspectacular. 2.5 stars - Shows some strength in spots, but is mainly mediocre. 2 stars - Little in there that's good, not completely bad though. 1.5 stars - Most definitely not my thing. Could start to grate and annoy me a bit. 1 star - Bad. Avoid. 0.5 stars - Masochist material. Something like that. ------------- https://gabebuller.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - New album! http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385 |
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 07:28
This comes close enough. Modified or added descriptions in colour. Just a few reviews, no ratings for me. ------------- 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 09:27
Agree completely. |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 09:41
So when the topic asked for "your rating system", in my case I assumed it meant, "what is your personal interpretation of the PA ratings system". Which is a fair question, I think. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 10:37
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 20:11
|
^ Right |
Posted By: Nogbad_The_Bad
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 20:57
Personally I decide how much I like an album and give it the rating accordingly. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 20:59
|
^ 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.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 21:09
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 21:22
| ^ What are uncommon rating systems? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 21:26
|
Well we could make one up, but I think that's for a different thread. |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 29 2012 at 21:31
^ Right. 
|
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 01:56
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 02:06
Fair enough but most musicians (artists in general) hope that their work will be appreciated by the public and sell. They do not just compose and record the music and keep it for themselves, they publish it and hope that people will like it and buy it.
So the judgement by the public is an unavoidable part of the game. If the public does not appreciate the work, we may not be entitled to say that it is "bad" but it is fair to say that the musician failed in an aspect of his target.
|
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 11:23
I think you're misunderstanding me. The PA rating system is based both on quality and importance as determining factors. So far, so good. The problem then is that it accepts only certain combinations of quality and importance. For example, there is no valid rating for an essential album that is not a masterpiece, because the rating system implies that every masterpiece is essential and every essential album is a masterpiece. When rating an album like In the Court of the Crimson King, I'm faced with a dilemma: Do I give it 5 stars because I think it's essential, or do I give it 4 stars because I think it's not a masterpiece? For that reason, I ignore the "importance" factor completely and assign my ratings as if quality (i.e. my personal enjoyment) were the only deciding factor. Generally that lines up pretty well with the PA rating system.
Okay, let's only say positive things about music.  In all seriousness, don't take ratings for something they are not. They're merely an indicator of how much we enjoy an album. When I give Atom Heart Mother (an album that certainly had a lot of work put into it) one star, that doesn't mean I'm criticizing Pink Floyd for making it or that I think they shouldn't have made it. I'm grateful that they made it, just like I'm grateful that any piece of music was made. It just means that I wouldn't care to hear it again.
That wouldn't solve anything. I've read many, many reviews that are more arrogant, presumptuous and judgmental than a simple number could ever be. |
Posted By: HolyMoly
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 11:33
I would be perfectly ok if PA did that too, although PA is a little different in that it's not just a collection of reviews, but a database of information, designed to make it easy to find something you might like -- thus, the genre teams and the star rankings. Reviews alone would mean finding recommendations for the average Joe a bit difficult and time consuming. I suspect a lot of people use this site who aren't collaborators or forum participants, and the site seems to be designed in a way to be useful to the casual passer-by (thus, more traffic and more revenue) as well as the drooling maniacs like us. ------------- My other avatar is a Porsche It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased. -Kehlog Albran |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 12:03
|
Yeah, with all their limitations rankings are still useful, but surely you must read reviews before blindly trusting numerical rankings. That's why PA is great because it allows everybody to write reviews and not just rate so you get to read more varied points of view and opinions.
For me it's quite OK as it is.
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 13:28
|
But we also have to consider the fact that a lot of members of this site are very negligent of what each rating means. This only makes rating unreliable. Sure you can look at a rating and figure whether this album will work for you or not, but ...
|
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 18:03
|
I would have to say that the written part is the easier part of this rating process - choosing the 'score' is always difficult (especially between 4 and 5) - click 5 and that little warning window appears and then I question myself.........sometimes it's "nah, f**k it, 5 it is, others it's with great pondering.... "O.K. I'll tick 4 and call it 4 and a half". But most people probably won't agree. What happens when an album, say the new one from 'Echolyn' (which is quite superb) is given a 1 or 2 stars by some random folk but the written part says (now this is NOT a quote) 'it's complex, nicely played and arranged but I don't think what they're doing is anything special' ?? And what of those (whom we'll never know) who listen to an album once or twice and pull an instant rating from thin air ?? Hat's off to them coz I couldn't do it.
BTW, this thread is very interesting, and this topic is often one that gets discussed amongst my friends and I over the years. Totally valid.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 19:41
|
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 20:10
|
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.
|
Posted By: Tom Ozric
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 21:03
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 21:45
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. -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 22:27
|
^ are there little llama symbols next to the review? |
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: November 30 2012 at 22:32
|
No, I didn't have that kind of technical sophistication back in those days.
-------------
|
Posted By: jacquesduraques
Date Posted: December 30 2012 at 13:55
|
Aaahhh, i have found a thread concerning the rating system.... so i will write my thought inside this one. Well, i have some "problems" with the "5 star amazon rating system". In my opinion, it does not offer enough space to make special differences. For me, a 15 point rating system works much better. I always translate the 5 star system into this one. 5 stars -15, 14 and 13 points 4 stars - 12, 11, 10 3 stars - 9, 8, 7 2 stars - 6,5,4 1 star - 3, 2, 1 For me, normally only albums with 10 points plus are really worth buying. The exception proves the rule. For my taste, this works very well. Regarding this rating scheme, i refer to the "babyblauen-seiten". When i look at progarchives it seems, that 3,5 points as an average rating are (for me!) equivalent to "my 10 point experiences". Therefore, albums with 3,5 plus points are worth buying.... greetings from germany j.
|
Posted By: QuestionableScum
Date Posted: December 30 2012 at 14:07
|
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. |
Posted By: infocat
Date Posted: December 30 2012 at 21:15
------------- -- Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
Posted By: zeqexes
Date Posted: January 05 2013 at 02:19
This pretty much explains it for me ------------- 
|
Posted By: Green Shield Stamp
Date Posted: January 06 2013 at 13:05
|
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 ------------- Haiku Writing a poem With seventeen syllables Is very diffic.... |
Posted By: SaltyJon
Date Posted: January 06 2013 at 13:07
Yep. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Salty_Jon" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 06 2013 at 13:42
|
I proposed a .5 stars system 5 stars: Essential, a Masterpiece of Progressive Rock 4.5 stars: Not a masterpiece (even wen close to this status), still essential for any Prog Collection 4 stars: Excellent addition to any prog music collection 3.5 stars: Excelent addition to most fans of the genre 3 stars: Good but not essential 2.5 stars: Average 2 stars: Collectors and fans only 1.5 stars: Diehard fans only 1 Star: Poor. Only for completionists 0.5 stars: Better avoid it ------------- 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 06 2013 at 19:13
It's not necessary that only a lack of understanding of the work would call for a low rating. In spite of an artist working so hard and putting so much love and care and all that, it may still be a terrible album and most albums out there are either terrible or mediocre or dull. If we don't distinguish between the mediocre and the brilliant and average out the ratings to a 4-plus uniformly (which often happens in corporate appraisals, by the way), we are only discriminating against brilliant artists. 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. If the reason you want to rate and review is because you can't stand the high ratings/low ratings for some artists and want to 'balance' the equation, please don't. This is unfortunately where not only this but most review websites get biased and distorted. I don't necessarily buy the concept of holy cows, but if you don't like an acknowledged classic the first time you hear it, that's not the time to rush to the comp to draft a flaming rant. Just get on a social network or even the PA forum to vent your disgust but a review should be a carefully considered and thought out exercise. Better not attempted if you don't want to invest that much effort in it.
|
Posted By: Luna
Date Posted: January 06 2013 at 19:32
|
5 - Good 1-Bad ------------- https://aprilmaymarch.bandcamp.com/track/the-badger" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: January 06 2013 at 20:32
| ^ This. |
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: January 06 2013 at 20:34
lol'd ------------- Crushed like a rose in the riverflow. |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 06 2013 at 20:36
Sadly, some see it that way. ....or rather 5 - I like it 4 - OK 3 - sucks 2 - sucks 1 - sucks! |
Posted By: HarbouringTheSoul
Date Posted: January 08 2013 at 04:54
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? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: January 08 2013 at 10:51
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. |