Reviews that Stand Out

  Yes, but to the causual observer, the contents would seem poor.

I think that the music, on a stand-alone basis, should be what is rated, and that this should not be clouded or obscured by what others may already have in their collection. Should I lower my rating of the Focus compilation Dutch Masters to one star on this basis? I don't think so -- the music is great!

I think that the problem lies with the artificial constraints of having to adapt the review to the rating system, which contains someone else's words.

Take away the star rating from the above review (and the discussion of the criteria which, perforce, accompanies that rating), and we learn that there is very good Marillion music on this disc. Isn't that what the potential buyer is looking for? The review, at a glance, may well turn the potential buyer away from a product that may be exactly what they want.

Ditch the star system, or at least the accompaning words, as I've long urged before! One size (or five, or six) does NOT fit all.

(Just one man's opinion -- feel free to differ....)

Peter,

I disagree with you regarding the ditching of the star rating system or the accompanying explanation of the star ratings. On the whole I think the present system works reasonably well and is helpful. In fact, when preparing a review for submission, the words associated with the star ratings make me pause and think a little more about the rating and review before posting it.

As for the specific review highlighted by maani, I don't think the review text and star rating are so much at odds. After all, tuxon states that the album would not be the best introduction to what Marillion "was and is" and is missing several hits. So I can see why he/she is recommending it only to "completionists" and giving it only one star. I think that's fine. The star quickly tells me that there are better Marillion albums to get, and the review explains why.

Although it's not perfect, I quite like the star rating system. It is a quick visual indication as I glance down a long list of reviews for a specific album, and enables some statistics to be derived which would otherwise not be possible. I find those Prog Rock Web sites that have reviews without star ratings to be less accessible when I want to get a quick idea of a collective opinion. If a collection of reviews for the same album all have low star ratings then I can see that quickly rather than having to plough through every review. If there is wide divergence then I will read the reviews to find out why. And if I have time or am particularly curious about an album or band, I will read the reviews anyway.

I think ProgArchives would not be as much fun without the star ratings, and I think the currently attributed meanings to the star ratings are quite reasonable and make (some) people think about the rating and the review, as is evident from tuxon's review.

By the way, regarding the word "completionist", I believe the correct word is actually "completist", so perhaps MAX@ should correct the text accordingly!

 Thanks Fitz -- I really appreciate your reasoned (and, as usual, reasonable) input. I agree that the star rating system can provide a quick visual overview of an album, but I still can't help but feel that a system that results in the awarding of only one of a possible five stars to an album of music that the reviewer really enjoys is a flawed system.

I have long since accommodated myself to the star rating system, and its criteria (the majority like it, so it rightfully stands), but I still feel that, at a glance, one would conclude that the above album is a bad album ("poor"). If all subsequent reviewers are to be so exacting in their interpretation of the criteria behind the star numbers, the quick visual examination, of the type that you indicate you at times do (me too), could certainly turn many away.

I think that the intent, rather than the "letter" of the law should be applied here. The album supposedly contains "good" music -- shouldn't it merit at least a passing grade? Think with your heart for a minute guys, less with the head, and don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater," or "cut off your nose to spite your face." I would never give only one star (no matter what the thus imperfect criterion indicates) to an album of music that I enjoy as much as the reviewer above seems to enjoy the material on this album! I think that compilations, by nature, are a special case that resist fitting neatly into the stated criteria of our rating system. 

My quick re-working of the above review might read along these lines:

"For the long-term fan, there is nothing new on this compilation, and some of the band's better-known numbers are missing. What is gathered here, however, is of a very high quality overall. Some of Marillion's stronger material, including the indispensible "Grendel," is to be found here. This album is by no means exhaustive in its scope (given the limited space, how could it be?) nor is it a substitute for the original discs from which it is compiled. The MARILLION MUSIC COLLECTION is nonetheless a ready source of some of the band's finer efforts, and could thus serve as an affordable introduction for the curious listener, or as an overview -- albeit limited -- for the casual fan." 3-4 Stars (I would go no lower.)

As usual, I respect your and Maani's positions -- they have much merit -- but, again, I think that good music deserves a good rating. I won't lose any sleep over this -- it's not the end of the world -- but nor will I lower my ratings of the excellent Focus and Strawbs compilations that I've reviewed, to what I think is an artificially (if not ridiculously and misleadingly) low level. For me (and, I suspect, many) one star will always scream "bad album."

Do you see any merit in my arguments?

Respectfully & sincerely,

Peter

And you are right: it should be "completist." I too had doubts when I read and copied the word, and almost looked it up before writing the previous diatribe. 

Thanks Maani -- well put.

I did notice, of course, that Tuxon took care to explain his rating, but I still think that there is a glaring mis-match between the words of praise, and the dismal rating. I also think that many compilations are just fine -- not all album cuts are thematically linked. I have MANY "best of" compilations that are really all that I want from the artists in question.

For the record, and a different perspective on reviewing compilations, I urge you to look at the reviews (and ratings) that I and other Archives reviewers like Bob McBeath gave to Focus - DUTCH MASTERS and Strawbs - A Choice Selection of Strawbs. I could lower my rating of each of these terrific discs from 5 to 4 stars(can a compilation really be a "masterpiece," as it is not a truly a single work?), but that's as low as I would willingly go. The material collected there is top-notch. I came somewhat late to both bands, and, with a limited budget, saw fit to purchase compilations. As implied in my review, I still think that DUTCH MASTERS, plus HAMBURGER CONCERTO, gives one a good (affordable), but obviously not exhaustive, collection of essential Focus.

Please read (or at least peruse) those reviews. They are not too lengthy. 

Peter,

I do see some merit in your arguments, and indeed have myself rated a compilation album highly, although in that specific case the compilation is targeted at a specific decade in the band’s existence and the double-CD in question does have a worthy selection of the band’s music from that decade. In other words, I took both the music and the selection of tracks into account when awarding my star rating.

To me, a star rating applies to an album as a whole, not just the sum of the parts, if you follow my meaning. So, to me, there is no glaring mismatch between tuxon’s review and his/her star rating; tuxon feels that, although there is some good music on the album, it is not the best introduction to the band. As it happens I’m interested in finding out more about Marillion and was interested to see tuxon’s review and rating as I have been stung in the past buying compilation albums only to learn later that a key piece of the artist’s music is not included.

If I understand you correctly, your view is that the rating should be based solely on the music itself, track by track, and not the context. Perhaps I’m stretching your argument a bit? You might find it surprising, but there may not be a real dichotomy between tuxon’s approach and yours: tuxon regards the specific album as unworthy of a high ranking as he obviously is a Marillion fan, knows their work well, sees some glaring omissions and wants to warn newcomers about that. Perhaps if you were to review the album, you might reach the same conclusion: the omission of several key pieces might rankle with you, or be just too glaring to enable you to feel comfortable awarding a higher rating. I don’t know of course that you would react that way with this particular album, but it might well be the case.

I don’t think that there is a fundamental flaw in the system. With a different ranking system, tuxon (or someone else) might have then decided to rank the album lower than other Marillion albums for exactly the same reasons tuxon gave in his/her existing review. I suspect that, whatever the system, people would apply it according to their own, differing, criteria. Your argument is a case in point: tuxon felt the album deserves a low ranking because it is not a good starting point for newcomers; you like the album (I take it you have listened to the album?) because, despite what is missing, what is on it pleases you musically and you would presumably therefore rank it higher within the same (current) system. I.e., even now, when you are both ‘working’ within the same system, you would each rate the album differently. You might argue that tuxon would have given it a higher ranking if the system had been different, i.e. that tuxon’s ranking would have converged with yours. However, for the reasons I mentioned above, that may not have occurred.

I can comfortably live with both approaches within the current system and, as I said, if the system were to be changed I suspect the same differences could well occur in many cases, if not in tuxon’s case then in others.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing that you should now start ranking compilation albums lower! If you, Peter Rideout, like a particular album - whether it is a compilation album or not - and it gives you great pleasure then I see no good reason why you should not rank it highly, and it is of course entirely your prerogative to do so. And I shall do the same; if I enjoy a compilation album I’ll give it a high ranking if I feel it deserves it on its own merit. I’ll give you a specific example: I own “The Very Best Of Jethro Tull”. I believe it annoys TULL fans because there is (only) a short extract from “Thick As A Brick”, which I have to admit is a bit daft. However I like the album and my solution was to buy it and “Thick As A Brick” (sometimes I wish I had kept my LPs!), the two being all I now want of JETHRO TULL's work. If I can ever get the time to review that compilation album, I would probably give it a 4-star rating (within the present system, I should stress!) and state in my review its one limitation in my opinion.

Well, I'm not sure our opinions have converged but I have enjoyed the debate, my friend!

Thanks for your thoughts, Blacksword (are you an Elric fan?).

I agree that there is no need of a major re-working of the "star" system, and that different reviewers will always interpret and apply it according to their own particular logic.

Like you, I still believe that a disc of music that one likes deserves a higher rating than a single star.

My two cents: I think that guidelines, as well as Law, have letter and spirit. In this case, I guess the word "completist" means "huge fan", a sort of advice to avoid some poor albums if reader isn't that. Compilations and live albums, generally, don't have original tracks; so, they are only for completists, but stars rating system is just a guide that summarizes the albums' quality.

Marcelo wrote: My two cents: I think that guidelines, as well as Law, have letter and spirit. In this case, I guess the word "completist" means "huge fan", a sort of advice to avoid some poor albums if reader isn't that. Compilations and live albums, generally, don't have original tracks; so, they are only for completists, but stars rating system is just a guide that summarizes the albums' quality.

I agree with all you've said, except the part I've highlighted, Marcelo.   I think that a compilation is most likely to be bought by the curious or casual fan (live albums are a different case). Why would I buy a Zeppelin or REM compilation, when I already have all of those bands' albums? There's nothing new for me there. The compilation and "best of" discs that I own are most often (apart from -- gasp -- downloads!) the only material I own by those bands.

Thanks for the input!

James Lee wrote: How about a thread of some of the more unique contributions to the reviews? While I don't necessarily want to single people out for ridicule, I think some really fascinatingly mystifying points of view have been submitted. Humor (intentional or unintentional), bizarre observations, or just plain missing the point entirely would be good criteria. Even some of the more warped web-translations would work (I, for one, have come to look forward to andrea salvador's submissions). Here's some recent examples to get us started: YES - Fragile Review by penguindf12 @ 6:01:53 PM EST, 8/11/2004   —   Great album. Excellent. But it's just not Pink Floyd. It would be a five-star in my opinion if I could find out the concept of it or the theme here. I assume it has one? Maybe I'm just nieve, but I can't figure out the lyrical meaning behind the excellent music. If someone could point me to the purpose of the album, please do.

Hey! I was the co-founder of a topic before I even knew it! Not necessarily a good thing is thing case...Hmm...yeah, that was the first non-Floyd review I wrote... I wasn't sure what prog was about then, and thought every album was a concept album...very nieve of me, but now i've got a better review for that album now. Big oops there...

Yet another blow to my ego...