Your Ratings

I have a question for everyone. Do you decide by your ratings of albums influenced by personal experience, or on the significance of an album? For example you might give “Big Generator” 5 stars while you’d give “Close to the Edge” 2 stars because you like “Big Generator” more.

I’m basically asking is your opinion, your own opinion or are just agreeing with the mass?

Well, IMHO -

The difference between a 4 and a 5 is purely subjective. I wrote once "an album only deserves five stars if at the end of hearing it you are either setting in stunned silence, or are ready to make a major life change."

A 1 has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and was probably only released to fulfill a recording contract, or because the artist didn't have friends who were honest enough to save him/her some embarrasement. A 2 is almost as bad but may have some sort of historical or technical interest to fans.

So that leaves a 3, which is a pretty good album.

Although I haven't given many ratings (I don't think I am ready yet as I am expanding my prog appreciation - especially albums from after the 90's) any rating I give will be on the pleasure it gives me. I couldn't give two hoots about whether it is prog or not - although having said that it just so happens that my musical taste is very heavily prog labelled and there is some fantastic prog music out there. I certainly wouldn't give any extra ratings just because it is prog labelled.

Perhaps the ratings should change to a scale between Hairs rising on back of the neck to headache.

I have a CD storage system (I'll only buy CDs ie not downloads) that takes up to about 440 albums. There is room for another 30 or so. After it's filled I'll rank them by enjoyment and if I get a new one that I like one will have to drop off the bottom.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: limeyrob wrote: I have a CD storage system (I'll only buy CDs ie not downloads) that takes up to about 440 albums. There is room for another 30 or so. After it's filled I'll rank them by enjoyment and if I get a new one that I like one will have to drop off the bottom. That's interesting ... I have also decided to limit my collection. As soon as I don't have any room left in my shelves (capacity: approx. 1000 CDs) I sell those that I like the least.

1000 CDs - I'll have to get a new wall for that many. But if I stay looking at this site I may well have to. I consider that I've only scratched the surface of prog music. Anyway I'm into the garden now to do some weeding in the veg plot. With my walkman of course. I don't select the album I listen to. I have it sorted by album title and just press the on and off buttons. What you might say on a 5 month loop round.

Back this evening

i rate albums based on how i like them and nothing more...

BUT... i respect all albums that are generally accepted as masterpieces (even if i don't consider them to be ones, my self...) and always try to understand why, by listening to them over and over again...

Well I cannot help taking into considering the album's importance (historical, musical or artistic and the influence it had on others), but this is hardly the only criterias for my ratings. The enjoyment of an album is of course the main one.

Anthony wrote: Sean Trane wrote: The enjoyment of an album is of course the main one.   Well, then there's one thing we both do agree on.

My ratings are mainly subjective, based on the overall impact the album in question has had on me. However, there are other factors I take into consideration as well - such as historic value for a given subgenre (for instance, the four stars I gave to "Images and Words" are based more on that than on actual personal enjoyment of the album), or particularly good musicianship or singing.

My reviews see a prevalence of four stars, because many of the albums I have reviewed (97 so far) are in my eyes very good, though not perfect. However, I gave five stars to albums which I consider imperfect but essential for the development of prog (like SEbtP or BSS). I know some people consider very personal ratings a negative thing, but I think it is practically impossible to be really objective when reviewing a work of art (be it music, literature, or any of the visual arts). Professional critics never are, which is clearly evident, especially when they pan something: I've seen reviews so virulent, that one could have been forgiven for believing that the artist in question had actually harmed the reviewer in some way.

When I love an album and want to give it 5 stars, I ask myself, "Sure I love it.  But will others like it as much as I do?"  If you want to give something 5 stars, you better be able to convince yourself that a lot of others would feel the same way.  If you give Big Generator 5 stars, anything else you review from then on will have very little validity to anyone else after that.

The other four ratings are fair game for (just about) any album in my mind.  Personal taste varies so widely that about anything could fall between one and four.

ClemofNazareth wrote: Well, IMHO - The difference between a 4 and a 5 is purely subjective. I wrote once "an album only deserves five stars if at the end of hearing it you are either setting in stunned silence, or are ready to make a major life change." A 1 has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and was probably only released to fulfill a recording contract, or because the artist didn't have friends who were honest enough to save him/her some embarrasement. A 2 is almost as bad but may have some sort of historical or technical interest to fans. So that leaves a 3, which is a pretty good album.

That's pretty much my way of reviewing or at least that's what I'm trying to do. The only difference is that the 4 stars aren't as important as 5 star albums. If 3 stars is a pretty good album then a 4 star, on my book, is a pretty great album.