Indukti- Idmen, 2.83 rating!?

Folks, it's all opinion.

There is no "objective" way to judge music.  There is no golden standard.  I will never believe there is.  Call it a poor album distinct from your liking it, but it's still your opinion that it's poor.

Let me ask you this, Dean.  You say " I can tell the difference between a poor album and one I don't like." I'd like to know if you believe the converse is also true.  Can you tell the difference between a masterpiece and one you do like?

No offense, but all that just sounds like pedantic elitism when it comes to music.

Let's say a band comes out with a genuinely unique sound and approach that most people (let's say 75% of prog lovers here) can't stand.  Should they then write a review that says, "Well, I personally don't like it, but I am giving this album four stands because it is an excellent addition for those who appreciate this sort of music?"  Perish the thought!

Music is meant to be heard.  If you don't want to hear it, how in the hell can it be a masterpiece to you (the reviewer)?  Reviewers, don't speak for other people- speak for yourself.  Calling something a four that you can't stand is really unhelpful.  Build a reputation as a reviewer, and those with similar tastes will flock to your reviews to determine what to get next.  I know I do that with ClemofNazareth and several others.

12% gave The Final Cut one star.  I gave it four.  71% gave In the Court of the Crimson King a five.  I gave it a three.  I stand by my ratings.

I appreciate, and sometimes am, the voice of dissent.  Why?  All because of the nature of the opinion.  Besides- if an album has over 100 reviews, mine won't change the rating that much.

An album is only a masterpiece because a bunch of people collectively agree it is. So, really, the only difference between a masterpiece and an album you like is that a masterpiece is an album that a bunch of other people also like.

Music is music, rate it how you like it.

Epignosis wrote: Folks, it's all opinion. There is no "objective" way to judge music.  There is no golden standard.  I will never believe there is.  Call it a poor album distinct from your liking it, but it's still your opinion that it's poor. Let me ask you this, Dean.  You say " I can tell the difference between a poor album and one I don't like." I'd like to know if you believe the converse is also true.  Can you tell the difference between a masterpiece and one you do like? No offense, but all that just sounds like pedantic elitism when it comes to music.

When you listen to a piece of music you will arrive at some conclusion about whether you like it or not (your opinion). But it is possible, with great experience (as in: having listened to thousands of albums), to develop a sense for how your opinion might be biased.

Ever heard the phrase "guilty pleasure"? Sometimes you come across something that contains both elements you love and elements you hate, and for some reason you choose to ignore the latter. Then you can still be able to enjoy it, but in a review you would (hopefully) take into account that others might not be able to ignore the bad elements. Ignoring them and telling them only about the good parts is not very helpful IMO.

BTW: I love Star Trek's Ltd. Commander Data's line: "An artist's growth depends on accurate feedback". I think you'll remember that at PF I rated your album 6/10 - much lower than all the other members did. I stand by that rating, since I think that there is *much* that can (and should) be improved in comparison to the masterpieces of the genre. What use would it be to you or anyone else if I gave it the same rating as Neal Morse - One or Genesis - Foxtrot?

A well presented and better-informed opinion is more valuable than others.  Some opinions (reviews and and ratings) can be considered more valid than others.  I believe that one can judge in a reasonably objective manner within certain frameworks (and some frameworks could be said to better than others).  I can hear when something is amateurish, and would take that into account. Even if I didn't much like it, if something shows considerable instrumental and compositional skill, then it would expect that I would rate it higher than something that sounds like a preschool jam session no matter how much I enjoy that preschool -sounding jam.

I'm not saying anything useful here, but whether opinion or not, some opinions are more valid and better-informed than others.  An opinion is an assessment or belief short of proof, and a view held as probable.  Some opinions have more objectivity than others.  When someone is misinformed about the music (stylistic attributes etc.), doesn't understand it and is not well-informed about it, that assessment becomes less reliable, and one may build a framework for the value assessment built on faulty assumptions.

I think it useful to compare an album to similar music to come up with an assessment, and be aware of certian biases that are liable to skew one's assessment.  For instance, one might find an album whose lyrics are abhorrent to one's beliefs, or musical expression is very different from one's tastes.  I think one should factor that in, and certainly make it clear in the review.

Ultimately I do think that the review matters far more than the rating itself, and if one presents clearly and knowledgeably why one believes it to be poor within certain contexts and constructs, then the low rating is justified.

I could not give Close to the Edge more than a three, but darned if I have the powers to express well why not only do I not enjoy it that much, but I don't think it's a great album (I don't feel it's that tight, fiddly, and I do feel like it's extended pop to quite an extent).

Incidentally, I would like to see a different ratings system with various factors each having say five or ten points that we will fill in and then it's averaged.  I've gone into this in the past.

I hope that one day the owner will consider abandoning, or at the very least lessening, the ratings weightings (at least when it comes to the variance between collab and non-collab ratings).  That's elitist, and IF it's all opinion, and IF one says that all opinions are equal (they're not), then it's very misguided.  I understand the value in terms of lessening ratings abuse, however. I haven't heard it, but I suspect that Induklti's is a good example of when that weighting system fails.  With great weighting comes great responsibility.

Unnecessary EDIT: What I'd quite like to see is the option to see the ratings without such weightings (there could be various options to see algorithms of one's choosing).  No need, that I can see, to limit people's choices when it comes to optional algorithms methinks.


Edited by Logan - August 20 2009 at 13:24

harmonium.ro wrote: Epignosis wrote: Let's say a band comes out with a genuinely unique sound and approach that most people (let's say 75% of prog lovers here) can't stand.  Should they then write a review that says, "Well, I personally don't like it, but I am giving this album four stands because it is an excellent addition for those who appreciate this sort of music?"  Perish the thought! Music is meant to be heard.  If you don't want to hear it, how in the hell can it be a masterpiece to you (the reviewer)?  Reviewers, don't speak for other people- speak for yourself.  Calling something a four that you can't stand is really unhelpful.  Build a reputation as a reviewer, and those with similar tastes will flock to your reviews to determine what to get next.  I know I do that with ClemofNazareth and several others. That is not what we are talking about; of course everything is about opinion. The topic here is excess. You give the best example of reason yourself: you hear a album deemed as masterpiece, you find it's nowhere near that status in your opinion, but you appreciate in an objective manner it's good sides and give it a reasoned mediocre rating. I can disagree with your opinion but I can only agree with the way you acted. This is nothing like getting bitter because of disappointment and expressing it by an extreme rating.

Please tell me where this "objectiveness" comes from when rating music.  I get so tired of hearing people "rating albums objectively."  That's impossible.  Anytime you render a star rating, it's an opinion, plain and simple.  Here, let me simplify things:

Objective: Rick Wakeman plays the piano at 4:55 on the second track.

Subjective: Rick Wakeman's piano playing on the second track is brilliant.

No one can argue with the first statement (unless it's untrue)- it's a matter of fact.

Anyone can (and will) argue with the second statement.  It's a matter of opinion.

I refuse to give a mediocre rating because a majority like an album.  That, I'm sorry to say, is pandering and silly.  I will never do it.  Images and Words will always be a two star album.  So will ELP's debut.  I will not alter my opinion because of mass appeal.  That's what the pop music industry seeks.

Voicing my approval for epignosis' posts.

There are numerous criteria that allow you to approximate an objective "greatness value" for albums/songs/bands/whatever. Ultimately, they largely boil down to how much people liked the album (popularity, etc), with only criteria like innovativeness not being dependent on a wide sampling of subjective opinion.

This greatness is not inherent in the music itself. If no one liked Close to the Edge, it would not be a great album. It is only a great album because a lot of people liked it, and because many of these people were musicians who went on to be influenced by it (because they liked it).

You like what you like. A review is a chance for a subjective look at the album. If it tries to objective, it is not particularly useful. I can get an objective (somewhat) view of what people think of an album by looking at its average rating on progarchives or rateyourmusic or some similar site.

But see Dean, this is all what makes this site a rich tapestry of information.

You have your own method, and I have mine.

That means I can find those who have methods of ratings and reviewing similar to my own, and I can look to them for inspiration.

Likewise, those who see what albums I rate highly (but dislike them), can move on to another reviewer.

I think this is merely a small part that makes Prog Archives the prog rock site on the web.  Everyone gets an opinion, but we find others who share our tastes and we look at what else they have rated highly.  Rating something highly because "others may or do like it" helps no one (I think).

Dean wrote: While I like the idea of profiling each reviewer to find one that matches my own personal view, that's impractical when looking at a particular album that is new to me and deciding whether or not to invest in it - firstly because I do not believe that another person on the planet has exactly the same tastes as me, and secondly those that may get close probably haven't reviewed that album anyway, which is why I seldom take any account of the rating and only read the reviews, pretty much regardless of who wrote them - I can probably gain more insight by reading a review by someone whose tastes are the diametric opposite of mine than by someone whose tastes are closer.

I respect that, but it does not mean someone should tailor their reviews to suit a majority.

And I showed that those ratings weren't helpful (at least to me).