Pet Peeves I Have With Reviews

Epignosis wrote: Don't read reviews. [/thread]

Fixed.

Textbook wrote: "Don't read reviews that bug you" cracks me up. How do you know if a review will bug you before you read it?

The last one is definitely a pet peeve of mine too. It's actually a bad habit I've gotten into that I'm doing my best to break. 

Antennas wrote: My current pet peeve with reviews is that a lot of folks don't seem to understand that giving three stars to an album actually means that it is GOOD, hence why there are so many 4- and 5- star ratings being given out - even when in the actual review, there's a complete litany of 'why this album isn't perfect'-reasons given!    Even I myself have fallen into that trap more than once (will adjust it when I feel like doing so), as I feared I wouldn't get rightly understood if I'd give a 'GOOD' album 'only' three stars...

I feel your pain man, been saying that since I got here.  Some folks feel like 3 stars is a diss and pretty much start at 4 for anything they like.  But don't lose sleep, just stick to  your own system.  Eventually regular users figure out how people rate and they can pretty much predict what that persons rating means to them.  They might say....oh that guy gave it a 4, so its probably a 3 for me, etc.

I know I've both under-rated and over-rated albums myself based on excitement or disappointment, we all make mistakes, but eventually I check albums again and "adjust' as necessary to what I believe the real rating to be.   This is kind of an ongoing thing, there's probably still a few clunker ratings out there.  Time can change your views, some albums hold up over the years, others not so much.

Some people just rate more conservatively, others less so.  But the important thing is to try to follow the guidelines and use 3 for a Good album, 4 for excellent/awesome, and 5 for the super-rare masterpiece. My view is that 5% generally, of a large and diverse collection, is 5 stars.  Sure that could vary, but thinking of the best/top 5% of all albums gives one general definition of "masterpiece" for people to consider. 






Edited by Finnforest - October 13 2010 at 20:55

JLocke wrote: I've done that in the past. It's just a way to keep things interesting as I describe the effect the album has on me. I never review albums on my first listen. If people don't like how I go about doing the review, they are welcome to ignore my work.

Edited by moshkito - October 12 2010 at 18:34

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: Easy Livin wrote: npjnpj wrote:  My favourite peeve about reviews concern the ones where the reviewer actually listens with a stopwatch and informs everybody when each solo, break, change, or whatever occurs, down to the very second of every track. What a strange way to listen to an album.  I just can't translate that to usable information at all. Agreed. I think such reviews come about when a reviewer is listening to an album for the first time, and writing the review as he/she listens. For me if u are reviewing an album its best to have it going sometimes as u review and then u may hear a piece u adore and u check and see that it is happening at 3:25 so u post that on the review. It does 2 things for me, 1. it shows the passion of the reviewer and   2. is a great reference point for where the reviewer is gaining most enjoyment...i have occasionally reviewed albums this way - its fun and gives a depth that other reviews may lack..       on the subject of reviewing every song on the album - i do this often as i gain most enjoyment of reviewing this way, and i usually read reviews most that do this as i want to know whats on the album as a whole, not read one paragraph of responses. the music is most important and the quality of every track. if a reviewer is stating every track is a compelling brilliant prog experience i will check it ou... reading reviews here lead me to Magma, Triumvirat, IQ, Spocks Beard, and Transatlantic, so I am grateful, and there are heaps of others. I will admit i only mainly read reviews from collabs, or PRs rather than the others, i guess i trust their judgement and they are rarely dishonest fanboys.    thats a segue to My pet Peeve    people who review every album with either 1 stars   or   5 stars   its obvious they cant be trusted and many do it here to bump up their favourite artist or vice versa rather than giving a true indication of the quality of artists work. theres no way every album of an artist is a masterpiece - even the best have down times.

Easy Livin wrote: npjnpj wrote:  My favourite peeve about reviews concern the ones where the reviewer actually listens with a stopwatch and informs everybody when each solo, break, change, or whatever occurs, down to the very second of every track. What a strange way to listen to an album.  I just can't translate that to usable information at all. Agreed. I think such reviews come about when a reviewer is listening to an album for the first time, and writing the review as he/she listens.

For me if u are reviewing an album its best to have it going sometimes as u review and then u may hear a piece u adore and u check and see that it is happening at 3:25 so u post that on the review. It does 2 things for me, 1. it shows the passion of the reviewer and

Hi,

Easy Livin wrote: npjnpj wrote:  My favourite peeve about reviews concern the ones where the reviewer actually listens with a stopwatch and informs everybody when each solo, break, change, or whatever occurs, down to the very second of every track. What a strange way to listen to an album.  I just can't translate that to usable information at all. Agreed. I think such reviews come about when a reviewer is listening to an album for the first time, and writing the review as he/she listens.

I absolutely pay no attention to the rating number.....I just read the commentary and whether 4 sentences long or 4 paragraphs long is not an issue for me.