Raters who suck

Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: I wonder why that didn't get a "First Review of this Album" tag? Does that not apply to singles?     Anyway, 119 words for two tracks ... not bad... I did waffle a bit. Who doesn't. It's when that waffle is the only component of a review (regardless of length) I would question whether it qualifies as a review or not. If the waffle is setting the scene and providing some background then that adds to the review and makes it more interesting to read perhaps, but at the end of the day if you hadn't mentioned the tracks themselves then it would not have been much of a review of a two track single. A music review is a piece of creative writing, waffle and all. This post is also one hundred words. Yes, all good points. I wanted to  show my  personal connection  with  the single and reading it again  I am not entirely happy with it. I think some editing and rewriting is required. Incidentally I have updated the Defector album and it now shows all the  bonus tracks  available. I really  must get some practise in on my reviews though,  which was partly my point in reviewing The Show. This post is not quite one hundred words.

I don't have to respect people who use deceit to rate albums.  Refer back to my original post. Raters who use ratings to manipulate, even in a small way, are not deserving of respect. They obviously do not respect this site, the artists whose creative endeavor they are rating, and the rest of the members of this site.

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: I enjoy Tormato and Close to the Edge.  Should I give them both five stars? I know I've taken a while to address this, but let me ask you this: if you take away all the history, and opinions of other people, how would YOU rate each of these albums?  If your honest answer to that question is 5 stars for each, then give them each 5 stars, man!  Because think about this - if you are taking stars away from one of these albums because of history and other people's opinions, then what do you do when you're given an album that hasn't been released to the public yet and asked to review it?

I think you guys are both mostly in agreement, you're just misunderstanding each other.  You both think reviews/ratings are subjective, and if I'm interpreting you right, you would both base your rating on the degree of enjoyment.  For Geoff, that means a lot of 5-stars because he tends to have an overwhelmingly positive attitude towards the music he enjoys, and for Rob, that means more 4's and 3's because he's more critical in the way he reviews.  (I hope I'm not putting words into your mouths, just wanting to help you understand each other better).

No one should get uptight about this issue.  True, we have rating guidelines on this site, but the key word is "guidelines;" there's no absolute standard of how to review and rate albums as long as you don't blatantly abuse the system.  Some try to review objectively, some subjectively; some rate based on "progressiveness" while others do so based on the quality of the music regardless of this style; some use more 1's and 5's and some use less.  Some of these differences can be irritating (I hate to see an album I like assigned less stars because it isn't "progressive" enough) but in the end we have to realize that everyone has a different way of evaluating music, and we have to respect each others' ways of doing that.  I'm all for discussion about the matter, because I think that there are better and worse ways of reviewing, but I don't think it's a big enough deal that anyone should be angry or frustrated about it.

I took umbrage after many  reviews were deleted....   I could never predict ahead of time which would be allowed to stay and which would be deleted.

Dean wrote: ..Then why is it that many of the people who complain about the 100 word limit have English as their first language? The ability to have an opinion on a piece of music is not restricted by the language you speak, the emotions and feelings you get can be expressed in any language. Translating that into another language is not an issue of word-count or vocabulary.  If you feel that a particular section of music or a musician’s ability affects you in a certain way then putting that into words is what a review is. This is one hundred words.

Dean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: Dean wrote: I wonder why that didn't get a "First Review of this Album" tag? Does that not apply to singles?     Anyway, 119 words for two tracks ... not bad... I did waffle a bit. Who doesn't. It's when that waffle is the only component of a review (regardless of length) I would question whether it qualifies as a review or not. If the waffle is setting the scene and providing some background then that adds to the review and makes it more interesting to read perhaps, but at the end of the day if you hadn't mentioned the tracks themselves then it would not have been much of a review of a two track single. A music review is a piece of creative writing, waffle and all. This post is also one hundred words.

Dean wrote: I wonder why that didn't get a "First Review of this Album" tag? Does that not apply to singles?     Anyway, 119 words for two tracks ... not bad...

I wonder why that didn't get a "First Review of this Album" tag? Does that not apply to singles?

I just wrote a review, just over 100 words.

..Then why is it that many of the people who complain about the 100 word limit have English as their first language? The ability to have an opinion on a piece of music is not restricted by the language you speak, the emotions and feelings you get can be expressed in any language. Translating that into another language is not an issue of word-count or vocabulary.  If you feel that a particular section of music or a musician’s ability affects you in a certain way then putting that into words is what a review is. This is one hundred words.