Your rating system

I would have to say that the written part is the easier part of this rating process - choosing the 'score' is always difficult (especially between 4 and 5) - click 5 and that little warning window appears and then I question myself.........sometimes it's "nah, f**k it, 5 it is, others it's with great pondering.... "O.K. I'll tick 4 and call it 4 and a half".  But most people probably won't agree.  What happens when an album, say the new one from 'Echolyn' (which is quite superb) is given a 1 or 2 stars by some random folk but the written part says (now this is NOT a quote) 'it's complex, nicely played and arranged but I don't think what they're doing is anything special' ??   And what of those (whom we'll never know) who listen to an album once or twice and pull an instant rating from thin air ??  Hat's off to them coz I couldn't do it.

Yeah, with all their limitations rankings are still useful, but surely you must read reviews before blindly trusting numerical rankings. That's why PA is great because it allows everybody to write reviews and not just rate so you get to read more varied points of view and opinions.

Edited by Gerinski - November 30 2012 at 12:04

Dayvenkirq wrote: 2) It just seemed like you were having a problem with the system considering "factors such as quality and importance" that "[leave] no room for other combinations".

I think you're misunderstanding me. The PA rating system is based both on quality and importance as determining factors. So far, so good. The problem then is that it accepts only certain combinations of quality and importance. For example, there is no valid rating for an essential album that is not a masterpiece, because the rating system implies that every masterpiece is essential and every essential album is a masterpiece. When rating an album like In the Court of the Crimson King, I'm faced with a dilemma: Do I give it 5 stars because I think it's essential, or do I give it 4 stars because I think it's not a masterpiece? For that reason, I ignore the "importance" factor completely and assign my ratings as if quality (i.e. my personal enjoyment) were the only deciding factor. Generally that lines up pretty well with the PA rating system.

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ You are missing the point. An artist works so hard, puts so much love and care into a work that cannot be understood by everyone on this globe, and he gets a f$%king star or two for the work? Who are we to say that we are at the liberty to judge someone's music based on what we like? Discrimination is what it is, and the rating system is a means to do that.

Okay, let's only say positive things about music.

In all seriousness, don't take ratings for something they are not. They're merely an indicator of how much we enjoy an album. When I give Atom Heart Mother (an album that certainly had a lot of work put into it) one star, that doesn't mean I'm criticizing Pink Floyd for making it or that I think they shouldn't have made it. I'm grateful that they made it, just like I'm grateful that any piece of music was made. It just means that I wouldn't care to hear it again.

Tom Ozric wrote: We should ditch ratings altogether and keep it to reviews...

That wouldn't solve anything. I've read many, many reviews that are more arrogant, presumptuous and judgmental than a simple number could ever be.

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^  An artist works so hard, puts so much love and care into a work that cannot be understood by everyone on this globe, and he gets a f$%king star or two for the work? Who are we to say that we are at the liberty to judge someone's music based on what we like? * Sorry for sounding a bit like a radical. Just trying to sell a point.

*Extremely* well put, my friend.  We should ditch ratings altogether and keep it to reviews......For instance, I've noticed some folks giving absolute glowing write-ups on certain albums, only to find their rating is a 3 or 3.5.  Hey, I've given a 3 star to Renaissance's 'Time Line' album - it measures up to be a 'good, but not essential' album for me. Christ, I'm lucky I haven't been shot for that, as the general view of it is quite poor....?

Well we could make one up, but I think that's for a different thread.

Nogbad_The_Bad wrote: Atavachron wrote: Music is not machinery or baked goods, but rather an offering of self-expression.   To apply mechanical or mathematic standards to music is not only daft but unethical. When did rating music become an ethics question?

I'd say it's more a question of aesthetics than ethics.   That is, one's appreciation (or criticism) of art.   I didn't say rating albums is unethical, I said the common rating systems, personal or public, are.




Edited by Atavachron - November 29 2012 at 21:10

Atavachron wrote: Music is not machinery or baked goods, but rather an offering of self-expression.   To apply mechanical or mathematic standards to music is not only daft but unethical.

When did rating music become an ethics question? It's immoral to rate albums? Bizarre.

Personally I decide how much I like an album and give it the rating accordingly.

Atavachron wrote: Music is not machinery or baked goods, but rather an offering of self-expression.   To apply mechanical or mathematic standards to music is not only daft but unethical.

So there is nothing to measure about self-expression or the lack of thereof, ... right?

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 29 2012 at 10:39

Atavachron wrote: An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.   Rating systems don't account for this and important things can be lost in translation.

Agree completely. 

5 stars - As close as things come to perfect.