Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Your rating system
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedYour rating system
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
irrelevant View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 07 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 13382 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2012 at 05:27
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

I increasingly find rating standards to be trite and unnecessary--  'what do I think?' is my rating system.
Sorry for bothering you; I'm just curious about why you think so.
It reduces the process to numbers and criteria like a point system.   Music is an art form and ultimately should not be valued by how many songs are thought to be good or whether Dick Johnson had one fewer good solos this time than last.   It misses the point and misunderstands the creative process.   The odds of an artist releasing an album that is generally considered to be 'a masterpiece' are probably about a hundred to one, if not worse.   It isn't a contest, it's music.


Perfect. Clap
New album!
http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=7385
Back to Top
Tom Ozric View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15921 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2012 at 02:39
Originally posted by SolarLuna96 SolarLuna96 wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron 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.  


Thank you so much for saying this. I can't stand it when people will give something a lower rating because they do not see it as "a masterpiece". It all matters on how you interpret it which is why the overall rating of an album is complied of individuals' ratings.
  Nice statement !!
I'd like to think we all stay true to the site's guidelines for rating albums.  The overall 'score' we give an album is still personally judged by our own selves, we have an 'inbuilt system' with which we determine what an album does for us - it's our own individual perception of an album - a great example is National Health's debut album.  To me, it ticks all the right boxes to label it a 'masterpiece', but to many others, it may be a fairly average album.  Dave Stewart's fuzzed organ is pure bliss to my ears but obnoxious to many. I love Anglagard's stop/start approach, few bars of this, then let's fly off in this direction.  FANTASTIC !!  To certain folks, this just doesn't suit.  Personal taste counts for a lot in ratings.  No one person is right or wrong. 
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65269 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2012 at 01:32
^ I've heard a lot worse -
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 29 2012 at 01:22
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.
Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.
That's my point; are Lamb or Tarkus flawless records?  Absolutely not.  Are they 5-star records?   I have little doubt they are.
You're reversing my statement. The fact that every flawless record gets the highest grade does not mean that every record with the highest grade is flawless.
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.
OK. What if we were discussing the music of Swift or the Beaver and such? Would you still think it would be daft and unethical to rate their music (considering that it lacks all manners of sophistication ... that I know of)? Wink

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 29 2012 at 01:24
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65269 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 22:08
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron 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 ... .
Like the PA rating system? How do you figure?
No, I mean the kind of personal rating methodologies people here tend toward.  As I said, like a point system.
Back to Top
The Dark Elf View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: February 01 2011
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 13065 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 21:49
I give this thread a 1.5 rating. It's just a half-step up from banal. Wink
...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined
to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...
Back to Top
Luna View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 28 2010
Location: Funky Town
Status: Offline
Points: 12794 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 21:47
Originally posted by Atavachron 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.  


Thank you so much for saying this. I can't stand it when people will give something a lower rating because they do not see it as "a masterpiece". It all matters on how you interpret it which is why the overall rating of an album is complied of individuals' ratings.
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65269 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 21:41
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.
Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.
That's my point; are Lamb or Tarkus flawless records?  Absolutely not.  Are they 5-star records?   I have little doubt they are.
You're reversing my statement. The fact that every flawless record gets the highest grade does not mean that every record with the highest grade is flawless.
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.


 
 


Edited by Atavachron - November 28 2012 at 21:42
Back to Top
Man With Hat View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Jazz-Rock/Fusion/Canterbury Team

Joined: March 12 2005
Location: Neurotica
Status: Offline
Points: 166178 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 21:28
Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

I believe when you participate in a site that means to convey information to site users, one should follow the site's ratings definitions as much as possible so that users actually know what your rating means, and have useful information about the average rating.  Your own personal definitions are fine on your own blog, but users of the site are not likely to know your personal system. 

I guess I've just never understood what is so hard about making a good faith effort to follow the intent of the site's rating guidelines, and what we gain from all the hand wringing and over-thinking about ratings.  Maybe I've just seen this topic one too many time.  Do what thou wilt.  Smile


 
Absolutely. ClapClap
 
For this topic, I assumed the OP was talking about your own personal scales. For the purposes of reviewing on this site, I follow the guidelines provided (just like I would if I was reviewing on a different site with different rules). I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. Smile
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:53
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

I would say it's a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense in which factors such as quality and importance are mixed into certain combinations, but leaving no room for other combinations.
Are you saying that quality and importance are the things that make it "a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense"?
I have no idea what you're saying.
Let me break this one down:

1) Why would you say that the PA rating system is "a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense"?

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 linked the two together, and that's where my previous question came from.

Originally posted by Finnforest Finnforest wrote:

I believe when you participate in a site that means to convey information to site users, one should follow the site's ratings definitions as much as possible so that users actually know what your rating means, and have useful information about the average rating.  Your own personal definitions are fine on your own blog, but users of the site are not likely to know your personal system.  

I guess I've just never understood what is so hard about making a good faith effort to follow the intent of the site's rating guidelines ...
That is exactly what I've figured.


Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 28 2012 at 20:56
Back to Top
HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:46
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.
Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.
That's my point; are Lamb or Tarkus flawless records?  Absolutely not.  Are they 5-star records?   I have little doubt they are.

You're reversing my statement. The fact that every flawless record gets the highest grade does not mean that every record with the highest grade is flawless.

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

I would say it's a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense in which factors such as quality and importance are mixed into certain combinations, but leaving no room for other combinations.
Are you saying that quality and importance are the things that make it "a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense"?

I have no idea what you're saying.

Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

In the PA rating system, every essential albums must also be a masterpiece and vice versa. But that's not a flaw with rating systems in general, it's just a flaw with this particular one.
I did not know there was a difference between "a masterpiece" and "an essential album".

You may say that every masterpiece is essential. But is every essential album a masterpiece? Even ignoring the fact that I don't think there's such a thing as an 'essential' album, In the Court of the Crimson King is about as close to essential as a prog album gets. Yet I don't think it's a masterpiece, and on a quality-based scale, I think it deserves four stars.



Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - November 28 2012 at 20:47
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:30
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

I would say it's a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense in which factors such as quality and importance are mixed into certain combinations, but leaving no room for other combinations.
Are you saying that quality and importance are the things that make it "a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense"?
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

In the PA rating system, every essential albums must also be a masterpiece and vice versa. But that's not a flaw with rating systems in general, it's just a flaw with this particular one.
I did not know there was a difference between "a masterpiece" and "an essential album".

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 28 2012 at 20:43
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65269 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:30
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.
Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.
That's my point; are Lamb or Tarkus flawless records?  Absolutely not.  Are they 5-star records?   I have little doubt they are.
Back to Top
HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:23
Originally posted by Dayvenkirq Dayvenkirq wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.

Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.
Is the PA rating system a quality-based rating system?

I would say it's a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense in which factors such as quality and importance are mixed into certain combinations, but leaving no room for other combinations. In the PA rating system, every essential albums must also be a masterpiece and vice versa. But that's not a flaw with rating systems in general, it's just a flaw with this particular one.
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:20
Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.

Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.
Is the PA rating system a quality-based rating system?

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 28 2012 at 20:20
Back to Top
HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:18
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.

Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.
Back to Top
Dayvenkirq View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:15
Originally posted by Atavachron 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 ... .
Like the PA rating system? How do you figure?

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 28 2012 at 20:16
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65269 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:12
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.  

Back to Top
HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:03
Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Originally posted by HarbouringTheSoul HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

3 stars - The good outweighs the bad, but not by that much. This might be an album with some great songs but also some really bad ones (Starless and Bible Black). Or it might consist primarily of songs that are decent but unspectacular, with few outliers in either direction (Foxtrot). Sometimes I will listen to the whole album, but more often I will skip some songs or only play my favorites.
2 stars - My overall impression is negative, but there's some good material. This is the choice rating for bad albums with some great tracks on them (Wind & Wuthering) or albums that are often interesting but never quite successful (Lizard). I usually don't listen to the entire album, but I will pick out what I consider the highlights and discard the rest.
Only 3 stars for Foxtrot and 2 for Wind and Wuthering or Lizard? Confused man you're harsh... 

I'm not harsh in general, just on those particular albums, which I happen not to like much. I have rated the vast majority of albums that are well-regarded here with 4 or 5 stars. I just tried to pick some examples that most people have heard of.
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 16913 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2012 at 20:00
I believe when you participate in a site that means to convey information to site users, one should follow the site's ratings definitions as much as possible so that users actually know what your rating means, and have useful information about the average rating.  Your own personal definitions are fine on your own blog, but users of the site are not likely to know your personal system. 

I guess I've just never understood what is so hard about making a good faith effort to follow the intent of the site's rating guidelines, and what we gain from all the hand wringing and over-thinking about ratings.  Maybe I've just seen this topic one too many time.  Do what thou wilt.  Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.262 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.