Ratings of Bruce Springsteen & Radiohead albums

The ranking reflects on the users who rate at RYM. If the rankings are incorrect at RYM then the algorithm is incorrect.

As I've said, I don't think it's a best list or a most important list, it's the result of a program calculating the number of ratings and rating values of those who rated albums at the site. If contemplating the seriousness or competency of the results, then that requires seeing if the algorithm and system works or is flawed according to what it attempts to do -- not what, say, you want it to do or the results that you would want. If those results (the output) are not what one would expect from the data (the input of ratings) then there likely was some incompetence in the implementation of the algorithm.

If it's a good, competent and serious list depends on if it is a true representation of the ratings of the users, because that's what it's supposed to represent.

To me it's just not important that those big classic names are not in the top 100 all-time, all-categories list of RYM. I use RYM mostly to discover and look into the discographies of acts and clicking on the albums to read the reviews for more modern artists. It has its utility to me for searching using various fields such as multiple genres, years, attributes etc. If those are not as popular as others there, fine by me. Not sure why it should bother one. Most of what you have listed I don't care much for so I would not rate those even if they are of importance to the history of music. I am a lover of kinds of music; not a music historian.

I like the idea of rating music depending on how much we like it rather than our perceptions of its global, or perceived I should say, significance. Many rate and rank (often pros or wanna-be pros) depending on how they think it should be rated based on what they have heard about it, rather than based on how much they just plain enjoy it.

If more people like and therefore rate Radiohead and Bowie there than Springsteen and The Rolling Stones, I don't see a problem with that. I am with them.. I respect the Stones significance more than I like the music (well, I do like some of the Stones music very much, but that's not important), and I just haven't liked Springsteen period (that said, you did introduce me to music of his that I did enjoy). My dad loathed the Stones and would have said they don't hold a candle to Bach and Brahms, but apples and oranges.

I expect that Rolling Stone magazine list is fine for what is is, which is not what RYM's is. It may well be a regurgitation of the kinds of albums, or the actual albums, and names that they have highlighted in the past past rather than fresh interpretations or fresh perspectives (even if it is a blacker list). It tends to be a pretty conservative publication despite any potential progressive pandering (black artist/musicians are very significant, and I'm not diminishing that). It looks like the kind of list I would expect from them, no real surprises. Pretty safe and calculated. I'd be more interested to see most people's lists in our community. It' doesn't excite or surprise me. There are only two albums I have really liked on that list, which are Joni Mitchell's Blue and Kid A (not heard the Lamar except in part).

As for that ondarock one, that actually has a significant number of my 2022 favourites on the page it took me to, or would have. Your link was missing a colon so not working, but here it is in workable form https://www.ondarock.it/classifiche/# 5 to 8, Beach House, Weyes Blood, The Smile (which is pretty much Radiohead, god bless 'em), and Black Midi (took a while for me) are particular favourites of mine. I also like Black Country, New Road. Funnily enough, I got into some of these because they were well rated (and ranked) for the year at RYM, and there's an influence from people at PA whose tastes I dig. And in the next list from the year, there is that Anna von Hausswolff live album, which was the top ranked live album of the year at RYM and that's how I discovered it.

I can appreciate different lists that come about in different ways. I like that at RYM so many raters there seem to like the same kinds of music I do and I was surprised to see how much there is there that is highly ranked that aligns so well with my tastes. I would not expect rate your music top of the charts to be a representation of the greatest (problematic term that that can be) all-time albums. It's about rating album in your collection/ albums you know, choosing so-called greatest would involve buying into a narrative of what's canonically been held as great to a large extent. And those canons often do change over time. A lot of music once held by the arbiters of what's good has fallen out of favour and fashion, but this is rather a digression.

Since lots of people there rate the kinds of music I like there, it is a particularly good resource for me. If I liked Heartland USA rock, then... well, I shudder to think, but I could see an interesting horror movie that involves people turning overnight into Heartland loving musicos, a sort of Stepford Wives meets invasion of Body Snatchers scenario only more boring. And I could be dealing with those heartland rock loving zombies Ash from Evil Dead style to spice things up else the audience all falls asleep aside from that weird kid from Deliverance.

Edited by Logan - May 31 2023 at 23:04

Lewian wrote: Radiohead - they're great. Lorenzo has made me appreciate Springsteen's live attitude, and I really like some of his live videos. Also he wrote Because The Night and some of the songs Manfred Mann's Earth Band has done versions of that I really love. Still Springsteen's studio material, as far as I took the time to listen to it, has never convinced me.

I've only heard one entire Springsteen album (Born to Run), but I like it better than the 4 albums by Radiohead I know (The Bends, Ok Computer, Kid A, In Rainbows).

All of this said, I think I may know where you are coming from, Lorenzo, and you do recognise that the lists are merely a presentation based on the ratings given by a great many people for a great many albums, and those album ratings and numbers of ratings determine the ranking. That doesn't make them invalid or worthless, but maybe not of value to you, and that's fine and it depends on what one uses the charts for I suppose in part. If an album is ranked high already, then it is more likely that more people check it out and then rate that album. Fame begets more fame.

Exaggeration might make sense if it was a considered best list, but not the way it works as calculations based on the amalgamated ratings of albums. I've seen people say the list is wrong, it makes no sense. It makes sense from a simple input equals output way. And I don't think it can be really wrong unless there is some flaw in the computations. I don't think of it as a best list, or PA's charts. Best is largely subjective to me. They are rankings based on the input -- the input is not wrong (with exceptions), the question is does the output compute well?

The logic is in the algorithm and the way the site was set up.

I don't think there's anything wrong with those top ranked artists getting lots of ratings, or with many albums by top ranked artists being rated -- if I like an artist, I will check out more of that artists albums, and if I rate one well by that artists, I might rate many well by that artists. So I would expect repetition of names in a top list.

As said, those almost ignored artists have a great many ratings, not just for the albums I highlighted, and are well respected. It's just that some are more popular (get more ratings, and a relatively small amount can change the ranking significantly).

The beauty of such rankings is that, ideally, it is a fair representation of what is best rated, and people aren't comparing this album to that to come up with a top list. There isn't, potential manipulators aside, such thought as the algorithm doesn't think. It's cold and statistical.

If an individual or 20 individuals (or more) came to together to make, say, a 20 top all-time jazz albums list, they would be actively comparing which should be higher than another and thinking about how many should be listed by an artists. It would be a thoughtful collaborative process. That might well results in what you think is better list, but it's such a different process, and each of those people has their biases. THE RYM way if anything, is more likely to seem fair to me, but then maybe they should not be compared. And I might totally disagree with those jazz albums or they do the obvious albums probably like A Love Supreme etc.

jamesbaldwin wrote: Greg,  1) You say that the RYM ranking is a popularity ranking. Which is exactly why I don't care. I'm interested in quality rankings. 2) PA's ranking is achieved in the same way as RYM, but to a certain extent: the site contributors give ratings that are worth 10, the forumists' ratings are worth 1. And in my opinion this is effective, it corrects the ranking for the better. I would be in favour of a ranking made by the site contributors alone. 3) Pink Floyd are present in Pa's Top 10 with three albums, it is true. But it is a prog music ranking. Whereas on RYM, PF are present with three albums in the Top 10 of all seventies music. There is a big difference. 4) You say that David Bowie is more famous than Bruce Springsteen. But in Europe since the 1980s, Bruce Springsteen is much more famous. David Bowie in the last 30 years has sold a lot less than Springsteen and didn't fill stadiums.  5) So, the RYM ranking is not just a popularity ranking. Some famous artists such as Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Radiohead are very pumped up, other famous artists with a big commercial impact on the other hand are almost ignored: Rolling Stones, The Who, Springsteen, Michael Jackson, Dire Straits, U2, REM, Oasis, Coldplay etc. In addition, some cult artists enjoy a very high ranking (No. 8: My Bloody Valentine - Loveless!!). That ranking seems to me totally unpredictable and devoid of any logic other than that of being a mirror of fan groups. Perhaps, if there is a logic, it is to devalue flok-blues-rock artists (Dylan, Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Lou Reed, U2, REM etc.). The popular heartland-folk-roots artists are completely underrated: Springsteen, Seger, Mellencamp, Petty, Hiatt etc.

Apologies to Cristi or anyone else if this quoting makes it harder to read and join in with your own thoughts on this conversation:

1) Yes, it gauges the popularity of albums based on the ratings of the users. Quality in art is often subjective., but lists even by the so-called cognoscenti commonly are subjective (it's not about "true" quality or some Platonian ideal, it's about what they appreciate). What you think are quality ranking might well not be what I consider quality rankings. I'm more interested in qualities than quality. Who is the ultimate arbiter of quality (other than my wife who manages the quality department of a biotech company)?

2) I think it's five times the value given to collabs over non-collabs and ten times ratings with reviews over rating without reviews here. I could be wrong as I don't wish to double-check, Part of getting older for me is being okay with such public mistakes. There has been much abuse including people ratings albums without hearing them (or barely listening to them) -- sometimes this has been from official reviewers and collabs too to be honest. There is some utility in how we do it here, especially as we have far fewer numbers of people. Large numbers can be a corrective since there are individuals who abuse the system (systems groups) by trying to manipulate the rankings. I don't think my ratings with a review should be worth more than, most members, but it is. Most of us just rate according to how much we like an album, not based on quality write large -- perceived quality as a factor, okay. Not singling you out, but just cause we agreed to make you a Prog Reviewer, I wouldn't value your opinion of quality over other forumites. I would rather more numbers of raters and do away with favouritism (it's the socialist in me that dislikes elitism).

3) I never thought of Pink Floyd as Prog growing up. I still think of it as more art rock than prog proper. Pink Floyd is a pretty mainstream rock band, still gets played regularly on classic rock radio and I would is still culturally relevant. I would expect it to do well on any music site that includes popular music. As for those others you mention, which I don't like as much, check out the numbers of ratings at RYM. It's not just about the ranking, but the number of people who appreciate it. The fact is, Pink Floyd is still selling and being discovered by lot of people and referenced in movies and shows. I see nothing wrong with it being that popular.

4) This is really about rating specific albums. I'm surprised if Springsteen is more famous in Europe than Bowie since the 80s. It's the classic albums that most people know and rate highly of Bowie, and at RYM, it's Springsteen's 70s albums that got the most ratings. His Born to Run has 15,704 ratings with a 3.95 as I mentioned in the other topic. Various others are at about the 10, 000 mark. David Bowie's Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust... has over 50, 000 ratings there. Blackstar is, I think, such a great swansong that I get a lump in my throat just talking about it. Maybe Springsteen will do an album on his deathbed that gets much more acclaim, who knows. By the way, Blackstar there has 32,027 ratings with 4.11. Bruce Springsteen's contemporaneous albums have far few ratings and much lower ratings, but as established perhaps, those RYM rabble are not sophisticated/ erudite enough to recognise quality (just kidding). As for me saying that Bowie is more famous, I can't find where I said that. I said that Bowie is incredibly popular, and that Bowie is more popular than Springsteen (I mean at the RYM chart). Springsteen has lots of ratings at RYM for his discography, Bowie does better still which leads to the rankings of the albums. I just thought Bowie is popular enough that it's not surprising that he would have various albums that would rate high. Blackstar is the top of the year at PA when including Prog Related and does well here too in the charts. Bowie does well here, and he was not an early addition to PA so has not had as much time to accumulate votes as most others there: TOP Prog Related albums chart

5. Are they almost ignored? Just looking at the raking for the top rated album of each:

The Who - Who's Next: A 3.92 with almost 21,737 ratings. #17 for its year and number 346 overall.

The Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers 19,506 ratings with a 3.99 (Let it Bleed almost as much), #11 for 1971, #207 overall.

Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run 15,704 ratings with a 3.95. #6 for 1975, #320 overall

Michael Jackson - Thriller: 24,734 ratings with 3.97. #3 for 1982, #194 overall

U2 - The Joshua Tree: 17,168 ratings with a 3.71. #33 for 1987, #2,552 overall

Cumulatively for all of their albums as you can imagine, that's a huge amount of attention from the raters at the site.   Maybe you have a very different definition of almost ignore or maybe its just because some have even more ratings. So what?

You say it's devoid of logic, and I don't understand your logic. Popularity breeds popularity, and some groups and individuals so have great influence. There is something of a herd mentality at play. But I don't see why, say, a very popular album by a popular act getting 50, 00 ratings devalues a not so popular album by a group getting twenty thousand ratings. I think you care more about ranking than I do and ratings for that matter.

In the Italian music themed topic that I linked to I gave the ratings for the top ranked Dylan, Springsteen, Rolling Stones and Lou Reed albums and judging by the number of ratings, the respectable rankings, how well they do in the year, to say that they are devalued boggles my mind. And as for heartland-folk-roots artists being underrated, that's just your value judgment that shows your biases. Sorry for myself and a great many others not appreciating it as much as you and underrating it so badly. I hate lots of that stuff, sorry. I won't call it bad, I just don't like it or actually dislike. loathe it. I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Here are the stats again that I posted in response to you regarding RYM's not valuing these artists enough (or however you would put it).

- Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run 3.95 / 5.0 from 15,698 ratings. #6 for 1975, #321 overall

- Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited 4.15 / 5.0 from 31,188 ratings. #2 for 1965, #55 overall

- Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers 3.99 / 5.0 from 19,496 ratings. Ranked #11 for 1971, #205 overall

- Neil Young - After the Gold Rush 4.07 / 5.0 from 20,981 ratings. Ranked #5 for 1970, #115 overall

- Lou Reed - Transformer 3.90 / 5.0 from 20,932 ratings. Ranked #15 for 1972, #380 overall

- Tom Waits - Rain Dogs 4.05 / 5.0 from 22,367 ratings. Ranked #2 for 1985, #122 overall

I guess we interpret the data and its implications very differently. Speaking of Lou Reed and I mention it in the other thread, The Velvet Underground gets very high ratings and rakings at RYM. The debut album has 55,716 ratings with a 4.21. Subsequent numbers for albums are also high. VU of course has been very hip and trendy for quite some years. There is a bandwagon effect commonly when it comes to such things.


Edited by Logan - May 30 2023 at 16:35

Logan wrote: But, Lorenzo, on an all-music site you think that Bruce Springsteen should be rated more (and perhaps higher) and therefore ranked higher? (or to put it another, way, that the charts would have more validity/value if Bruce ranked higher than Radiohead).   Maybe some people will chime on your thoughts in the Italian thread, because to be honest, I just don't understand your perspective on this.  I wish Dean were around.  By the way, BS (not to be confused with Black Sabbath or bull****) has twice the number of votes now.  I do hope that all who vote share their thoughts.

^ Well, they were all fairly recent releases when I bought them (Kate Bush's was a few years old). For used albums, I buy LPs (some can be quite expensive). I don't play them or sell them, I just like having them. I own plenty of CDs but even those I now listen to through other means (mostly streaming). I should donate a lot more of of my stuff to charity shops as I don't like to sell things.

^^ I have a few compilations, but I think I only have three greatest hits sort of CDs in my collection. One is Kate Bush's The Whole Story another is ABBA Gold and the other is The Very Best of Supertramp (all not bought at Charity Shops).

^ Most, or half, of what I listen to is not Prog Rock (and quite a few at PA have stated that Radiohead is not Prog Rock, and some have said that it has no place at PA -- various of those were quite ignorant I think and judging it based on limited listening, the wrong material material and not understanding how our Prog categories work well-enough). Weyes Blood and Chelsea Wolfe are but two that have got such a lot of playtime from me recently for various albums that I would rate very highly. I do listen to more modern music these days and so would sooner rate modern albums (I would rather rate that album which I am currently enthusiastic about, and that commonly is a more recent find for me, be it old or new).

Edited by Logan - May 30 2023 at 13:57

Logan wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: Logan wrote: ^ It's tied. Paul, Which Radiohead used to do it for you, out of interest? I remember now, I think it was early Radiohead like Pablo Honey and/or The Bends.  Our ratings are very different for Radiohead.  Hope you share those of yours and your Bruce Springsteen ones (be interested to see how you rank his albums). I have three Radiohead albums on CD - The Bends, OK Computer & Hail to the Thief - but I very rarely listen to them these days, whereas I have six Bruce Springsteen albums on CD which I listened to just last week.  What's your favourite (or favourites) Bruce Springsteen album (I have not listened to any of his in full and I might check it out) My favourite Radiohead albums are Kid A, A Moon Shaped Pool and OK Computer -- all five stars for me.