Ratings in the archives - guidelines

^ thanks!

And so far the votes show that opinions really are divided on the subject, with a small preference to a mixture of both. I like that, and it's also my opinion.

But I don't think that it should be 50/50 if that means that a non prog album can only score 2.5 stars (=3 stars) at most. Cut one star off the maximum rating if you feel that the album is not prog, that's my strategy.

timothy leary wrote: tough decisions glad i don`t have to make them but for someone who is new to the site who goes to the letter g on the band index and punches up grey eye glances and sees all those 5 star ratings even though it is one person doing the rating they might think grey eye is better than gentle giant . They are not, of course maybe 5 star ratings by one person for one band should be limited and i realize there is a warning of only one rating but somer who might be new might think grey eye glances are the best prog have to offer in closing i personally don`t even thjink grey eye glances is prog i am not a good typist so i dont review could you imagine all the typo erros i`d be too lazy to edit in one of my reviews

This is exactly my point, you got to keep a sense of perspective and for that purpose, you need an extensive knowledge and a good understanding of the historical fact.

There is no way a Pendragon album (however sweet sounding and melodious it may be) comes even close to the height of the knee of SEBTP

or that the latest ELP-clone come to the waist of Egg or even Tarkus.

Sense of Perspective is what it is all about if you are to review seriously.

It may sound unfair to newer groups, but let's face it they are not breaking new grounds, just cultivating what is proven formulas.

tough decisions glad i don`t have to make them but for someone who is new to the site who goes to the letter g on the band index and punches up grey eye glances and sees all those 5 star ratings even though it is one person doing the rating they might think grey eye is better than gentle giant they are not of course maybe 5 star ratings by one person for one band should be limited and i realize there is a warning of only one rating but somer who might be new might think grey eye glances are the best prog have to offer in closing i personally don`t even thjink grey eye glances is prog i am not a good typist so i dont review could you imagine all the typo erros i`d be too lazy to edit in one of my reviews

I once read a review of a performance of 'McBeth' The professional journalist, who was paid for his work, simply wrote 'No' I guess he didn't like it....

I dont personally feel there should be any guidelines to how many stars one awards to an album. How 'prog' an album is may be as subjective in itself, as the emotional response it evokes in the listener. I would only rate an album by how much I enjoy it, I dont care how progressive it is or isn't. I'm sure there are albums out there that are so 'progressive' that I would personally find them unlistenable. Should I rate them highly just because they are very experimental..?

^ ok. But considering that I currently know approx. 800 prog albums, 5% would still be 40 albums. I think that from all these albums something between 50 and 100 albums would be 5 stars for me. In the Gnosis system I would probably end up with 10-20 album of 15 points.

Sean Trane wrote: I am one to believe that less than 5% of ratings should be 5*

Since we don't have half stars, I would widen that to 5-10%. But only if one were to rate all the albums he knows. Usually you'll review mostly those which you like, and occasionally some bad ones. The more serious you see your "job" as a reviewer, the more bad albums you'll review ... but I guess the ratio will always be biased towards the good albums, even for very professional reviewers.

 

Easy Livin wrote: The ratings shoudl be based only on your view of the content of the album, except that five star ratings should be reserved for masterpieces of prog only. By doing so, we will help to guide people towards the cream of the genre.

Agreed with Bob.

Five stars should be for progressive albums and/or at least for historically important albums only.

Like Mike says, the collabs are trying to write as semi-pro critics (some of us anyway) and I am always trying to see how meaningfull the album historically , artistically, commercially , musically, conceptually etc..

I really believe that in such a semi-professional Progressive rock critic sense, no albums from Peter Gabriel should be above four stars in this site, simply because that progressive tinged pop is not really progressive.

We must try to exclude/overide our fan attitudes and try to be as completely objective as possible in our reviews, but still stating that you like the album for such ans such completely unobjective reasons. However that last part should not be weighing too much in the rating of the album

But then again, even I made some exceptions to this and if Spirit and Jefferson Airplane were to be included, I would probably give 5* to 12 Dreams and Crown Of Creation, not even because they are historically important, but on the sheer quality of the album.

I am one to believe that less than 5% of ratings should be 5*

 

Edited by Sean Trane

It's impossible to create 'fair' and objective system of rating. Everyone has his own point of view on the same rated album and every rating will be 'polluted' by subjectivizm.

Peter wrote: It is worth remembering that the reviewers are fans, not professional critics, and thus are simply not given "diverse stuff" to review. We tend to review what we own, and we tend to own albums from artists that we like. Don't you like most of the discs in your collection, or do you have just as many albums you hate, as you have those you love? Who is going to give me the money to buy from artists I don't like, and, in any case, why should I (or any reviewer here), an unpaid volunteer, force myself to listen to what I consider to be bad music, as often as I listen to good? I need at least several listens to arrive at an informed opinion of a disc, and my leisure time is too precious (not to mention my limited budget for non-essentials) to spend much of it listening to music that I consider bad, or mediocre. I'm sure your listening habits are the same -- unless you're a masochist.

I think that what you are saying is true for the most part ... but us collabs are (or at least should be IMO) semi-professional critics, which also involves reviewing albums we don't like. Sometimes it can be more useful to show someone what type of music you don't like than to show him your favorite albums.

But how can we obtain albums we don't like in order to review them? Well, those of us who live in the USA, Canada, UK or Germany can use Napster. at a very affordable price you get access to numerous albums which you can listen to as often as you want ... here's a small selection of the available albums:

http://www.mikeenregalia.com/home/collection/napster.xhtml

Flemdido wrote: A few days late to respond, but if I can throw in a "newbie's" opinion: Personally I don't care what basis you use to make your ratings, as long as you explain why you've made the rating you did. That is what makes the ratings useful. If you are in love with the band, and acknowledge it, then I can factor that into what you've written about them. If you just slap on a rating and don't explain the basis for your choice, it's pretty useless. One observation - it wouldn't be a bad thing, IMHO, if there was a control to prevent one from excessively biasing their ratings. If you are rating a lot of recordings, it should form something approaching a normal Gaussian distribution. (Sorry for the mathematical terminology.) For instance, if you rate everything as 4-star or 5-star, does that mean you love everything, or only choose to rate the stuff you love? Expand your horizons! and listen to some diverse stuff. Love this website, it has provided me with some good recommendations of 70s prog that i probably would not have discovered or chanced otherwise (Caravan, Khan, Kraan, Banco, ...)

I largely agree with (and even applaud) your post, Flemdido, but I take issue with the parts I've highlighted in red.

It is worth remembering that the reviewers are fans, not professional critics, and thus are simply not given "diverse stuff" to review. We tend to review what we own, and we tend to own albums from artists that we like. Don't you like most of the discs in your collection, or do you have just as many albums you hate, as you have those you love? Who is going to give me the money to buy from artists I don't like, and, in any case, why should I (or any reviewer here), an unpaid volunteer, force myself to listen to what I consider to be bad music, as often as I listen to good? I need at least several listens to arrive at an informed opinion of a disc, and my leisure time is too precious (not to mention my limited budget for non-essentials) to spend much of it listening to music that I consider bad, or mediocre. I'm sure your listening habits are the same -- unless you're a masochist.

Thus, there will always tend to be many more favourable reviews than unfavourable ones in any given reviewer's body of work, and more favourable reviews than poor on the site as a whole. It just stands to reason, when you think it through.

 

On the other hand, if you were to start paying me for my time, and sending me all sorts of albums....

Edited by Peter