Too many 5 stars

Hey guys..... there are just too many 5 stars ratings!!! I know you like your stuff, but that doesn't actually mean to always consider it A TURNING IN POPULAR MUSIC........ it has to be a REAL MASTERPIECE!!!!!

What do you think.... I think we should use 4 stars more often, even 3, that doesn't mean actually the album isn't good, just not essential...........

What about doing a ten star rating range?

Here we go again....................................

I'm asking myself: should we expect a Gaussian distribution here: with a 1 to 5 star rating, the majority of ratings at 3, a large minority at 2 and 4 and very few at 1 or 5? Or better a skewed Gaussian say peaking at 4? With the population of contributors to progarchives, I would anticipate for bands'  albums generally available, thus known about by a relatively large number of people, that there will be a balance between those who love and dislike or are neutral? However, my conclusion is that it is very difficult to find a good model to base a 5 star rating, but the one use dhere at the moment is still far from perfect.

However, I wonder about the term 'masterpiece', which originally meant a piece of work, an artefact, produced by an apprentice who had just about completed his/her articles (up to 7 years of training) to demonstrate he/she were worthy being promoted to the ranks(guild) of the master craftsmen. The piece of work was judged and called a 'masterpiece' if it merited such a distinction. As such a master craftsman effectively only  produced one 'masterpiece' and that  at the start of he/her career as a master, while subsequent pieces of work were expected to be above a minimum standard.  However, like for a lots of words time reeks changes, 'mediocre' and 'decimate' being a couple oout of 1000's to have undergone change in the last 100 years.

While there are still too many 5* ratings , the actual situation is much better than it was last year! This debate has taken place many times before but there is a bettering at least among the assigned ProgReviewers.

I agree with Dick about the majority of ratings should be three stars (my estimations is roughly 40%) with some 2 and 4* (around 20% each) and the extreme 5 , 1 and 0 * taking up the rest.

tuxon wrote: It's not the raters that are the problem, it's the readers who can't interpret the provided data. I gave some albums 5 stars, for in my ears they are masterpieces. People who read my reviews, and see my ratings should be able to tell how to interpret the rating. I've read most reviews of my favourite bands and albums, as well as the reviews of my least popular bands and albums. By doing that i have seen which reviewers have a similar taste, and which have an opposite taste in music. The reviewers with a similar taste I have learnt to trust (to a degree), for generally  an unknown album with a high rating from such a reviewer within the genre we agree upon, are indeed worth listening to.

I agree. The rating system is not perfect, but it is useful. You cannot expect fans with only a limited knowledge of prog who are passionate about a few bands to rate albums as if they know which should be "essential masterpieces (in the universe of prog)" versus "good, but not essential." I for one believe that most of Yes's 70's albums are essential prog, but I realize that certain other VDGG fans or Gentle Giant buffs would scoff at such a pronouncement.

Plus I like it when someone who is passionate about an album gives it five stars because it means that this is an album that has the ability to really connect with someone, which is good to know.

If someone wants to give Styx's "Paradise Theatre" five stars, I say, right on, bro!

JMCecil wrote: Hey Tuxon, Please take my arguments as friendly instead of an attack.  In the end this doesn't really matter.  But, I do disagree somewhat. Take the recent Chromakey reviews.  All 5 stars and the reviews themselves are all the same "Moore is a genious..blah blah blah".  This doesn't tell you anything about the content.  It doesn't explain the difference between the CDs.  He may like all them but they are not all masterpieces.  I doubt even one of them is let alone that they are all absolutely required in your collection unless that exact musical style totally floats your boat. I would be much happier if one of those was a 5 and maybe a 4 or two then some 3s.  Then in the reviews themselves explain ...on CD....the reason I gave less stars is that song xxxxx does something thesame/goofey/blahblah so we can get a stylistic feel for the differences.  Then follow those with "I gave it a 3 for these reasons, but if you like xxxxxxxx you might give it a 4 or 5" Then look at the Crimson Glory review and see the true folly of the existing system "Another masterpiece".  Puuulllleeeeeeeeeeze spare me.

I disagree that only one album in a band's discography is worthy of five stars. Certain bands go through stages where several albums are of extremely top notch quality (e.g., Genesis, Yes, ELP, Crimson, and many others). What's the point of trying to determine which of those is the five star one and which is four or three? That's a ludicrous exercise. If an album powerfully affects you, then it deserves to be rated among the top LPs. It's all about impact.