Indukti- Idmen, 2.83 rating!?

^ I read the review, and from his description of the music I gather that he simply didn't like their turn for more elements of extreme metal and more experimentation. Nothing wrong with that either, but should a band be slammed for a particular style? IMO a good reviewer should try to develop a skill to size up the quality of a piece of music independently of whether he/she actually likes it. I'm not saying that this is always possible or that we should always do that no matter what, but I can't help feeling like this review was written in anger, and the reviewer was aware of that during writing it and simply didn't care.

In a nutshell: If a review is not a big help to those who like this type of music - where's the point in submitting it?

No, the one star rating is reserved for poor albums. That's what it says in the guidelines and it's totally different from an album you don't like. 

I find the two almost without exception go hand in hand.  In my 225 reviews, only 11 of those are one star (and less than 18% are five star, but that percentage will steadily decrease since I tended to review my most treasured albums first).

In all eleven cases of the one star (save one), these are albums I will almost certainly never listen to again (although I'm sure I will anyway in time for the sake of perspective).

As I mentioned elsewhere, what's the point of music if not for pleasure?  An artist's composition, technique, skill, charisma, etc etc are all just reasons for our pleasure (i.e., how we say why we like something more than something else).  I would never rate an album five stars that I couldn't stand listening to, and I would never rate something one star that is at least quite enjoyable for me.

How on earth did that get past the review reporting? 

harmonium.ro wrote: No, the one star rating is reserved for poor albums. That's what it says in the guidelines and it's totally different from an album you don't like.

Ok, I tried to resist jumping in on this one, but this quote and Dean's endorsement just doesn't make sense to me. 

By stating that a one star rating is only for 'poor' albums and not simply for ones that you don't like you're in effect saying that there's a defined set of guidelines as to what makes an album 'poor' and conversely a set of guidelines as to what is 'good'.  If poor is different than something we don't like, the insinuation is that ratings are no longer subjective.

Where is this checklist? 

When one hears an album that sounds like crap to you but many respect, how to rate it?  If I were to judge an album's worth, I'd do it with my own ears and not based on other's opinions of it.  EL thinks that Third is a one star and I'd rate it much higher.  Who is right, and who is wrong?  Or are neither right nor wrong?  I respect that rating no matter how much I disagree.  I do agree that one should be fairly familiar with/ knowledgeable about a style before being overly harsh, or praiseworthy for that matter.

Of course one should be more careful when it comes to categories one's not well-acquainted with, because I also look at it as judging those albums against others in the category.

It's not easy to know what is "objectively" poor.  I think status quo thinking can be really problematic when it affects a rating.  For instance, if most everyone thinks that, say, Space Jazz is a masterpiece, and I rate, no matter how atrocious I think the album is, while being affected overmuch by others opinions, or if most everyone thinks that Big Fun is one of the worst albums ever, but I love it and alter my ratings in accordance to others.

Ratings should be honest and personal (I like to think) -- that said, there should be many cases where one dislikes something but recognises that it's not an objectively bad album and vice versa.


Edited by Logan - August 19 2009 at 18:20

Roland113 wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: No, the one star rating is reserved for poor albums. That's what it says in the guidelines and it's totally different from an album you don't like.  Ok, I tried to resist jumping in on this one, but this quote and Dean's endorsement just doesn't make sense to me.  By stating that a one star rating is only for 'poor' albums and not simply for ones that you don't like you're in effect saying that there's a defined set of guidelines as to what makes an album 'poor' and conversely a set of guidelines as to what is 'good'.  If poor is different than something we don't like, the insinuation is that ratings are no longer subjective. Where is this checklist?

There is no checklist; as other have said it's personal and based in common sense. Speaking or myself, I would rate an album one star only if I dislike it strongly and at the same time think it's really, really bad. If I sense it's only my personal taste or expectations that have been affected, then I try to reason out an objective evaluation. For example, I absolutely hate "Images And Words" but I would never rate it just one star. There's so much more to that album other than the fact that I find it horrible! The third case would be that of liking an album (or at least parts of it) while knowing it's quite poor. That's less likely to happen, but for me it has happened already; it's the case of some albums by bands from my home country, to which I am very attached.

LE: Dean beat me to it with the same argument by just one minute


Edited by harmonium.ro - August 19 2009 at 18:35

Epignosis wrote: I find the two almost without exception go hand in hand.

That is true at least in your case. Your reviews are balanced and I can always tell they were fair if when I didn't agree. For example, I didn't even remember you published a negative review for Idmen when this thread started. It was DB's review/rating which struck me as... problematic.

I understand both of your points (which is I guess the same point).  Personally, I don't like "Close to the Edge", I've actually agonized over the fact that I can't get into it, I've given it a fair listen with all of my attention at least eight times and had it as background music an additional five times.  There is no way that I'm going to give it a one star rating because I respect that it's one of the masterpieces of the genre.  It'd serve no purpose and frankly, I'd probably get crucified.

I've never given a one star rating either, typically, I feel that I need to listen to something at least five times to give it a fair review and if something is that awful, I just don't listen to it enough to merit a review.

My presumption, and maybe I am wrong in this presumption, is that the unwritten words for a one star rating, and frankly for two, three, four and five star ratings is 'in my opinion'.  If 'poor in my opinion' and 'not liked' don't mean pretty much the same thing, then I'm missing something.  I just think if someone wants to give a one star rating, a rating of 'poor' on something that they don't like, it's their prerogative.

Both arguments are right. To me, a one-star rating IS for 'poor' albums, but even that standard is based on opinion. Correct? Clearly it is the opinion of more than one individual that Idmen is a poor album. Again, who is anybody to say that is unfair and should be 'reported'?

I don't know how many 1 star reviews DB has written, but I would like to think that he reserves that score for albums that he truly considers 'poor'.

Myself, I have only rated one album a one so far, and I try to keep that spot saved for albums I truly think need it. I have no reason to think DB is doing anything different on his end of things.