4 and a 1/2 Stars?

^^Nope!

It can be a relative 5 stars... Like... Jon Anderson - Olias Of Sunhillow (which I gave a 5), although its only prog related, I'd say its a masterpiece.

I mean... I never thought of the example you gave
But, if you think its worth 5 stars as an album, then I'd say give it a five...

Sorry, I'm not sure how to elaborate on my feelings much more than that


-Joel

At the end of the day,

PinkPangolin wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: SentimentalMercenary wrote: I'm late here, sorry about it.   The problem at hand is that too many people think that giving 4 stars is harsh for an album that they like, so they go and give 5 stars. This is an attitude that needs to be changed rather than the ranking system.   Personnaly, I will give 3 stars to many albums that I really enjoy. I will keep my 4 stars ratings only for exceptional albums that I love listening again and again without skipping any tracks, and which I feel are close to being or becoming a classic of the genre. I will award 5 stars strictly to established classics, true masterpieces that have influenced several other artists, or to the very few albums that simply moved me way beyond 99% of the rest.   Thus it's the attitude towards the 3 and 4 stars ratings which should be changed. Once we start to see them as good ratings rather than harsh or poor, it mostly fixes the system.   I also think that this problem is especially present within the tech metal genres, where 4 and 5 stars ratings are commonly awarded to just any commonplace tech metal album...  Industrial strength praise for the above. Well said sir. I too have long believed that the rating system ain't broke but the raters clearly are. To wit, a positive review of a so-called classic prog album (3 stars) is perceived as a disrespectful slander of a sacred cow. You only need to try to reconcile the body text of reviews with the ratings to see that e.g. "this track's a bit boring and some of the shorter songs are just ok but a prog masterpiece 5 stars" Enough already.... All the comments from Tin of Hurri Curri (did I get that right?) have been superb - good stuff -thanks I have never before really appreciated that "3" is a specially good rating.   Does 3 out of 5 equate to 6 out of 10?  For a footballer on his Saturday's performance to be given 6 out of 10 would be considered "satisfactory" - he did his job but no more.  Clearly in this website it means more than that - maybe it's more that the definitions ought to be altered. Maybe the mark in reality is out of 3.   Then you get 3* and 3** for the "4" and "5" ratings.  "3" is great, "3*" is extra-great, and "3**" is super-dooper unbelievably great.... Does this fit with what you're saying?

No reviews from my uncrafty hand have appeared yet, but the first 4.5 star I'll round up to 5 and most others will be rounded down to 4, and it should the freedom of the reviewer to round up or down. But to make a 4.5 star rating possible while a 1.5, a 2.5 or a 3.5 should be rounded to an entire number makes no sense to me.

Edited by someone_else - August 23 2009 at 09:25

Dick Heath wrote: Why piss about with halves, simply go  0 to 10  (OR even 0 to 100), but 10 is awarded only after an album has been out for at least 3 years - so we can incorporate 'the test of time' evalution and allow some reviewers to grow up...................................

Dick Heath wrote: Why piss about with halves, simply go  0 to 10  (OR even 0 to 100), but 10 is awarded only after an album has been out for at least 3 years - so we can incorporate 'the test of time' evalution and allow some reviewers to grow up...................................

 

SentimentalMercenary wrote: Epignosis wrote: Test of time?  Hell, I might not be alive in three years. I rated The Decemberist's The Hazards of Love five stars not because it has stood any "test of time" (whatever that means) but because I believe it will stand the test of time (again, whatever that means- I take it to mean I will be heartily enjoying it in ten years as much as I do now.  And if I don't?  Eh, it's still a solid five for many other reasons). But is it not the fact that people give 5 stars to just any album they feel is great at the moment, wihtout due consideration to its actual influence, context and durability, that makes almost trivial the 5 stars rating? I mean, we all had those moments where we felt that a given new album is outstanding and that our feelings about it would not change, whereas after some time, we may still like it but no longer think it is a masterpiece...  Any thoughts?

Yeah, you have made a valid point and despite the dismissive tenor of the Ted Heath Band who posited the original idea, I do think it has some merit if applied to new releases of new material. I remember actually being positive about ELP's Love Beach when it came out but having reviewed same after a 30 year errand called 'growing up', now realise it is but a pile of pooh. I guess you are thinking of some sort of 'holding pen' for 5 star ratings of brand new albums ?

No because the site won't do it anyway so we should stop talking about it.

The 5 star rating is a clean and simple methodology used by PA to determine an albums progressiveness.

However, I use half ratings on my ipod (wish they had a 1-10 star option) as I like to rate how much I like tracks and sometimes need a rating between 3-4 and 4-5. But that is for my own personal consumption. If you are keen to rate albums this way then I might suggest that you mosy over to Progfreak.

Me I like both but sometimes have to remind myself of the PA scoring system which has been an invaluable guide to bands and albums that I was not familiar with.

I would like to be able to rate it whatever you want, half, 1 1/2, and so on.