Your rating system

5 stars - consistently amazing. At best it's flawless (Close to the Edge). At worst there's a slight amount of weaker material (Selling England by the Pound), but rarely more than one song (unless it's a double or the songs are really short) and even that one is usually at least decent. This is the kind of album that I can always listen to from start to finish.
4 stars - mostly great, but not consistently so. For example, an album with one half great tracks and one half merely good tracks (Absolutely Free). Or an album with mostly great tracks but one or two bad ones (Songs from the Wood). Or anything in between that (In a Glass House). In any case, the good has to significantly outweigh the bad. Usually also an album I will want to listen to from start to finish, even though I may skip a track occasionally.
3 stars - The good outweighs the bad, but not by that much. This might be an album with some great songs but also some really bad ones (Starless and Bible Black). Or it might consist primarily of songs that are decent but unspectacular, with few outliers in either direction (Foxtrot). Sometimes I will listen to the whole album, but more often I will skip some songs or only play my favorites.
2 stars - My overall impression is negative, but there's some good material. This is the choice rating for bad albums with some great tracks on them (Wind & Wuthering) or albums that are often interesting but never quite successful (Lizard). I usually don't listen to the entire album, but I will pick out what I consider the highlights and discard the rest.
1 stars - A flat-out bad album. Either all of the tracks suck (Atom Heart Mother) or there are some okay moments here and there (Train of Thought), but nothing that I would miss if I were to get rid of the album. Even if the rest of the album is atrocious, the presence of just one honestly good track is enough to bump the entire album to 2 stars. I never listen to 1-star album except for 'academic' purposes.

Usually determining the rating is a rather mathematical thing (which tracks do I like how much and how much album space do they take up?), but keeping in my mind things like sequencing and the aggregate effect of the songs.

Foxtrot, WaW, and Lizard are all masterpieces in my book

Dayvenkirq wrote: Atavachron wrote: I increasingly find rating standards to be trite and unnecessary--  'what do I think?' is my rating system. Sorry for bothering you; I'm just curious about why you think so.

It reduces the process to numbers and criteria like a point system.   Music is an art form and ultimately should not be valued by how many songs are thought to be good or whether Dick Johnson had one fewer good solos this time than last.   It misses the point and misunderstands the creative process.   The odds of an artist releasing an album that is generally considered to be 'a masterpiece' are probably about a hundred to one, if not worse.   It isn't a contest, it's music.

Gerinski wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: 3 stars - The good outweighs the bad, but not by that much. This might be an album with some great songs but also some really bad ones (Starless and Bible Black). Or it might consist primarily of songs that are decent but unspectacular, with few outliers in either direction (Foxtrot). Sometimes I will listen to the whole album, but more often I will skip some songs or only play my favorites. 2 stars - My overall impression is negative, but there's some good material. This is the choice rating for bad albums with some great tracks on them (Wind & Wuthering) or albums that are often interesting but never quite successful (Lizard). I usually don't listen to the entire album, but I will pick out what I consider the highlights and discard the rest. Only 3 stars for Foxtrot and 2 for Wind and Wuthering or Lizard?  man you're harsh...

I'm not harsh in general, just on those particular albums, which I happen not to like much. I have rated the vast majority of albums that are well-regarded here with 4 or 5 stars. I just tried to pick some examples that most people have heard of.

Atavachron wrote: An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star. Rating systems don't account for this ... .

Like the PA rating system? How do you figure?

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 28 2012 at 20:16

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Atavachron wrote: An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star. Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.

Is the PA rating system a quality-based rating system?

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 28 2012 at 20:20

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Atavachron wrote: An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star. Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade.

That's my point; are Lamb or Tarkus flawless records?  Absolutely not.  Are they 5-star records?   I have little doubt they are.

Atavachron wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: Atavachron wrote: An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star. Can they? It seems pretty obvious to me that in a quality-based rating system, a flawless record must get the highest grade. That's my point; are Lamb or Tarkus flawless records?  Absolutely not.  Are they 5-star records?   I have little doubt they are.

You're reversing my statement. The fact that every flawless record gets the highest grade does not mean that every record with the highest grade is flawless.

Dayvenkirq wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: I would say it's a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense in which factors such as quality and importance are mixed into certain combinations, but leaving no room for other combinations. Are you saying that quality and importance are the things that make it "a disastrous and inconsistent piece of nonsense"?

I have no idea what you're saying.

Dayvenkirq wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: In the PA rating system, every essential albums must also be a masterpiece and vice versa. But that's not a flaw with rating systems in general, it's just a flaw with this particular one. I did not know there was a difference between "a masterpiece" and "an essential album".

You may say that every masterpiece is essential. But is every essential album a masterpiece? Even ignoring the fact that I don't think there's such a thing as an 'essential' album, In the Court of the Crimson King is about as close to essential as a prog album gets. Yet I don't think it's a masterpiece, and on a quality-based scale, I think it deserves four stars.



Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - November 28 2012 at 20:47

Finnforest wrote: I believe when you participate in a site that means to convey information to site users, one should follow the site's ratings definitions as much as possible so that users actually know what your rating means, and have useful information about the average rating.  Your own personal definitions are fine on your own blog, but users of the site are not likely to know your personal system.  I guess I've just never understood what is so hard about making a good faith effort to follow the intent of the site's rating guidelines, and what we gain from all the hand wringing and over-thinking about ratings.  Maybe I've just seen this topic one too many time.  Do what thou wilt.

Atavachron wrote: An imperfect record can be a 5-star one, and a flawless record can be a 2-star.   Rating systems don't account for this and important things can be lost in translation.