Your rating system

I give this thread a 1.5 rating. It's just a half-step up from banal. 

Atavachron wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: 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. Music is not machinery or baked goods, but rather an offering of self-expression.   To apply mechanical or mathematic standards to music is not only daft but unethical.

OK. What if we were discussing the music of Swift or the Beaver and such? Would you still think it would be daft and unethical to rate their music (considering that it lacks all manners of sophistication ... that I know of)? 

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 29 2012 at 01:24

SolarLuna96 wrote: 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.   Thank you so much for saying this. I can't stand it when people will give something a lower rating because they do not see it as "a masterpiece". It all matters on how you interpret it which is why the overall rating of an album is complied of individuals' ratings.

  Nice statement !!

One word for each is enough - but I rather review than rate

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: One word for each is almost enough - but I rather review than rate  - poor  - mediocre  - average/decent  - very good/excellent  - superb/masterpiece

Man With Hat wrote: 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.    Absolutely.   For this topic, I assumed the OP was talking about your own personal scales. For the purposes of reviewing on this site, I follow the guidelines provided (just like I would if I was reviewing on a different site with different rules). I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this.

Very true, and I do use the official guidelines as a guide when assigning a star.  Even then, though, there's a lot of room for subjectivity, and I strongly think that a rating I give should incorporate those subjective intangibles ("near and dear to my heart and soul" and stuff like that) rather than attempt to give a definitive rating that a robot could come up with if programmed the right way.  My personal relationship with an album can bump an essentially 3-star album up to a 4, or down to a 2.  But again, the basic guidelines for the site ratings still provide my initial template for assigning ratings.  But without letting my personal experience and relationship with the album factor into it, my review would be nothing more than an emotionless checklist of pros and cons.  I just think that the reader would appreciate a personal touch, so long as I describe it such that he can understand what I mean.

So when the topic asked for "your rating system", in my case I assumed it meant, "what is your personal interpretation of the PA ratings system".  Which is a fair question, I think.


Edited by HolyMoly - November 29 2012 at 09:50

 ^ Right

^ You are missing the point. An artist works so hard, puts so much love and care into a work that cannot be understood by everyone on this globe, and he gets a f$%king star or two for the work? Who are we to say that we are at the liberty to judge someone's music based on what we like? Discrimination is what it is, and the rating system is a means to do that.*

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 29 2012 at 21:09

^ What are uncommon rating systems?

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 29 2012 at 21:23

^ Right.  

Edited by Dayvenkirq - November 29 2012 at 21:58