Ratings of Bruce Springsteen & Radiohead albums

This was inspired by a discussion with Lorenzo (jamesbaldwin) about Radiohead, raking higher than Bruce Springsteen and some other classic artists. See THIS (click) topic page for context. I have no issue with more people there giving ratings (and good ones) to Radiohead albums and thus it ranking higher.

I was wondering, if you were a rater at a general music site, would you be more likely to give ratings (and high ratings) to Radiohead or Bruce Springsteen?

Which would have more (or any) albums that would rank higher on your own personal favourite albums list?

I would not rate any Bruce Springsteen albums. I have not listened to any of his albums in full, like some of his early songs, and I have disliked him generally. Radiohead, on the other hand, is one of most important bands to me these days and I consider it to be a true modern classic band and a very important one not just for ones that started in the 90s. If one were to ask me what is the most significant band of the past 30 years, Radiohead would be the first to come to mind (rather like the Beatles of the 90s if not as popular but also made popular music and got experimental). I think that Radiohead is remarkable. Kid A, A Moon Shaped poll, and OK Computer are all five star albums in my book. To be honest, I haven't rated those at PA, but that's because when I did all of my ratings without reviews (not that I wrote many reviews) it was when the quick rating feature was introduced and I was not yet into Radiohead save a song or two.

This is only about importance to you poll-wise, not which is better or more objectively important, in that I ask people to vote for which they would more likely rate (and rate various albums by) and or give good ratings too. When it comes to rankings at general music sites, it's about knownness and popularity and this poll should reflect on that with the PA forumites who participate.

Easily Radiohead for me as I would give many Radiohead albums high ratings and I would not give any Bruce Springsteen album any ratings at this time (I have not heard any of his in full and from I know of his, I would not expect to like his albums as much as Radiohead. Even if I knew in full some of his albums in full, I don't tend to like to give such ratings for that which I am not enthusiastic about -- a reason why ratings often skew high as we are more likely to rate those we care about and be exposed to one we think we will care about.

Too long an OP, but hopefully the question is clear enough for the poll. I could have an option like I wouldn't rate either, but I don't see much point in that.

Bruce Springsteen

Logan wrote: ^ It's tied. Paul, Which Radiohead used to do it for you, out of interest? I remember now, I think it was early Radiohead like Pablo Honey and/or The Bends.  Our ratings are very different for Radiohead.  Hope you share those of yours and your Bruce Springsteen ones (be interested to see how you rank his albums).

Logan wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: Logan wrote: ^ It's tied. Paul, Which Radiohead used to do it for you, out of interest? I remember now, I think it was early Radiohead like Pablo Honey and/or The Bends.  Our ratings are very different for Radiohead.  Hope you share those of yours and your Bruce Springsteen ones (be interested to see how you rank his albums). I have three Radiohead albums on CD - The Bends, OK Computer & Hail to the Thief - but I very rarely listen to them these days, whereas I have six Bruce Springsteen albums on CD which I listened to just last week.  What's your favourite (or favourites) Bruce Springsteen album (I have not listened to any of his in full and I might check it out) My favourite Radiohead albums are Kid A, A Moon Shaped Pool and OK Computer -- all five stars for me.

^^ I have a few compilations, but I think I only have three greatest hits sort of CDs in my collection. One is Kate Bush's The Whole Story another is ABBA Gold and the other is The Very Best of Supertramp (all not bought at Charity Shops).

^ Most, or half, of what I listen to is not Prog Rock (and quite a few at PA have stated that Radiohead is not Prog Rock, and some have said that it has no place at PA -- various of those were quite ignorant I think and judging it based on limited listening, the wrong material material and not understanding how our Prog categories work well-enough). Weyes Blood and Chelsea Wolfe are but two that have got such a lot of playtime from me recently for various albums that I would rate very highly. I do listen to more modern music these days and so would sooner rate modern albums (I would rather rate that album which I am currently enthusiastic about, and that commonly is a more recent find for me, be it old or new).

Edited by Logan - May 30 2023 at 13:57

^ Well, they were all fairly recent releases when I bought them (Kate Bush's was a few years old). For used albums, I buy LPs (some can be quite expensive). I don't play them or sell them, I just like having them. I own plenty of CDs but even those I now listen to through other means (mostly streaming). I should donate a lot more of of my stuff to charity shops as I don't like to sell things.

Logan wrote: But, Lorenzo, on an all-music site you think that Bruce Springsteen should be rated more (and perhaps higher) and therefore ranked higher? (or to put it another, way, that the charts would have more validity/value if Bruce ranked higher than Radiohead).   Maybe some people will chime on your thoughts in the Italian thread, because to be honest, I just don't understand your perspective on this.  I wish Dean were around.  By the way, BS (not to be confused with Black Sabbath or bull****) has twice the number of votes now.  I do hope that all who vote share their thoughts.

jamesbaldwin wrote: Greg,  1) You say that the RYM ranking is a popularity ranking. Which is exactly why I don't care. I'm interested in quality rankings. 2) PA's ranking is achieved in the same way as RYM, but to a certain extent: the site contributors give ratings that are worth 10, the forumists' ratings are worth 1. And in my opinion this is effective, it corrects the ranking for the better. I would be in favour of a ranking made by the site contributors alone. 3) Pink Floyd are present in Pa's Top 10 with three albums, it is true. But it is a prog music ranking. Whereas on RYM, PF are present with three albums in the Top 10 of all seventies music. There is a big difference. 4) You say that David Bowie is more famous than Bruce Springsteen. But in Europe since the 1980s, Bruce Springsteen is much more famous. David Bowie in the last 30 years has sold a lot less than Springsteen and didn't fill stadiums.  5) So, the RYM ranking is not just a popularity ranking. Some famous artists such as Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Radiohead are very pumped up, other famous artists with a big commercial impact on the other hand are almost ignored: Rolling Stones, The Who, Springsteen, Michael Jackson, Dire Straits, U2, REM, Oasis, Coldplay etc. In addition, some cult artists enjoy a very high ranking (No. 8: My Bloody Valentine - Loveless!!). That ranking seems to me totally unpredictable and devoid of any logic other than that of being a mirror of fan groups. Perhaps, if there is a logic, it is to devalue flok-blues-rock artists (Dylan, Springsteen, Rolling Stones, Lou Reed, U2, REM etc.). The popular heartland-folk-roots artists are completely underrated: Springsteen, Seger, Mellencamp, Petty, Hiatt etc.

Apologies to Cristi or anyone else if this quoting makes it harder to read and join in with your own thoughts on this conversation:

1) Yes, it gauges the popularity of albums based on the ratings of the users. Quality in art is often subjective., but lists even by the so-called cognoscenti commonly are subjective (it's not about "true" quality or some Platonian ideal, it's about what they appreciate). What you think are quality ranking might well not be what I consider quality rankings. I'm more interested in qualities than quality. Who is the ultimate arbiter of quality (other than my wife who manages the quality department of a biotech company)?

2) I think it's five times the value given to collabs over non-collabs and ten times ratings with reviews over rating without reviews here. I could be wrong as I don't wish to double-check, Part of getting older for me is being okay with such public mistakes. There has been much abuse including people ratings albums without hearing them (or barely listening to them) -- sometimes this has been from official reviewers and collabs too to be honest. There is some utility in how we do it here, especially as we have far fewer numbers of people. Large numbers can be a corrective since there are individuals who abuse the system (systems groups) by trying to manipulate the rankings. I don't think my ratings with a review should be worth more than, most members, but it is. Most of us just rate according to how much we like an album, not based on quality write large -- perceived quality as a factor, okay. Not singling you out, but just cause we agreed to make you a Prog Reviewer, I wouldn't value your opinion of quality over other forumites. I would rather more numbers of raters and do away with favouritism (it's the socialist in me that dislikes elitism).

3) I never thought of Pink Floyd as Prog growing up. I still think of it as more art rock than prog proper. Pink Floyd is a pretty mainstream rock band, still gets played regularly on classic rock radio and I would is still culturally relevant. I would expect it to do well on any music site that includes popular music. As for those others you mention, which I don't like as much, check out the numbers of ratings at RYM. It's not just about the ranking, but the number of people who appreciate it. The fact is, Pink Floyd is still selling and being discovered by lot of people and referenced in movies and shows. I see nothing wrong with it being that popular.

4) This is really about rating specific albums. I'm surprised if Springsteen is more famous in Europe than Bowie since the 80s. It's the classic albums that most people know and rate highly of Bowie, and at RYM, it's Springsteen's 70s albums that got the most ratings. His Born to Run has 15,704 ratings with a 3.95 as I mentioned in the other topic. Various others are at about the 10, 000 mark. David Bowie's Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust... has over 50, 000 ratings there. Blackstar is, I think, such a great swansong that I get a lump in my throat just talking about it. Maybe Springsteen will do an album on his deathbed that gets much more acclaim, who knows. By the way, Blackstar there has 32,027 ratings with 4.11. Bruce Springsteen's contemporaneous albums have far few ratings and much lower ratings, but as established perhaps, those RYM rabble are not sophisticated/ erudite enough to recognise quality (just kidding). As for me saying that Bowie is more famous, I can't find where I said that. I said that Bowie is incredibly popular, and that Bowie is more popular than Springsteen (I mean at the RYM chart). Springsteen has lots of ratings at RYM for his discography, Bowie does better still which leads to the rankings of the albums. I just thought Bowie is popular enough that it's not surprising that he would have various albums that would rate high. Blackstar is the top of the year at PA when including Prog Related and does well here too in the charts. Bowie does well here, and he was not an early addition to PA so has not had as much time to accumulate votes as most others there: TOP Prog Related albums chart

5. Are they almost ignored? Just looking at the raking for the top rated album of each:

The Who - Who's Next: A 3.92 with almost 21,737 ratings. #17 for its year and number 346 overall.

The Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers 19,506 ratings with a 3.99 (Let it Bleed almost as much), #11 for 1971, #207 overall.

Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run 15,704 ratings with a 3.95. #6 for 1975, #320 overall

Michael Jackson - Thriller: 24,734 ratings with 3.97. #3 for 1982, #194 overall

U2 - The Joshua Tree: 17,168 ratings with a 3.71. #33 for 1987, #2,552 overall

Cumulatively for all of their albums as you can imagine, that's a huge amount of attention from the raters at the site.   Maybe you have a very different definition of almost ignore or maybe its just because some have even more ratings. So what?

You say it's devoid of logic, and I don't understand your logic. Popularity breeds popularity, and some groups and individuals so have great influence. There is something of a herd mentality at play. But I don't see why, say, a very popular album by a popular act getting 50, 00 ratings devalues a not so popular album by a group getting twenty thousand ratings. I think you care more about ranking than I do and ratings for that matter.

In the Italian music themed topic that I linked to I gave the ratings for the top ranked Dylan, Springsteen, Rolling Stones and Lou Reed albums and judging by the number of ratings, the respectable rankings, how well they do in the year, to say that they are devalued boggles my mind. And as for heartland-folk-roots artists being underrated, that's just your value judgment that shows your biases. Sorry for myself and a great many others not appreciating it as much as you and underrating it so badly. I hate lots of that stuff, sorry. I won't call it bad, I just don't like it or actually dislike. loathe it. I guess there's no accounting for taste.

Here are the stats again that I posted in response to you regarding RYM's not valuing these artists enough (or however you would put it).

- Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run 3.95 / 5.0 from 15,698 ratings. #6 for 1975, #321 overall

- Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited 4.15 / 5.0 from 31,188 ratings. #2 for 1965, #55 overall

- Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers 3.99 / 5.0 from 19,496 ratings. Ranked #11 for 1971, #205 overall

- Neil Young - After the Gold Rush 4.07 / 5.0 from 20,981 ratings. Ranked #5 for 1970, #115 overall

- Lou Reed - Transformer 3.90 / 5.0 from 20,932 ratings. Ranked #15 for 1972, #380 overall

- Tom Waits - Rain Dogs 4.05 / 5.0 from 22,367 ratings. Ranked #2 for 1985, #122 overall

I guess we interpret the data and its implications very differently. Speaking of Lou Reed and I mention it in the other thread, The Velvet Underground gets very high ratings and rakings at RYM. The debut album has 55,716 ratings with a 4.21. Subsequent numbers for albums are also high. VU of course has been very hip and trendy for quite some years. There is a bandwagon effect commonly when it comes to such things.


Edited by Logan - May 30 2023 at 16:35

All of this said, I think I may know where you are coming from, Lorenzo, and you do recognise that the lists are merely a presentation based on the ratings given by a great many people for a great many albums, and those album ratings and numbers of ratings determine the ranking. That doesn't make them invalid or worthless, but maybe not of value to you, and that's fine and it depends on what one uses the charts for I suppose in part. If an album is ranked high already, then it is more likely that more people check it out and then rate that album. Fame begets more fame.

Exaggeration might make sense if it was a considered best list, but not the way it works as calculations based on the amalgamated ratings of albums. I've seen people say the list is wrong, it makes no sense. It makes sense from a simple input equals output way. And I don't think it can be really wrong unless there is some flaw in the computations. I don't think of it as a best list, or PA's charts. Best is largely subjective to me. They are rankings based on the input -- the input is not wrong (with exceptions), the question is does the output compute well?

The logic is in the algorithm and the way the site was set up.

I don't think there's anything wrong with those top ranked artists getting lots of ratings, or with many albums by top ranked artists being rated -- if I like an artist, I will check out more of that artists albums, and if I rate one well by that artists, I might rate many well by that artists. So I would expect repetition of names in a top list.

As said, those almost ignored artists have a great many ratings, not just for the albums I highlighted, and are well respected. It's just that some are more popular (get more ratings, and a relatively small amount can change the ranking significantly).

The beauty of such rankings is that, ideally, it is a fair representation of what is best rated, and people aren't comparing this album to that to come up with a top list. There isn't, potential manipulators aside, such thought as the algorithm doesn't think. It's cold and statistical.

If an individual or 20 individuals (or more) came to together to make, say, a 20 top all-time jazz albums list, they would be actively comparing which should be higher than another and thinking about how many should be listed by an artists. It would be a thoughtful collaborative process. That might well results in what you think is better list, but it's such a different process, and each of those people has their biases. THE RYM way if anything, is more likely to seem fair to me, but then maybe they should not be compared. And I might totally disagree with those jazz albums or they do the obvious albums probably like A Love Supreme etc.