Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > General Music Discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ratings of Bruce Springsteen & Radiohead albums
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Ratings of Bruce Springsteen & Radiohead albums
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Poll Question: For which would you be more likely to give ratings and/or good ratings
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
14 [58.33%]
10 [41.67%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5986 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2023 at 20:36
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

^ Well, that all seems very fair to me. Of course he can disagree as much as he wants, and believe that pigs can fly, faeries exist, elephants are pink and all sorts of eccentric and dubious views. As can I, well in a sense I can, I don't think I could do it and actually believe that stuff if I decided to now.
Stressed Cheese had said that the algorithm is kept mum due to potential abuse when it would come to manipulating the charts. Or perhaps it is all a conspiracy to suppress the knowledge of Springsteen's greatness and thus diminish his awesome potential powers of global music persuasion. Just kidding of course.. More likely Bowie put RYM in his will with the condition that they would receive much of his estate if he was promised higher album rankings than his old nemesis Bruce. ;)

I really don't take charts that seriously, not nearly as seriously as it seems Lorenzo does (nor rating), but I have felt in the past and in this thread that he has been very unfair in his assertions. The utility of the charts for me is how customisable they are, and that has helped me to discover music, and it has been for entertainment for coming up with polls. I thought you might have an idea if his claims follow the statistical evidence well and seem valid, but then we all can have opinions on that. It' not just you a s statistician but as an intelligent person with whom I have had interesting and enjoyable conversations that have changed my thinking on various matters, even if those changes were very temporary. ;)

^^ I believe that a 3.71 average is very respectable average rating, and that the ranking is also very respectable (higher than the vast majority of albums in RYM). Just because many albums by different artist are ranked higher does not negate that I believe that in all of your examples that I can think of that the artists had good ratings. I do not agree with your conclusion and inferences, nor the way you put it, such as "according to RYM they would just be bands that have had great success producing bad music" and "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" and so on, and like Stressed Cheese it lead me to understand that you don't really understand RYM. And I think your biases are blinkering you.

RYM has 1,653,090 Artists, 5,604,651 Releases, 116,516,341 Ratings, 2,980,245 Ratings. Something to consider for perspective.

I honestly don't know to continue with this because I just can't get grok where you are coming from, we have such different senses of perspective when it comes to this, and you don't seem to be able to grok things from my perspective. I've tried my best to explain my perspective and offer my insights on this and to understand and appreciate your take, but I guess your angle and conclusions are just not resonating with me at all. I don't think anything more to add beyond what I have said in this and various other topics with you or beyond what others have said in response to you.

Maybe you and Stressed Cheese will come to some understanding. I feel like my cheese is well stressed now and getting stretched to the breaking point.

Greg, I think I totally understand your perspective, and I think I totally understand how RYM works. I may have expressed opinions emphatically (U2 producing "bad music", leading singer-songwriters are "ignored" in RYM), but all my opinions refer to facts that I have clearly specified (U2 are objectively absent , despite being so famous and popular, from the top 2500 positions while other bands have 2 or 3 albums in the Top 20, the main singer-songwriters of the past - except Dylan - are objectively absent in the Top 100).

What can I say? That U2 and Springsteen aren't rated so badly on RYM because some of their albums are rated 3.7-3.9? Okay, a few of their albums (one or two, at most) are good enough to be in the Top 10 the year they came out. Wow, you know what a value! It would be like saying that some symphonies by Mahler are well placed in the ranking of the best symphonies of the late nineteenth-early eighteenth century, but none of his symphonies is in the Top 100 ever.

In short, well, according to the RYM ratings, if we consider the many thousands of bands present in RYM, for sure there are more bands worse than U2 or artists worse than Springsteen than bands/artists better than them. But I don't think this would make U2 or Springsteen happy, if they knew it, just as I think very few music critics would consider these charts valid from the point of view of musical quality or the historical importance of a band.

I'm interested in the music criticism and in ranking that reflect a music critic perspective.

Then, if you tell me, just look at the fact that you can personalize that charts, don't think about the quality, ok, that's fine, RYM as I said many times did a great job of classifying the records.


Edited by jamesbaldwin - June 03 2023 at 20:40
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 03 2023 at 22:27
They refer to facts, but we interpret the implications differently and come to different conclusions. They are emphatic in that they are forcibly expressed, but not clear to me because they seem hyperbolic at best. I don't find such rhetoric at all persuasive, and it comes across as unconstructive, absurd, and unfair criticism, and unnecessarily negative.

Yes, I don't think those many artists you call nearly ignored, rated badly or whatever are what you say they are.

Originally posted by Stressed Cheese Stressed Cheese wrote:

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

Now, if I think about RYM, especially the 80s, and see that Rem and U2 have their well-rated albums respectively above the 1000 and above the 2000 position on the ALL time chart, I think, what consideration should we give these artists ?




This confuses me, and makes me think you don't use RYM regularly. First of all, R.E.M.'s debut album is at number 477, not above 1000. Second, ratings are based on how everybody who listens to an artist rates them, not just fans. That means that, while there might be a lot of U2 fanatics, a lot of other people who are into their general type of music (rock), do not evaluate them as highly as non-fanatics of, say, Led Zeppelin would. The average Led Zeppelin non-fan likes them better, than the average U2 non-fan likes them, if you get what I'm saying. Just because that doesn't line up with their popularity or how you think of them as "artists" doesn't mean that those ratings are somehow wrong. That's what people think of their albums.

Third. R.E.M. has very high ratings. They have 7 albums that are bolded (meaning they're in the overall top 10.000), which is a lot, and they have 4 albums above a 3.80, which is very high for RYM. If you'd be unfamiliar with R.E.M. and you'd see those ratings, you'd probably be inclined to check them out, that's how high those ratings are. That you'd declare them underrated on RYM makes me think you're not familiar with RYM's rating system, which is fine, but they are clearly critically acclaimed on there.


Stressed Cheese is much more aligned with my thinking than you.

I "get" what you want and like, but you have seemed to have expectations of RYM in making your quality assessments that don't jibe with the site or its purpose. I expect that I would rate Springsteen albums a lot more "badly" than their average album ratings (I knew you were a fan already). It seems to me that you care way more about top 10 lists than I do and take them way more seriously than I do. The way you break down your ratings like it actually matters (fine if it matters to you, just don't expect others to take it seriously), we have different attitudes to rating and on matters of subjectivity vs objectivity.

Originally posted by jamesblldwin jamesblldwin wrote:

But I don't think this would make U2 or Springsteen happy, if they knew it, just as I think very few music critics would consider these charts valid from the point of view of musical quality or the historical importance of a band.


I don't think it should make Springsteen or U2 happy or that they should mind either. I don't think a serious music critic should be making lists to please and pander to such people either -- you do find these sycophantic reviewers eager to please those they review. If those artists have the expectations that they SHOULD be better represented in a chart of a site that has been around for about 20 years, that operates by calculating the ratings of very large numbers of raters covering a huge number of albums of great diversity based on how people enjoy their collection, where users rate how much they like music they are into, then that would seem very arrogant to me. Neither would I rate, because neither are my bag. I don't rate much or rate there, but if I did it would be about the music I most like rather than the music I'm told by someone like you that I should rate highly because apparently it is more significant than what I appreciate?.

As to your validity comment, I just don't see how that is what the charts are about and so why that would even be serious consideration. If critics start complaining that the charts are not valid from the perspective of music quality and historical importance, I think they should get their heads out of their posteriors. Those hypothetical critics are idiots, methinks. Whatever critic would even be thinking that should maybe learn a little more about critical reasoning (relevance, sufficiency, acceptability...). I would not take such critics seriously who would involve that validity card re those charts.

Now if it was the algorithm itself that seemed flawed, the output based on the input, in other words the results based on all the ratings given, that would be a much more compelling case for validity. It reminds me of Trump's claims that the election was stolen, rigged etc. The election of Biden would have been invalid had Trump been right. The chart positions are invalid if there is a flaw in the process/ processing.

You are free to dismiss and ignore the chart, and ultimately the users, for not enough of them giving as much appreciation to those who you think deserve more appreciation. I would rather appreciate the appreciation that does exist for music I care for, but that's me. How it's ranked in the General Music chart is not of much importance to me. It matters when I'm searching for new-to-me music, but I use various filters. You would not complain because you likely have no heard of it than I had. I don't care what's in PA's top 100 either, and treat it as a popularity list rather than a mark of quality and historical importance. I often take issue with those who rate based on received wisdom when it comes to the value of an album. I would rather my own ears by the judge, but of course other people's idea of quality have affected what I listen to and check out. It does matter but some of us dig deeper than top tens and so on.

I can appreciate it for what it is, and how it works, rather than depreciate it for what it is not nor intends to be.

I'm absolutely fine with you preferring and being more interested in music criticism (more academic?) and in rankings that reflect a music critic perspective (perspectives will vary), but you seem to think there is something wrong with RYM because it does not operate the same or yield the same kinds of results, or maybe moreso, the results that you would want based on your particular biases.

If you look at many kinds of music critics, and art critics generally, there is much disparity even if there are commonly accepted canons. I'm not a big one for tradition in some cases like favouring that which has been traditionally favoured -- I'm a little more progressive than that. But there is a case of those who make best of lists who desire acceptance and to be taken seriously who will just regurgitate the conventional views of the pantheon of the supposed greats that they have been told are greats by others who likely have been told these are the greats.... In that case it's not really about what IS GREAT, it's more about what is GREATLY ACCEPTED AS GREAT (use of all-caps inspired by Mosh).

Sometimes it takes a long time before another contemporaneous group or a later group is held in the same high esteem or higher (it is something as fashion dictates). I wanted to be a film critic, went to film school, but but I lack respect for much of the establishment, and found a lot of it pretentious and making very dubious claims and pushing old canards. I don't hold much respect for those who act like they are the purveyors of truth when it comes to greatness, and those who claim best in art, and a lot of those fuddy-duddies are really out of touch, parochial. Narrow-minded purveyors of received wisdom.. There is a lack of creative and original thinking that is common among so many art critics and people generally of course.

I get value from their charts in customised form, you've told me what you like (and I can like that too). I often feel life is too short often to focus overmuch on that which we don't appreciate unless it's something of serious global consequence, and I don't consider these concerns to be of such importance.

Edited by Logan - June 04 2023 at 00:44
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
Stressed Cheese View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 16 2022
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 540 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Stressed Cheese Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 04:21
There seem to be two separate things here regarding the merits of RYM's ratings:
1) A community-driven, average-rating driven list like RYM isn't as valuable as more curated lists
2) RYM's ranking system is wrong, and certain artists should be higher up

1) is a matter of opinion, 2) is just objectively wrong.

Why should a music critic's opinion on what albums are better or worse be held in higher regard or count more than random shmucks like, say, me? Why is a chart that democratically looks at what thousands of people think of albums worse than one that has been more carefully constructed by a small group of individuals? Rating albums is a subjective thing to do. Shouldn't music criticism from actual listeners, thousands of them in many cases on RYM, be more valuable? Why should I expect my own musical tastes to align more with that of critics than that of RYM? Music critics were already dubious back in the 60's and 70's, but now that we have the internet available, we can get a wide variety of opinions from a wide variety of people - and thus they've become obsolete. Much more valuable to me than what a small group of critics think.

Let's talk about U2 again. You say RYM's rating system is unfair to U2 because you think they should be higher up in the top ___. Why? Because of their popularity. But RYM doesn't rank things based on popularity. U2 is a household name, whereas, say, Fishmans, isn't. But the average U2 listener evaluates Joshua Tree lower than the average Fishmans listener evaluates Long Season. Ok, so far, so good, that's just the raw ratings. Apparentely Fishmans carve out a really good niche for themselves. What RYM then does is rate that Fishmans album higher than U2, because it's evaluated more positively. Too bad for U2, but why shouldn't Fishmans deserve that? Should they be ranked lower because U2 sold more albums and are more well known? That often has as much to do with how accessible an artist is than with their quality.

If an artist like Pink Floyd recieves higher ratings than U2, that's not because RYM users are bigger fans of Floyd than U2, that's because people are.

Also, U2 is one example, but you'll notice that a lot of famous artists actually have very good ratings. Not that U2's are bad, but seriously. Look up any really well-known artist and you'll see that they often have a bunch of bolded albums (meaning they're in the top 10.000), and pretty high ratings.

Now, the great thing about the RYM charts is that, if I see some extreme death metal album ranked very highly, I just ignore that, because I don't like that kind of music. People who aren't into what Fishmans is doing are free to ignore them. But that doesn't mean that, in their genre, they don't do what they do very well apparentely.

It basically comes down to RYM just taking ratings into account. That is that site's "logic". How is tampering with that and creating a more curated list any more "logical"? You say that if a famous artist isn't present in the top 2500, that's a sign that RYM thinks they haven't made great albums. But fame has nothing to do with it. It's not like the more famous an artist is, the higher rating they have to achieve. A 3.71 is a good album, whether you're some obscure band nobody has heard of or world-famous U2. RYM is supposed to be purely about quality, not about popularity, or influence, or critical darlings. That creates some unexpectedly highly rated albums at times, but what's wrong with that? And yes, there's some kind of algorithm, but from what I can tell, this mostly boils down to making sure inactive users can't review bomb or boost/degrade their favorite/hated artists.

Demographics also have f**k all to do with it. The average RYM user probably really hates death metal, since it's a very niche genre. And yet, death metal albums can recieve very high averages. That's because if you're on RYM, you're not going to rate albums that you don't care about. I don't go around giving every hip hop album a 1 star rating, because I don't listen to hip hop. That's not to say that a lot of (older) people probably absolutely can't stand hip hop, but they won't listen to it, so they're not the audience. Saying that RYM's demographics don't appreciate U2 is nonsense. And in case you didn't know, a lot of people can't stand U2. Since they're so mainstream, and they're easily recommended/encountered, that means that that'll be reflected in the ratings. And that's fair, because those opinions are from people who otherwise would be into this kind of genre/era. U2 just isn't as appreciated by the mainstream as the Beatles, or Led Zeppelin, or whatever kind of household name has higher ratings than U2.

Also, it's probably a lost cause to try to convince people of the worthlessness of music critics if they still have respect for them in 2023, but consider the validity of such lists. If some random average person would pick out music based on either a critic's list, or a RYM chart, what would you think be able to predict their tastes better? A list based on thousands of other people, or a list based on what a few people say? A few people that all work in the same industry? Obviously the RYM chart will be more valid, in the scientific sense of the word. If you get some kind of value out of more curated lists, fine. But to say they're more accurate or valid or whatnot is completely wrong.

Lastly, while I might've spend several paragraphs defending RYM, at the end of the day, it's just something for fun, something to use to discover new music, and it's just interesting to see what people think of certain artists. Critic lists aren't much different. Critics don't try to come up with some kind of "correct" list (because that'd be impossible), they try to make a list that fits their view of the music industry, or what artists they think should be appreciated based on influence or whatnot. I love King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard, but a lot of their albums have rather low RYM ratings. But I'm not going to cry about it - in fact, I can see people's arguments in a lot of cases. And I'm sure you can see why some people would find U2 boring as sh*t.
Back to Top
Saperlipopette! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 11659 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Saperlipopette! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 04:37
^Yep. I don't really get how it's possible to look at it any other way (not without being wrong). But appearently it is.
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14733 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 04:39
Quote
If an artist like Pink Floyd recieves higher ratings than U2, that's not because RYM users are bigger fans of Floyd than U2, that's because people are.
Err, what!? If RYM users do the ratings, the ratings tell us about RYM users and not about anybody else.

And by the way, I haven't checked a ranking but I'd be pretty sure their ranking algorithm would prefer a U2 album with loads of ratings and a somewhat lower but still good average to Fishmans with a higher average and a handful of ratings only. But I'm not sure because of lack of transparency. (I can see that albums with fewer than 100 ratings and an average larger than 4 do not feature high in rankings.)

Quote
Obviously the RYM chart will be more valid, in the scientific sense of the word.
What is the "scientific sense" of the word that could apply here? I'm a scientist and "validity" statements are part of my bread and butter, and I can't make sense of this statement. It is what it is, it isn't what it isn't, and Lorenzo is just as well entitled to his preference of curated lists as you are preferring RYM.


Edited by Lewian - June 04 2023 at 04:59
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14733 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 04:52
@Logan:
Quote Stressed Cheese had said that the algorithm is kept mum due to potential abuse when it would come to manipulating the charts.
Fair enough, though they could disclose the basic algorithm and say that adjustments are being made based on certain rating patterns that may indicate abuse, and just not disclose how precisely this is done.

Obviously they can do what they want; it's just that personally I like higher transparency more, just as Lorenzo prefers curated lists by critics. 
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14733 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 04:56
By the way, Radiohead in the lead now. The prog world is regaining its senses. Tongue


Edited by Lewian - June 04 2023 at 05:01
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 06:33
A very interesting post, Stressed Cheese.

Originally posted by Stressed Cheese Stressed Cheese wrote:

There seem to be two separate things here regarding the merits of RYM's ratings:
1) A community-driven, average-rating driven list like RYM isn't as valuable as more curated lists
2) RYM's ranking system is wrong, and certain artists should be higher up

1) is a matter of opinion, 2) is just objectively wrong.


This a is good summation of what I have been trying to stress, not just in this poll.

Originally posted by Stressed Cheese Stressed Cheese wrote:

...Let's talk about U2 again. You say RYM's rating system is unfair to U2 because you think they should be higher up in the top ___. Why? Because of their popularity. But RYM doesn't rank things based on popularity. U2 is a household name, whereas, say, Fishmans, isn't. But the average U2 listener evaluates Joshua Tree lower than the average Fishmans listener evaluates Long Season. Ok, so far, so good, that's just the raw ratings. Apparentely Fishmans carve out a really good niche for themselves. What RYM then does is rate that Fishmans album higher than U2, because it's evaluated more positively. Too bad for U2, but why shouldn't Fishmans deserve that? Should they be ranked lower because U2 sold more albums and are more well known? That often has as much to do with how accessible an artist is than with their quality....



This felt coincidental to me. I have not been sleeping much at all in a week because I have painful shingles -- I'm not looking for pity and so, as is common, I woke up out of a two hour sleep. Well, problem with posting alot is it follows me into bed and into my sleep and I often wake up thinking things about it. In this case it was something like when half-asleep, top ten reason that the RYM chart is awesome, and Fishmans was number one for me. Like much music these days, I discovered that through the RYM charts. And I love Long Season. That album would not be out of place in Prog Archives methinks.

I have been impressed, per my tastes of course, at how much interesting (to me) progressive music (not necessarily Prog) gets covered there prominently from my perspective. Another for me that I found is Natural Snow Buildings with Daughter of Darkness. Is it niche? Yes, but I am niche. Looking at the number of ratings, it has 4,629 ratings, way less than the bigger albums of those mostly "ignored" names, and yet I discovered it through RYM's charts quickly. Well, The Dance of the Moon and the Sun was the first with 5,856 ratings that I saw.

The worth of the charts can depend on how you use them, including the filters, and what you are using them for. I, as said before, have used them to discover music. Some others might only be interested in seeing or trying to see what they know.

All hail RYM as far as I am concerned. I think it's time I became a rater there and a list maker (another cool option at RYM). I checked out the forums before and had trouble getting used to those. I like PA for that, and I have loyalty to this forum but for finding music I like, RYM is great for me. I like the way they multi-tag albums with genre and descriptions and make it so searchable using multiple tags. That's so helpful to someone like me who likes to search to discover music of different kinds from different periods that might fit my mood and interests at any given time,

For Fishmans Long Season:

Genres     Dream Pop, Neo-Psychedelia, Progressive Pop
Dub, Ambient Pop, Post-Rock, Post-Minimalism

Descriptors     atmospheric, lush, repetitive, psychedelic, mellow, aquatic, warm, suite, hypnotic, nature, androgynous vocals, melodic, ethereal, summer, progressive, uplifting, sentimental, peaceful, male vocals, bittersweet, soothing, love, spring, seasonal, meditative, passionate, longing, surreal, forest, melancholic, soft, romantic

At PA what we get, Crossover I guess, not very descriptive, and every album is under the same simple heading regardless of its unique qualities. Sometimes I forget that I'm an Admin here and where my loyalties should be. All hail PA! ;)

EDIT to add:

Those RYM charts also have led to seem pretty decent polls if I do say so myself.  This is not a shameless plug, this is a public service message. ;)

Rate by voting or forever hold  your peace. What gets well rated there depends on the users, and positive posts about choices leads to positive exposure..  It may be no Interactive Poll, of which i think I have put up some very good ones, bur for the Italian Prog aficionado, I suggest  partaking in Part 2.  

Maybe I'll even do a heartland USA one because I do like to please even if I am not very good at pleasuring.  This song comes first to mind.  Lee Greenwood, God Bless the USA.


On the other hand, I'd rather continue to expose people to music like Fishmans (Long Season part 5 was an Interactive Poll nomination of mine not long ago.  For those that don't know, Lorenzo, aka jamesbaldwin started  a wonderful Interactive Poll series of which  Lewian here and I have been major contributors.  I have discovered much great music through the contributions of people in those topics as well as through RateYourMusic. I like having a plethora of platforms for discovery.

And on the poll front, yes Radiohead, one of the most significant bands of the past 30 years I feel comfortable saying, even more so than The Flower Kings*, is rightfully in the lead.  Joking but nothing against The Flower Kings.


Edited by Logan - June 04 2023 at 07:16
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5986 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 07:11
@Greg

I think it's time to draw conclusions.

1) I thank you for opening this thread, which has drawn attention to Springsteen (Radiohead is already in Progarchives) and some very popular artists from genres that don't get much ratings on RYM: singer-songwriter, folk, heartland rock, roots rock etc. 

2) You have given me a chance to explore RYM better, now I will see if I can write about it in an orderly way.

3) Now I explain what I would propose to Progarchives in order to make a ranking with clear criteria that I consider serious and coherent. A ranking that could be placed alongside the existing one, which I consider very good, especially when I think about how it was drawn up (it could have given disastrous results).

I would do in this way:

a) Every collaborator and prog reviewer, but I would also add long-time forumists who make themselves available, could draw up a list of the 200 albums they consider to be the best (= the most beautiful) in the history of prog. Not necessarily his or her favourites, those he or she considers most beautiful as music. Restrictions: he can choose a maximum of 4 albums by the same artist. 

b) How do we define the beauty of the music? Obviously everyone will have a subjective opinion here. We could identify criteria (the application of which will always be subjective). I would propose these criteria:
1) The ability of music to convey emotions (pathos) - most important criterion
2) Ability to be original, innovative and non-epigonic (not reminiscent of other bands' music) - second most important criterion
FOLLOWING, of equal importance
3) The beauty of the melody
4) The expressiveness of the vocals and instruments (which is different from being virtuosic)
5) The richness of the musical composition
6) The care for the timbre of the music (the sound)
7) the care and variety of the arrangements
8) the richness of the rhythm, the musical dynamics.

PS: If there are lyrics, we should also take into high consideration the literary nature of the lyrics and the consonance they have with the music (if music plus lyrics together amplifies the emotion)
Obviously, selecting criteria could take years of discussion, so I would try to avoid stopping there. In any case, each participant would be free to apply the criteria as he/she wish, without accountability. Some will compile a matrix by putting a mark for each criterion and then average them and get the final score, others will make a summary in their head. The important is the effort to consider this criteria.

(c) Album period. I would start in 1968 (or 1969?) because prog was born in those years, and finish in 2000, because albums from the last two decades have yet to be assimilated by everyone and they must overcome "the test of time".

d) Each participant will have to listen at least twice to all the selected albums, which will be many thousands. This work coudl take 2 or 3 (o maybe more?) years. People like you or SillyPuppy will be favoured, given your encyclopaedic knowledge of prog, others like me will have to work a lot.

e) each participant will draw up a list of the 100 albums he will consider the most beautiful, from 1 to 100: the first will get 100 points, the last 1 point (maximum 4 albums by the same artist).

f) in the end the scores of all the lists are added up and a classification will be obtained which will probably exceed one thousand positions.

This is my proposal.


Edited by jamesbaldwin - June 04 2023 at 07:30
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5986 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 07:33
@Stressed Cheese

I think I've already answered most of your comments, which seem to me an official defense of RYM, a kind of tautology (that is, with your way of setting the arguments, no site would be open to criticism) but if you want I'll look into the next few days to make an orderly list of my objections.
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
Stressed Cheese View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 16 2022
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 540 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Stressed Cheese Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 07:57
Please note that I was typing this post and then 3 more posts appeared after I finished it, so this is mostly just in response to Lewian...

Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Err, what!? If RYM users do the ratings, the ratings tell us about RYM users and not about anybody else.

I don't see why, given an artist that has enough ratings, you can't say that an album's RYM rating isn't a pretty good indication of what the average person thinks of it. Yes, not everybody uses RYM, certain demographics won't be as represented (it's a western website, and people over a certain age don't use the internet as much). You can see this reflected in the amount of ratings (e.g. Fishmans' most rated album actually has more than U2's most rated album, even though U2 on the average still has more, so Fishmans was kind of a bad example on my part). But I think that this has more of an effect on the amount of ratings, than on the actual rating itself. Because there isn't really such a thing as "RYM users" as a general group. I mean, there might be, to some degree, but it doesn't translate over to the album ratings as long as each album/artist still attracts only the appropriate sub-group of users. E.g., there might not be that many people on RYM who grew up in the early 70's compared to people in their 30's (just guessing, but I think it's safe to assume), but as long as prog albums get rated by people who appreciate prog, metal albums get rated by people who appreciate metal, etc. I don't see how this would skew things too much.

Now maybe I'm wrong. Maybe The Who's Tommy would have a much higher rating than 3.73 if there were more retired people on RYM, I don't know. But the fact still is that you wouldn't rate that album if you didn't at least have an interest in classic rock. Plus, I don't think RYM is by any means perfect, and they're transparent about the fact that the ratings reflect the here and now. If an album used to be really beloved or hated, and people now view it as overhyped or a hidden gem, that'll be reflected. But then again, you can only rate stuff based on your own perspective.

Quote
And by the way, I haven't checked a ranking but I'd be pretty sure their ranking algorithm would prefer a U2 album with loads of ratings and a somewhat lower but still good average to Fishmans with a higher average and a handful of ratings only. But I'm not sure because of lack of transparency. (I can see that albums with fewer than 100 ratings and an average larger than 4 do not feature high in rankings.)
I do think the ranking is somewhat affected by popularity, yes. The RYM faqs only mention user activity/reviews, but it wouldn't surprise me. At least for the ranking, rating I have my doubts. I would be interested to find out as well. For example, Tommy should be a couple points higher if you count every rating equally (yes I just calculated that...), but can the fact that inactive users and users who only rate at the extremes get discounted account for this entire gap? Probably an easy way to find out is to calcuate the average by hand for a couple of albums and see if they all end up being higher than what RYM gives as the rating. I assume that would be the case but I don't feel like doing that now, tbh.

Quote
What is the "scientific sense" of the word that could apply here? I'm a scientist and "validity" statements are part of my bread and butter, and I can't make sense of this statement. It is what it is, it isn't what it isn't, and Lorenzo is just as well entitled to his preference of curated lists as you are preferring RYM.
Ok maybe I was talking out of my ass a little, and the validities I am experienced with from my studies don't really apply here, truth be told. I'm kind of struggling to express this properly in english for some reason, but what I was trying to get at is that if you look at a RYM chart, that'll more likely reflect people's overall opinions than a more curated list from music critics. I am certain of that.

Like, if someone gets more out of a list by Rolling Stone or whatever, that's fine. I think it's not very valuable (though possibly interesting to read through), but it's ultimately just for fun, and RYM ultimately is just for fun as well. Nobody is going to enjoy their favorite artists more or less because of what RYM thinks of them. But asking X amount of people from the music industry, or who write music review for a living what they think are the best albums, while interesting, is not going to translate over as well to what people think in the real world.

But anyway, that's enough sounding like a RYM shill for now.


Edited by Stressed Cheese - June 04 2023 at 08:00
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 08:20
^^^ Regarding your proposal, Lorenzo,

^ I like that kind of proposal, and I think that is worthy a thread rather like the I.P. team thread to thrash it out.  One could start it in the collab zone, then a more public forum -- that would be up to you.  200 is fairly ambitious.  You might want to get that going and host the conversation.  I would make it less ambitious.  I don't know if this site will be around in three years, and collabs come and go.... Some pass on.

I am more focused on what I like at any given time, not what I think is objectively good by metrics and most of the music I care about these days is not in PA and is  contemporary.  I would prefer 1967 as the starting year, one can see the pangs of Prog before then.  i would include music we consider to be Proto-Prog.

It could be a very interesting exercise..  I definitely like the restrictions on limiting albums by artist.

On a side-note, I had suggested, not knowing at the time how difficult is to make any major changes to this site, that for rating we use a 100 point system.  That 100 point system is broken up into ten scales according to ten criteria.  For instance, you click on one to ten based on Innovation, Originality, How Much You Enjoy It, The Yowza factor. Similar to some of those "rate your satisfaction" surveys you get  Then an average value is calculated and you can view all of that, we get combined users calculations for charts, and can see the charts in various ways.  Like if innovation is not important to you, like say with The Flower Kings you can eliminate or minimse that, and if a factor like tasteful is not important to you, like with Dream Theater (I kid), you can minimise that.  I like the idea of using various criteria in ratings and have the flexibility to view charts which are calculated according to what'; important to you.

Some people told it was way too complicated, and I was silently like, yeah for simple minds, which ideally would then have had Paul posting a Simple Minds track (what with his New Wave poll) in his imitable style but he would not join this site for many years.  Then we got the quick rating feature, which is like the opposite of my very involved process.  The idea was partially borne out of those many one star and five star raters who people were concerned wit, with quick rating that got worse.  I like charts that can be customised.  I wish we had the option to view the charts without weighted ratings for instance.  Then later form this complicated 10 criteria, 100 overall point proposal, I simplified my idea to  a five point scale to replace our current descriptions which went something like and was explicitly based on your enjoyment of the album:

5 stars: Yowza!
4 stars: Zing
3 stars: Yeah
2 stars: Meh
1 star: Blech

Anyway, I guess you might want to make a topic on that. Sounds intriguing and it might breathe a little more life into this forum and site.  Often I see all these usernames online yet there's no activity.  I imagine the tumbleweeds rolling by as I'm waiting for something to happen.  The forums used to be so lively with chat, discussion, debates, classic Ivan and his blue font of death, oops, me pining for the not so good old days -- sign of getting old, but I do appreciate the very lively discussion in this thread. I t has been interesting, and sorry if I had a little too much fun with it on the sometimes joking around front -- I do that, some really hate it, others just tolerate it.
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
Saperlipopette! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 11659 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Saperlipopette! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 12:35
Originally posted by Stressed Cheese Stressed Cheese wrote:

Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

Err, what!? If RYM users do the ratings, the ratings tell us about RYM users and not about anybody else.

I don't see why, given an artist that has enough ratings, you can't say that an album's RYM rating isn't a pretty good indication of what the average person thinks of it.

Well I think of the ratings at RYM is quite representative. Not so much for the average person, but for the average music obsessed person in the last 20 years or so. The data is massive enough to give an indication as to what albums and artists are considered of a having lasting quality - and those considered a child of their era. Pink Floyd never lost their relevance, while the 8xPlatinum (in the US) Frampton Comes Alive! is found in every cheap bin, flea marked and garage sale - practically for free. My Bloody Valentine's influence continues to grow, while a more commercially successful group like Jesus Jones is merely a footnote by now (edit, not the best examples as you don't need RYM's help to tell you something as obvious, but you get the idea maybe?). U2, Coldplay and Red Hot Chili Peppers are still popular but also loathed and devalued, while Radiohead and say Sufian Stevens + GY!BE are respected and still loved by those who grew up with them and by a new generation of music listeners.

RYM (and PA) tells us more about what is currently held in high regard by the average active music listener (not just any person) than a curated list in a magazine or similar. If I were to re-release an album and needed info about how it would be recieved, and get a feel for the general interest in regards to the specific artist or group in question - I would do my research in such online communities. A curated list made by an individual wouldn't help me much either - unless it was widely shared in places such as RYM.


Edited by Saperlipopette! - June 05 2023 at 11:55
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5986 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 19:24
Greg, if you want, we could write together our proposal in order to specify every detail and then open a thread in the collaborators zone.

How About it?
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 04 2023 at 21:23
^ I appreciate the offer, Lorenzo, but could not commit to it.
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2023 at 11:50
I was thinking of doing anew topic on this, but I was looking through the top 100 at RYM again, I mean I have gone tough way more than that carefully, and thinking this really is a quality list -- by my standards which is quite subjective as well as based on a certain level of inculcation. There is quite a lot represented that is Prog by PA standards, but I was more interested to look at the non-Prog ones that I love or respect (most of these I love, including what are generally considered to be fantastic jazz albums).

Mingus - The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady (14)
The Velvet Underground & Nico - s/t (15)
John Coltrane - A Love Supreme (16)
The Cure - Disintegration (22)
The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds (27)
Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (30)
Nick Drake - Pink Moon (31)
Fishmans - Long Season (32)
Stevie Wonder - Songs in the Key of Life (34)
The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead (36)
Portishead - Dummy (37)
Joy Division - Unknown Pleasures (38)
Cocteau Twins - Heaven or Las Vegas (51)
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited (54) (three in the top 100, and I admire more than like this)
Pixies - Doolittle (55)
Television - Marquee Moon (57)
Sufjan Stevens - Illionois (65)
Aphex Twin - Selected Ambient Works 85-92 (70)
Pharoah Sanders - Karma (78)
Leonard Cohen - Songs of Leonard Cohen (81)

I mean, that's a pretty fine list by my standards. And I did go down the list more with your concerns, Lorenzo. I don't know how far you went or how focused you were on the numbers of ratings and not just the rankings, but how both correlate... Comparing the overall numbers of say the 130th ranked album with the 129th and 131st is an obvious thing to do to see better how things are calculated for the ranking placement (numbers of ratings, average ratings, plus rankings). Looking at the numbers and comparing the placements obviously gives
a better feel for the process. And as I said in another thread, the process is as as interesting in and of itself as the results often, but also to understand the results one needs an understanding of the process. That is an essential element of evaluating the rankings -- the list alone without the other values given loses context.

I observed that Led Zeppelin's first is 3.92 with 33,054 ratings. That's a lot of ratings even by RYM standards and is a high rating by RYM standards. It's ranked at 230 which might seem a low ranking to some on the face of it, but isn't as that is all-time all albums, all genres. To get into the top 5000 requires A Whole Lotta Love (groan!). If you look at the next highest ranked album, it is Harvest by Neil Young which has a 3.98 with 18,328 ratings. There is a 0.6 difference in the average rating, but there's almost 15, 000 less ratings! At 229, ranked one higher than Led Zeppelin, there is Construção by Chico Buarque -- seems a lot of Brazilian and Spanish language albums are well-ranked there.. It has a 4.03 average rating with 6,634 ratings. So it is ranked one place higher than Led Zeppelin with a .11 higher average rating and a whopping 26,420 less ratings! This puts those values more into perspective. SO one might not like the charts or vice versa partially because one does not appreciate the algorithm being used to generate the placement. It's complex, and it does often favour the lesser-known. I take no issue with the the input, individuals can rate as they like, but I would appreciate flexibility in how I can view the output. In other words, I wish we had a choice of ways that the results are calculated. I have said this at PA too, that I would like to see the charts with no weightings, maybe one where all reviews are given the same weighting.

A fine analysis of the charts would require understanding the way those charts are calculated. And without that understanding I would think that critiquing the results of the chart would be misguided.

Edited by Logan - June 05 2023 at 11:52
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5986 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2023 at 12:50
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

^ I appreciate the offer, Lorenzo, but could not commit to it.

Ok, so I'll post my proposal in the collaborators zone as soon as I can.
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5986 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2023 at 13:28
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I was thinking of doing anew topic on this, but I was looking through the top 100 at RYM again, I mean I have gone tough way more than that carefully, and thinking this really is a quality list -- by my standards which is quite subjective as well as based on a certain level of inculcation. There is quite a lot represented that is Prog by PA standards, but I was more interested to look at the non-Prog ones that I love or respect (most of these I love, including what are generally considered to be fantastic jazz albums).

Mingus - The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady (14)
The Velvet Underground & Nico - s/t (15)
John Coltrane - A Love Supreme (16)
The Cure - Disintegration (22)
The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds (27)
Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (30)
Nick Drake - Pink Moon (31)
Fishmans - Long Season (32)
Stevie Wonder - Songs in the Key of Life (34)
The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead (36)
Portishead - Dummy (37)
Joy Division - Unknown Pleasures (38)
Cocteau Twins - Heaven or Las Vegas (51)
Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited (54) (three in the top 100, and I admire more than like this)
Pixies - Doolittle (55)
Television - Marquee Moon (57)
Sufjan Stevens - Illionois (65)
Aphex Twin - Selected Ambient Works 85-92 (70)
Pharoah Sanders - Karma (78)
Leonard Cohen - Songs of Leonard Cohen (81)

I mean, that's a pretty fine list by my standards. And I did go down the list more with your concerns, Lorenzo. I don't know how far you went or how focused you were on the numbers of ratings and not just the rankings, but how both correlate... Comparing the overall numbers of say the 130th ranked album with the 129th and 131st is an obvious thing to do to see better how things are calculated for the ranking placement (numbers of ratings, average ratings, plus rankings). Looking at the numbers and comparing the placements obviously gives
a better feel for the process. And as I said in another thread, the process is as as interesting in and of itself as the results often, but also to understand the results one needs an understanding of the process. That is an essential element of evaluating the rankings -- the list alone without the other values given loses context.

I observed that Led Zeppelin's first is 3.92 with 33,054 ratings. That's a lot of ratings even by RYM standards and is a high rating by RYM standards. It's ranked at 230 which might seem a low ranking to some on the face of it, but isn't as that is all-time all albums, all genres. To get into the top 5000 requires A Whole Lotta Love (groan!). If you look at the next highest ranked album, it is Harvest by Neil Young which has a 3.98 with 18,328 ratings. There is a 0.6 difference in the average rating, but there's almost 15, 000 less ratings! At 229, ranked one higher than Led Zeppelin, there is Construção by Chico Buarque -- seems a lot of Brazilian and Spanish language albums are well-ranked there.. It has a 4.03 average rating with 6,634 ratings. So it is ranked one place higher than Led Zeppelin with a .11 higher average rating and a whopping 26,420 less ratings! This puts those values more into perspective. SO one might not like the charts or vice versa partially because one does not appreciate the algorithm being used to generate the placement. It's complex, and it does often favour the lesser-known. I take no issue with the the input, individuals can rate as they like, but I would appreciate flexibility in how I can view the output. In other words, I wish we had a choice of ways that the results are calculated. I have said this at PA too, that I would like to see the charts with no weightings, maybe one where all reviews are given the same weighting.

A fine analysis of the charts would require understanding the way those charts are calculated. And without that understanding I would think that critiquing the results of the chart would be misguided.


Well, Greg, I dont the algoritm (I suppose it's the same used by the editors of the site), but this is the ranking of the 70's for Ondarock forumists.

And it seems to me very well done (three Bowie's albums are too much for my tastes, but "You cant always get what you want...).

I'm not so fond in algorithms, in the sense that I'm interested in finding a clear, transparent algorithm that leads to good results, i.e. a ranking of the beauty of music based on certain criteria.

1
1) 		Television _ Marquee Moon
2)
Joy Division Unknown Pleasure






3) Wyatt: Rock Bottom
4
Suicide - Suicide
332
5
Clash - London Calling
328
6
Neu! - Neu!
284
7
King Crimson - Red
263
8
David Bowie - Low
254
9
Pere Ubu - The Modern Dance
252
10
David Bowie - The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars
239
11
Tim Buckley - Starsailor
219
12
Kraftwerk - Trans Europe Express
218
13
Led Zeppelin - IV
194
14
Nick Drake - Pink Moon
188
15
Pink Floyd - The Dark Side Of The Moon
179
16
Soft Machine - Third
176
17
Can - Tago Mago
173
17
Who - Who's Next
173
19
Wire - 154
169
20
Popol Vuh - Hosianna Mantra
163
21
Faust - Faust
159
22
Nico - Desertshore
154
23
Rolling Stones - Sticky Fingers
151
24
Stooges - Fun House
150
25
Roxy Music - For Your Pleasure
143
26
Van Der Graaf Generator - Pawn Hearts
139
27
Lou Reed - Transformer
136
28
David Bowie - Hunky Dory
129
29
Ramones - Ramones
122
30
Klaus Schulze - Irrlicht
118


Edited by jamesbaldwin - June 05 2023 at 13:31
Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion.
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 35884 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2023 at 14:08
Thanks for that. I find understanding how all of the numbers were calculated crucial to understanding the process, and therefore understanding and really appreciating the results. To understand the value of something given by someone or a collective, you have to know something about how it has been valuated.


Like seeing Led Zep's first at RYM ranked at 230 with a 3.92 an 33,054 ratings and the one ranked at 229

229: Chico Buarque - Construção 4.03 / 6,634 ratings/ 76 reviews
230: Led Zeppelin - s/t: 3.92, 33,054 ratings, 603603
331: Neil Young - Harvest: 3.98 / 18,328 ratings / 603 reviews

Led Zep IV is considerably higher rated, with 4.09 / 5.0 from 41,923 ratings and higher ranked at 64, but I am just using the first as an example when you see three in a row with such different numbers of ratings.

That's a huge discrepancy in the numbers or ratings. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the numbers are something else. Which of these three is actually the most appreciated? I would say Led Zeppelin because it has the most appreciators even if it has a .11 lower rating than Chico's album.

I think I'm going to make my own program for calculating those values in various ways. It might come up with a list that you think has more value and makes more sense to you while being based on the exact same data. I might do it for PA too.

I have used the system that Ondarock used for say coming up with the top 70s albums, with multiple users to generate a top list at this site before. I do like the simplicity and transparency of it, but a list like that represents something different and has a different purpose than the RYM list. The beauty for me is more in the method than the results often -- like is this a good way to get results, and are the results derived at by the formula representative in a way that the results would appear sensible to others.

I'm way behind on things, maybe I'll do some of own calculations with the Ondarock forumist list later (would want look at the source webpage). It's missing some info that I would want to interpret the results, and/or I am missing something in the numbers. I mean, it's pretty simple and I don't really need to, but otherwise it's just another list of albums to me. A lot of albums I like, but still just another list.

Edited by Logan - June 05 2023 at 15:08
Duos for fave acts
Back to Top
Stressed Cheese View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 16 2022
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 540 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Stressed Cheese Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2023 at 15:08
^That's the tricky thing. Ideally, if you're a site like RYM, you'd want to take quality into account above all else. But you'd also not want really obscure stuff to infest (for lack of a better word) the tops of the charts too much. I know that they won't consider the average rating of a release with a single rating a true average, but they could do something like Letterboxd, and just not show an average at all until there are an X amount of ratings. Then again, their ranking system already filters releases like that out, so I guess it doesn't really matter at that point.

I'd be interested to see how much the amount of ratings is taken into account, or what the differences really are between the average rating and the ranking. As I showed with my Tommy example, the average rating shown and the true average when weighing every rating equally isn't the same, so clearly for the rank there's another round of calculations that goes on. So there's essentially three averages for each album, one visible, one visible if you go through the trouble of getting out a calculator, and one unknown but which decides an album's rank. Which I suspect has to do with the amount of ratings. Anyway, I respect their decision to not make the algorithm public, and I get why, but it'd be nice to be able to sort a chart purely by the average rating shown, not by rank. PA could also use that. You could filter out albums with less ratings than a certain amount and let people pick that amount for themselves.

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

@Stressed Cheese

I think I've already answered most of your comments, which seem to me an official defense of RYM, a kind of tautology (that is, with your way of setting the arguments, no site would be open to criticism) but if you want I'll look into the next few days to make an orderly list of my objections.
I don't work for RYM, lol. I'm just trying to make clear what I think is the purpose and value of using that site. A tautology it is not - I'm just trying to get a point across as clearly as I can, and if it was, you're the one who started to talk about "logic", so I wouldn't expect you to object. I just find it an interesting topic.

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

I'm not so fond in algorithms, in the sense that I'm interested in finding a clear, transparent algorithm that leads to good results, i.e. a ranking of the beauty of music based on certain criteria.
That's not an algorithm though, that's a ranking system. An algorithm just takes inputs and then does something with it to create an output, in the case of RYM taking user ratings and then creating an publicly displayed average rating, and taking user ratings and probably the amount of ratings or something to create a rank. By that time the judging by criteria is already done.

But even beyond that, everybody has different ways of evaluating music, gets different things from music, and some people might not even be able to really quantify different aspects of the music they listen to. I mean, you mention "beauty", but I don't consider that really relevant for my enjoyment of a Ramones album, and yet I enjoy their Rocket to Russia just as much as the very "beautiful" Topograhic Oceans. That's why a widely understood star-system or rating stuff out of 100 or 10 is pretty much the best you can ask for. Even then, everybody will have different systems of some sort (RYM even acknowledges that by letting you choose what different ratings mean to you - something PA could really use since some people rate prog and non-prog albums very differently on here), which is fine as long as that doesn't lead to systematic differences. Which it doesn't.

And sure, that Ondarock list can be interesting to look at, but that reflects what a rock-oriented website only italians will visit thinks. That doesn't generalize to the rest of the world. I mean, nobody in a million years would put their money on Marquee Moon placing 1st, or Suicide placing 4th. Surprises are one thing, but this list clearly reflects a specific community of people. Which is fine, but it is what it is.

Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

RYM (and PA) tells us more about what is currently held in high regard by the average active music listener (not just any person) than a curated list in a magazine or similar.
I think this is a good way of phrasing it. That's ultimately what any list or chart or whatever created in 2023 will be (even if you try to take into account what people thought back in the day), a list that reflects the here and now.


Edited by Stressed Cheese - June 05 2023 at 15:10
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.