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 4567>
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
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: 35951 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 00:58
I do believe that some learned and experienced opinions are closer to objective truth than other opinions. I don't buy into a relativist everything is subjective view. I'm much more in the realist camp. I believe in objectivism. I don't believe that all opinions are equally valid. Some come out of extreme ignorance and misunderstanding of the "facts", some are much likely to comport to reality and are based on sound reasoning, significant evidence....   This includes valuations of art, especially within given parameters. I'd sooner trust the person's assessment who come from a place of knowledge and a deeper understanding.
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: 5989 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 03:02
I don't think that "objectivity" is the right word when we talk about a work of art.

Truth and objectivity are words suit for science. An hypothesis can sometimes become a fact, for the science.

But for the works of art you can say it's beautiful or it's ugly, but there's not an objective truth. Like the beauty of a woman. You cant say she's objectivement beautiful. Yes you can take the measurements of the distance between the eyes etc but beauty can't be measurable.

Do you remember prof Keating in Dead Poets Society?

I think we can talk about consensus instead of objectivity. There is, in experts of music, consensus around Bach or Mozart as great musicians, two if the greatest of all time. This is a sort of objectivity but it's not the same meaning, if we try to be precise.

For example can we decide with objectivity if In rainbows by Radiohead is better than Nebraska (Springsteen)?

No, we can't.

For me, Nebraska is a sublime work of art, much better than In rainbows. It shows a very austere beauty.

But in this case, it's difficult to get consensus.

Edited by jamesbaldwin - June 07 2023 at 03:05
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
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14756 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 03:24
(Written after seeing Greg's posting but not Lorenzo's)
Originally posted by Saperlipopette! Saperlipopette! wrote:

all my life has taught me that this relativist way of thinking that everything is subjective and it's all just a point of view - isn't fruitful.

This was not what I was saying though. Actually there are scientific standards for objectivity, but none of them applies here. ("Size of community" for sure isn't one of them, and neither is the qualification of the person who says something.)

I will admit that I have, let's say, anti-objectivist leanings, but even if you look at modern philosophers of science (and general philosophers) who are more on the realist side than me, they know that objectivity isn't just something that comes from experience and belief. You need reproducible evidence, precise definitions, logical and transparent arguments. People could come up with a testable definition of quality in music that would need to be agreed, and then could show, according to this definition, that Bach is better than Ed Sheeran. That'd be a good shot. Chances are no definition would be universally agreed, but at least then there's a transparent discussion about criteria that can actually be applied in a way that would justify objectivity statements (relative to proposed transparent definitions). As long as this isn't there, any such claim is empty. (Lorenzo has probably something like this in mind. I don't think it can be done, but if it can be done, then his way is more promising than referring to the size and experience of the RYM community. (Edit after reading Lorenzo's post: Fair enough, and well said. I'm more comfortable without the objectivity tag myself, just saying...)

To say more about what I personally think, if we use the term "objective truth", it will apply much easier to mathematical and simple material statements  (such as "I'm typing on a keyboard" on to laws of physics) than to concepts such as quality of music. Of course people try to make them refer to quality of music as well, in which case they'd need to refer to standards such as I have outlined above, but experience (and actually rational thinking, to some extent) shows that it is much harder to come to agreement, if not impossible (even if we say we are happy with 70% agreement on definitions rather than 99-100% as you have in mathematics). This of course includes the discussion in this thread. 

So no objectivity claim without following objectivity standards should be taken seriously. Objectivity cannot be imposed by authority, and neither by majority. Belief and personal intuition are not criteria of objectivity. I'm not an objectivist, but chances are proper objectivists (in philosophy/philosophy of science) would agree with this, because objectivity as a concept cannot deliver without such standards.


Edited by Lewian - June 07 2023 at 03:56
Back to Top
Saperlipopette! View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 20 2010
Location: Tomorrowland
Status: Offline
Points: 11699 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Saperlipopette! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 03:37
How long are we/you willing to stretch this "yeah, well you know that's just, like your opinion, man" attitude in regards to art?

If someone told me that «I bought my five year old daughter a saxophone earlier this month. And she already plays it far better than that squeaking John Coltrane ever did». My reply would be something like «Stop embarrassing yourself. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about» - or probably something more insulting. I would certainly not think that it’s all in the eye of the beholder, and that this parent may be just as correct as that other guy/gal over there who teaches jazz at the university.

Of course it’s possible to explain why Bach is one of the great geniuses of the history of music, and that those behind Schnappi aren’t. The latter sold millions, but that takes another kind of genius. But I guess you also need to believe there are certain parameters for greatness/genius. I view practice and hours of investment in similar ways as I value knowledge and experience.

(edit: written before I noticed Lewian's reply over here)


Edited by Saperlipopette! - June 07 2023 at 03:46
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14756 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 03:50
^ Maybe we have discussed this enough now... still it puzzles me that I see far more desire to make authoritative statements in your posts than any attempt to engage with objectivity standards yourself. Don't you think that if somebody else would use your way of arguing for something you don't agree with, you'd discard what they say immediately? Maybe you'd even think "that's their subjective and wrong opinion and what I think is objective"... Tongue

Edit: We're too fast; I hadn't seen your edit before posting this either. I won't post anything more in the next hours, promise...



Edited by Lewian - June 07 2023 at 03:52
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: 35951 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 04:46
By values of art, I meant valuations within the arts. Art can be a somewhat nebulous term and in the arts, like music, one can scientifically approach analysis and valuations of music, but that is more about the how...

The way I sometimes put it is that one can be objective in the arts (music, literature, film...) within given frameworks of analysis, or expectations. Commonly this does involve consensus on what qualities are preferable or desired especially within a particular artistic idiom.

This is more to do with judging the qualities than quality per se. There are objective components to what are considered the make-up and qualities of music. We can look at what are the scales being used, the tempo etc. On the performance level, there would generally be a consensus that a 4 year old near beginner (just learning sheet music) is not as skilled at playing the piano (or reading the music) and reproducing known piano works as a concert pianist and therefore the concert pianist's rendition of Liszt's Piano Sonata In B Minor is going too be considered objectively technically better than the beginner. The mother might still prefer the 4 years old rendition, and that reaction is subjective. The sheet music they draw from is the same, but the result is very different. There are many metrics to objectively judge the qualitities of music and even the quality of music.

Now let's talk reviewing because that is a kind of art. I would posit that the experienced writer who has listened to lots of Baroque music and studied it is likely to be objectively better at formally critiquing and comparing a Baroque piece to another Baroque piece than the writer who has never heard of any Baroque music.

As for beauty itself, like with judging a woman's face, there are common standards usually involving symmetry. The women with the classical symmetrical face is more likely to be considered beautiful by the majority than the woman with the half a conjoined twin sticking out of one cheek, crooked drooling half toothless mouth off to the side of her face and suppurating eyes that don't line up and are of very different sizes. But beauty also is in the beholder, and to one person, she might be more beautiful.
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: 11699 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Saperlipopette! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 04:58
^^ The only thing I’d like to add is that maybe you’re reading too much «I» as in «me», into whenever I’m trying to address where and from who I seek knowledge and opinions I weight highly or trust (I'm probably guilty in not being clear enough as to what's what). Other than that, I can live with you thinking of my statements as authorative. I don't mind that you don't really approve. So to that I can finally say "it is what it is". I have little to no patience with someone stating something in the line of my previous example, and will dismiss it just like that. I'm not a psychopath, but a polite person. At least on the outside:). Most of the time I will only think it, and keep it to myself really. But anyway if someone disagrees with me, I'm more often than not willing to discuss and participate in an exchange of views.
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14756 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 06:48
Most undeniably objective features of music have an at best problematic relationship with quality. One can probably nail down some positive features that can be checked (and this has probably been done in many places although I'm not sure how much agreement there is between them), but I tend to suspect that whatever list of criteria is used, one can find something that doesn't score well on any of them and is still good (for many) for some reason, and also if the list is fed into artificial intelligence and it produces something that scores high, most of us will still find reasons why we don't appreciate that. Music is, among other things, about conveying emotions, and rational testable criteria are not good at capturing this kind of thing.


Edited by Lewian - June 07 2023 at 06:49
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: 35951 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 10:45
While I find much quality in the RYM charts. that is subjective/ follows my biases. I would not look at RYMs top list in terms of quality, and if assessing an album like Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp a Butterfly of style one might not appreciate, consider more the qualities of the music rather than the quality, and try to compare it to other albums that seem to share the most similar qualities (research and time helps). This can help to judge it and have a judgment that is more likely to be of value to others. Appreciation is subjective. I have taken issue with the kinds of professional reviewers and music critics/ reviewers who put a lot of emphasis on objective best when it comes to matters of appreciation and start telling me things like "This is the greatest album of all this year, you should go out any buy it." Biases aside, they have not listened to all albums, and I find it annoying when someone tells me I should buy it. And that I should appreciate it.

I have no issue with how RYM's charts at populated at this time at least/ and thinking that this or that should be there instead of what is because we think it more significant is a subjective evaluation. Thinking it devalues music because it is nor ranked as high as some others, well it would have to be a deliberate skewing of the data for me to think in those terms and/or some conspiracy to manipulate the ratings and rankings (this has happened at PA, where competitors (albums) were rated low in order to prop up certain albums in he list.   This is rating abuse. It is to be expected that if many users rate one album and rate it highly by an artist, they also will rate other albums by that artist and I don't believe that finding some artists with many albums well-ranked devalues the chart (I think the chart should be an honest representation of its user appreciation index) -- one could add the option to see it with only the top-rated album of each artist listed in the chart. Again, what I like about RYM is how customisable the charts are through the filters. I like being able to look for albums by more than one genre for instance. And if an album rises to prominence, then more are likely to check it out and rate it (fame begets fame).
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: 5989 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 12:17
@Greg, 
@Christian
@Stressed Cheese
@Saperlipopette (if he wants)
it seems clear to me that you (exc. Christian) like RYM charts mainly because you consider them to be of good quality. But precisely for this reason, you should also accept those who criticize them because they believe they are representative only of certain groups/genres, while they are poorly representative of other groups/genres. Then, the thought that it's all subjective, again, shouldn't be used to prevent criticism. It is obvious that for me the absence of rock "giants" in the first 100 or 200 or 300 places and the presence of other great groups with so many albums in the top positions make that classification an analogue of that of Rolling Stone, which follows precise logic. The difference, however, is that we know all the limits of the Rolling Stone rankings and we admit them (little interest in prog, great interest in the more essential rock, and recently great, exaggerated interest in black music), while RYM is presented as a representative sample of the tastes (or worse, musical judgments) of the whole West.

That is, I see two big dangers in the exaltation of RYM performed by Stressed Cheese, Saperlipopette and partly you (Greg):

1) The idea that RYM is a representative sample of the main Western music connoisseurs, much more "qualified" to give judgments than music critics, as if judging music were a matter of democracy (the idea is this: the critics are few and have particular tastes, RYM, on the other hand, is made up of many thousands of people who love all types of music, and therefore for this fact they would give a more democratic, and therefore more "objective" response.)

2) The idea that making a real ranking, i.e. a precise operation, with transparent methods and criteria, by a group of music experts is worth less than the RYM rankings, which is obtained via an algorithm, as if the ranking made by the critics would be subjective, while the one made by RYM would be more objective, more estimable because it was achieved with the participation of thousands of people all around the world.

These are dangers that seem obvious to me from what has been written in this thread.

I want to say, in conclusion, clearly what I think.

1) RYM, even if it were made up of millions of people, does not in any way represent a "significant sample" of the "average citizen" of the West, nor of the "great connoisseur" of Western music. As Lewian well explained, according to statistics, there is very little chance that RYM is a significant sample because the population of RYM has not been selected according to any statistical criterion

2) The idea that the quantity of reviewers produces a good result in terms of music quality without that
- nothing is known about those reviewers
- are committed to listening to and voting for music of all kinds
- specify the criteria on the basis of which they vote
- do not make any hierarchical classification of their favorite albums
this idea, I was saying, for me is completely wrong. The method by which the charts are obtained counts for producing coherent charts, with a logic, and to make a chart it is therefore necessary to do an orderly job of listening to all the albums, of every genre (if you want to classify every genre), who are candidates for the top positions.
I don't believe that a team of reviewers can ever produce an objective ranking, but I say that a team of reviewers who follow this method will obtain more consistent and balanced results.

EDIT: I hope it's clear that by saying this I don't mean that I only appreciate classifications that suit my tastes, because I appreciate, on the contrary, critics and classifications that are also quite different from each other, and different from my tastes - better: different from the classification I would make, which is not entirely the same as that of my tastes.


Edited by jamesbaldwin - June 07 2023 at 12:44
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
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14756 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 15:44
I'm not sure how "Western" RYM actually is. Any information on that?
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: 35951 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 07 2023 at 19:29
Lorenzo would be better to respond for himself of course, and I don't mean to be rude by stepping in (some get upset seemingly when I answer questions directed at others, with "I wasn't asking you, I was asking..." to which I respond, "I know, but this forum is intended for group discussion. Apologies, didn't mean to step on any toes", but from my own limited research....

In terms of the audience, I have read that over half come from the US, Canada, and the UK.

In terms of visitors according to this:

Country
----------
US 42.0
UK 8.2
CA 6.1
AU 3.7
BR 2.3
ES 2.0
DE 2.0
IT 1.8
MX 1.7
FR 1.6

Age
----------
18-24 23%
25-34 27%
35-44 15%
45-54 14%
55-64 12%
65+ 9%

Gender
----------
Male 66%
Female 34%

https://rateyourmusic.com/discussion/rate-your-music/site-demographics/

I fall into 6.1 percent Country location and 14 percent for age. And male, seems quaint not to see genders other than male and female, but I think that option was available for registering (don't know for how long).

According to wiki:

Quote By December 2011, there were approximately 370,000 user accounts on Rate Your Music.[31] Around one half of the people visiting the website come from the United States, the United Kingdom or Canada, the other half primarily coming from Western Europe (especially Scandinavia and the Netherlands), as well as from Poland, Russia, Mexico, Brazil and Australia.[1]


And is Available in English, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Turkish.   Hossein Sharifi who resides in Seattle created the website.

Obviously you can search artist and albums by artist location, and you can search charts by user location which is I think very cool. If you search the progressive rock chart by users in Japan, for instance, you find In the Court of the Crimson King at number one with 4.29, 202 ratings and 932 reviews (hmm, those are weird numbers with so many more reviews). If you include users from Italy, then the same album is top but it has 4.53, 1,461, and 923/ That shows as the top all-time album from Italian users at RYM,. The Velvet Underground and Nico is number two, then A Love Supreme, then the Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, then Kind of Blue, then The Doors, then Spiderland. Italians are pretty awesome from my perspective, great albums all. Here is a link, I think Lorenzo might find this interesting. https://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/all-time/uloc:italy/

Since this map is on the users page, I would think it gives an idea of user locations: https://rateyourmusic.com/community/.

As for how Western it is in terms of where music comes from, that should be made easy to see at the site. They have had a global map that shows the distribution of artists (wonky last I heard ) apparently. Most are from North America (and southern Canada), Europe and South America. Then Australia, I've come across plenty from Japan, not surprisingly as well as South Korea and China to a lesser extent. This stuff should be so easy to find, yet I'm sucking with my searches or RYM is not making this stuff as available as I would hope. Anyway, neat to search by user location for the charts, wish that option was available at PA.

Edited by Logan - June 07 2023 at 20:17
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: 5989 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2023 at 00:49
Thanks a lot, Greg! So, if I understand well, half of RYM forumists hare under 35.
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
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14756 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2023 at 03:41
Yeah, thanks! Very informative!
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 08 2023 at 04:14
@Lorenzo, you have good arguments for why RYM isn't perfect, but I don't think I still understand why you think critics' lists are any better. Because while RYM isn't perfect by any means, that doesn't mean that critics lists are therefore better, and many arguments against RYM also go against critics, but even amplified. They also represent a demographic, but an even more limited one than RYM users (and a much smaller sample size). They will give certain albums a boost based purely on the reputation, whereas with a community rating, that won't be as impactful, as people will generally rate based on their own opinion only. Nobody is claiming RYM users are more qualified to rate albums - nobody is more qualified, since rating music is subjective.

Again, RYM users will rate albums they have an interest in, so there's a filter there that assures that the sample is pretty representative of an album's audience. Yes, obviously, most users will be western (and apparentely relatively young), but again - things are already filtered by taste from the simple fact that you're not going to rate a bunch of albums you have absolutely no interest in in the first place. Music critics' lists will also have a western edge to it, and will come from one very specific group of people (critics). You keep talking about "logic" wrt stuff like Rolling Stone's list, but I don't get what you mean by logic here.

Let me stress again that I don't think RYM is perfect, but for something to compromise its rating system, there has to be some kind of systematic difference between users who are/do X, and users who are/do Y, and an effect on the albums they rate. Yes, everbody has different criteria for rating albums (as it should be - it's a matter of opinion after all), but why would that skew the ratings towards X, Y or Z? That averages out. Why should we expect that users who rate Springsteen have systematically different rating systems than people who rate King Crimson? Yes, we don't know the background of raters on RYM, but since you're not forced to rate albums outside of your interest, and everybody's opinion, no matter background, is equally valid, why should that skew ratings towards X, Y or Z? Again, the most relevant background you can have is that you actually have an openness to enjoy the kind of music an album offers, and that filter is in place on RYM.
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5989 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2023 at 04:30
Originally posted by Formaggio stressato Formaggio stressato wrote:

Dovrei davvero fare qualcosa di più produttivo con il mio tempo invece di pubblicare un altro capitolo degno di divagazioni ... ma ora sono troppo investito, lol
Originally posted by Lewiano Lewiano wrote:

A proposito, a tutti quelli che dicono "la classifica X è più valida della classifica Y" - qual è la tua definizione di valido? In qualche modo sospetto che ci sia una certa circolarità in questo, come "RYM ha così tanti valutatori che deve essere valido perché ha così tanti valutatori" o "le classifiche di esperti adeguate sono più valide perché questi sono veri esperti". Ma in realtà un uso più scientifico di "validità" dovrebbe riferirsi a un  criterio esterno  . Non credo che esista una cosa del genere, quindi non credo che nessuna affermazione di validità qui dica molto in realtà, il che dal mio punto di vista si applica ovviamente sia alla "frazione" pro che a quella contraria di RYM (quest'ultima potrebbe sii solo Lorenzo  Lingua).
Diciamo che il modo in cui vedo la "validità" in questo contesto è l'uso più liberale al mondo della validità esterna. Sì, questa è essenzialmente una risposta BS, ma quello che sto cercando di ottenere è ... diciamo che hai un dispositivo magico che potrebbe vedere le opinioni delle persone su ogni album che (almeno in qualche modo attivamente) ascoltano, riassumeresti quello, e poi confrontalo con vari elenchi e grafici. Probabilmente non potresti trovare nulla di più vicino a quello delle valutazioni su RYM. Non significa che siano perfetti, ma penso che siano quanto di meglio si possa realisticamente chiedere.

Allo stesso tempo, sono anche dell'opinione che avresti bisogno di un qualche tipo di ragionamento sul motivo per cui un certo campione non sarebbe rappresentativo per la popolazione più ampia. Ho fatto la mia tesi di laurea in psicologia l'anno scorso e circa il 70% circa dei partecipanti erano studenti universitari. Ma per il nostro studio, non c'era motivo di presumere che ciò si riflettesse male sulla generalizzabilità (almeno all'interno del mondo occidentale). RYM ha una piccola correzione incorporata in questo senso. Diciamo che non ci sono molte persone con più di 60 anni sul sito. Ciò significa che il tipo di musica che tendono ad ascoltare potrebbe non ottenere tanti voti, ma non vedo perché porterebbe necessariamente a valutazioni molto più basse. Dal momento che è più probabile che la musica al di fuori della base utenti di RYM venga ignorata (relativamente) piuttosto che sottoposta a panning. Perché alla fine della giornata,

Ma ancora una volta ti darò che validità non è affatto un buon termine per questo. Immagino che la generalizzabilità potrebbe essere più accurata. Non lo so, ma spero che tu capisca il punto che sto cercando di chiarire e mi assecondi per un secondo. E ancora, RYM è quello che è, nel senso che non è perfetto, e che cerca di essere un riflesso del qui e ora, di ascoltatori attivi. E lasciatemi sottolineare ancora una volta che se le persone ottengono qualcosa dalle liste dei critici, per me va bene. Ma credo fermamente che RYM sia la valutazione più accurata della musica, nel senso che riflette la persona media meglio di quanto possa fare qualsiasi lista curata.

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:




Sono d'accordo con Lewian.
[/CITAZIONE]
Prima di tutto, non sono proprio sicuro del motivo per cui improvvisamente rispondi a questo vecchio post, quando mi sono sforzato di scrivere una risposta a un post successivo che hai fatto dove ho posto alcune domande molto concrete. Ma ok.
[CITAZIONE]
Le valutazioni RYM ci dicono solo cosa pensano gli utenti RYM, che è certamente diverso dall'utente occidentale medio

[/CITAZIONE]
Voglio dire, non sono d'accordo con questo. Ancora una volta, non è perfetto, ma è quanto di più vicino alla perfezione possiamo sperare, realisticamente. Ma se RYM ci dice cosa pensano (migliaia di) utenti di RYM, sicuramente un elenco fatto da un piccolo gruppo di critici ci dirà qualcosa su un campione ancora più piccolo.

[CITAZIONE]
Credo che RYM attiri un preciso gruppo (o gruppi) di ascoltatori di musica. Sicuramente occidentali, sicuramente non di età media elevata, sicuramente appassionati di certi generi musicali più di altri. Penso che il rock tradizionale (heartland, roots post-punk rock ecc.) tenda a essere svalutato, e infatti The Rolling Stones, The Who, Creedence, Reed, Young, Sprinsteen, Van Morrison, Waits, Cave, U2, Rem sono assenti dalle prime 100 classifiche di tutti i tempi.
[/CITAZIONE]
Top 100 di tutti i tempi . Sono oltre 60 anni di musica di tutti i generi. Non cadere in quella piccolissima frazione di tutta la musica prodotta NON è un segno di svalutazione. Un album degli U2 al posto 2552 o qualunque cosa fosse ancora significa che è nell'1% dei migliori album mai realizzati. Dovrebbe essere un male?


Quote Penso che il pubblico sia più legato al rock alternativo più moderno e ad alcune band piuttosto famose (Lamar, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Bowie, Black Sabbath, Joy Division etc);
Se sono in band famose, allora perché alcune band famose sc

[CITAZIONE] Come ha scritto Saperlipopette, alcune band sono svalutate (ha citato U2 e Coldplay). [/CITAZIONE]

Non sono svalutati. Semplicemente non sono visti per essere così bravi come pensi che siano. Gli U2 non sono così apprezzati come i Pink Floyd, anche al di fuori di RYM. Il rock tradizionale non è affatto svalutato, il rock è di gran lunga il tipo di musica più comune tra i primi 10.000 (anche se si passa solo ai limiti più alti), e molto di questo è rock degli anni '60, '70 e anni 80. Ancora una volta, questo è evidente a chiunque visiti il ​​sito.

[CITAZIONE] Scrivi: finché i fan del prog recensiranno il prog, i fan del metal recensiranno il metal ecc., non vedi come le cose possano essere distorte. Beh, questa è la frase che ho citato nel mio post precedente quando ho scritto che io, a differenza di te, credo che il miglior giudizio sul prog lo facciano i fan non-prog. [/CITAZIONE]
Bene, questo rende ProgArchives uno dei siti più inutili del web. Il nocciolo della questione è che la maggior parte delle persone ascolta la musica che rientra nei loro interessi e quindi recensirà / valuterà la musica che rientra nei loro interessi. Se vuoi che le persone recensiscano musica al di fuori dei loro interessi, dovresti creare un sito completamente nuovo per questo penso (sarebbe onestamente interessante se esistesse un sito del genere).

Quote Tuttavia, gli U2 e i Pink Floyd, data la loro popolarità, non riceveranno recensioni solo da loro

1) I Pink Floyd sono molto meglio degli U2, che evidentemente hanno avuto troppo successo rispetto ai loro meriti 

2) Gli U2 sono stati votati da molti che non sono loro fan, solo perché sono molto famosi. Vale a dire: nei RYM ci sono relativamente pochi fan del genere musicale degli U2 e relativamente molti fan del genere musicale dei FLOYD. 
[/CITAZIONE]

Ha più a che fare con la percentuale di persone che ascoltano X, a cui piacciono davvero gli X. I concerti degli U2 sono andati esauriti in quel modo, anche i concerti dei Pink Floyd sono andati esauriti in quel modo. Ma è molto probabile che ci siano più persone a cui piacciono i Floyd che gli U2, e quindi le loro valutazioni sono più alte. Non è così difficile da credere, infatti, è una specie di buon senso dire che i Pink Floyd sono più apprezzati degli U2.


Quote Personalmente, credo che la qualità di tutti gli album degli U2 fino ad Achtung Baby sia alta (dopo è crollata), e che abbiano avuto una grande crescita musicale. Lo stesso si può dire per i Pink Floyd, in particolare dal 1967 a Wish You Were (poi la qualità calò ma rimase buona fino a The Final Cut). Quindi considero gli U2 molto sottovalutati, svalutati in RYM, e non solo per The Joshua Tree al 2552.
Va bene, quindi valuta molto bene quegli album. Ma ciò non significa che le valutazioni medie non siano accurate.

Quote Gli Who, con Tommy, hanno fatto la storia del rock. Se un recensore di RYM è interessato alla sua educazione musicale, dovrebbe studiare la storia degli anni Sessanta, ascoltare Tommy e valutarla.
It's a historically significant album, and I tend to make a point of listening to those, as long as they're in my areas of interest. But ultimately, people listen to music they want to listen to, it's something you do for fun. Not everybody is interested in educating themselves in music history. I'm still waiting for you to explain the value of someone evaluating an album they have absolutely no interesting it. Should I go around reviewing historically significant rap albums?

[QUOTE]Could the critics make lists that deviate so much from the average person's tastes? More than RYM does? Yes. But, are we trying to create a 'community' here to have a 'statistical sample' of the average listener? The larger and more homogeneous the community is in terms of geographical distribution and age and genres preferences, the more statistically significant a sample it will be, but is this an ideal to seek?
Why wouldn't that be ideal to ask? If you want a list that reflects the real world, why wouldn't you want that?

[QUOTE]
I generally think that the average listener, as well as the average reader, as well as the average movie goer will have tastes that are NOT the best in music art, literary art, film art.
That's subjective. Best is subjective.


[QUOTE]When I think of my country, Italy, much of the cinema that sells the most, much of the music that sells the most is very poorly appreciated on an artistic level. So, I very much hope that a music critic will make a different list from the average listener
And that's exactly what RYM also does by having people literally rate things. It's not a popularity chart, it's a chart based on people's supposed quality of an album. Keep in mind that when something is very mainstream, more critical and "refined" people also get a taste of it, and will thus rate/review it. Hence why a lot of superhero movies, despite being box office successes, get low user ratings on Letterboxd or IMDB. if it was about mainstream tastes, wouldn't those mainstream tastes actually chart highly on RYM? They don't., so if anything, this should make you love RYM.

[QUOTE]So, I criticize the RYM Chart of all time, but try to imagine:

1) Madonna - Loke a virgin
2) Oasis - Morning Glory
3) Rod Stewart
4) Bee Gees
5) Tiziano Ferro
6) Oasis - Stand
7) Oasis - Definitivle....

Se le prime 7 posizioni fossero queste... Avresti ancora interesse per RYM?
[/CITAZIONE]
No, ma questo non è ciò che i primi 7 sono su RYM, quindi letteralmente qual è il punto di questo confronto? Ancora una volta, stai discutendo a favore di RYM ora, quindi sto diventando un po 'confuso qui.


----------

+

@Lorenzo, hai buoni argomenti sul motivo per cui RYM non è perfetto, ma non credo di capire ancora perché pensi che le liste dei critici siano migliori. Perché mentre RYM non è assolutamente perfetto, ciò non significa che le liste dei critici siano quindi migliori, e molti argomenti contro RYM vanno anche contro i critici, ma anche amplificati. Rappresentano anche una demografia, ma ancora più limitata rispetto agli utenti RYM (e una dimensione del campione molto più piccola). Daranno una spinta ad alcuni album basandosi esclusivamente sulla reputazione, mentre con una valutazione della comunità, ciò non avrà un impatto così forte, poiché le persone generalmente valuteranno solo in base alla propria opinione. Nessuno sostiene che gli utenti RYM siano più qualificati per valutare gli album - nessuno è più qualificato, poiché la valutazione della musica è soggettiva.

Ancora una volta, gli utenti RYM valuteranno gli album a cui sono interessati, quindi c'è un filtro che assicura che il campione sia abbastanza rappresentativo del pubblico di un album. Sì, ovviamente, la maggior parte degli utenti sarà occidentale (e apparentemente relativamente giovane), ma ancora una volta - le cose sono già filtrate dal gusto dal semplice fatto che non valuterai un gruppo di album a cui non sei assolutamente interessato nel primo posto. Anche le liste dei critici musicali avranno un tocco occidentale e proverranno da un gruppo di persone molto specifico (i critici). Continui a parlare di "logica" rispetto a cose come la lista di Rolling Stone, ma non capisco cosa intendi per logica qui.

Vorrei sottolineare ancora una volta che non penso che RYM sia perfetto, ma affinché qualcosa comprometta il suo sistema di valutazione, deve esserci una sorta di differenza sistematica tra gli utenti che sono/fanno X e gli utenti che sono/fanno Y, e un effetto sugli album che valutano. Sì, tutti hanno criteri diversi per valutare gli album (come dovrebbe essere - dopo tutto è una questione di opinione), ma perché questo distorcerebbe le valutazioni verso X, Y o Z? Questo fa la media. Perché dovremmo aspettarci che gli utenti che valutano Springsteen abbiano sistemi di valutazione sistematicamente diversi rispetto alle persone che valutano King Crimson? Sì, non conosciamo il background dei valutatori su RYM, ma dal momento che non sei obbligato a valutare gli album al di fuori del tuo interesse e l'opinione di tutti, indipendentemente dal background, è ugualmente valida, perché questo dovrebbe distorcere le valutazioni verso X, Y o Z? Ancora,

[/CITAZIONE]

Queste sono le mie risposte:

Se hai letto tutti i post in questo thread, incluso quello di Saperlipopette, dovresti aver capito che io e lui (e penso anche Logan e Lewian) crediamo che NON tutto sia soggettivo allo stesso modo, e che non tutti i giudizi di gli ascoltatori di musica sono sullo stesso livello: un esperto conoscitore di musica darà giudizi più preziosi SU TUTTO rispetto a un forumista RYM che ascolta solo rap o hip-hop o death metal: se questo forumista ascoltasse anche come canta Tim Buckley o quale compositore Frank Zappa lo era, cioè se si fosse dato una vera educazione musicale, allora avrebbe riflettuto a lungo prima di dare a molti album rap o hip-hop o death metal 5 stelle. Bisogna infatti considerare che le classifiche di RYM non sono solo per genere: sono anche per periodo storico, e quella che trovo meno affidabile è la Top 100 di tutti i tempi. Ma lo stesso vale per i decenni: se vuoi classificare gli anni Ottanta, non puoi limitarti ad ascoltare (questo è un esempio) musica synth-pop, devi ascoltare i principali generi musicali che sono stati un punto di vendita e di critica successo negli anni Ottanta: bisogna ascoltare, e bene, gli U2, per esempio.

Ora, credo anche che se i critici, o gli esperti di rock, dovessero stilare una classifica dei 1000 migliori album, non lascerebbero fuori gli U2, come nel caso dei RYM.

Questo Thread deriva da un altro che ho aperto (Is Italian Prog Epigonic?) dove cito la classifica di Enrico Merlin, chitarrista jazz italiano, musicologo, che ha studiato non solo musica rock e pop e jazz ma anche musica classica contemporanea prima di redigere la sua classifica, che ha come principale criterio di selezione l'innovazione musicale. L'opinione di Enrico Merlin e di altri critici, esperti di musica come lui, e anche musicisti, per me vale molto di più dell'opinione di 100.000 membri del forum di RYM o di qualsiasi altro sito di musica che si iscrivono principalmente per votare solo alcune band che gli piacciono ( e vale anche molto di più della mia opinione). Merlin ha incluso due album degli U2, War e The Joshua Tree, e Ok Computer dei Radiohead nella sua enciclopedia dei 1000 dischi più innovativi del 20° secolo. A proposito di Ok Computer ha scritto che vari siti di musica (RYM!!) lo considerano il miglior album di tutti i tempi, e su questo fatto ha scherzato: in realtà lo considera un grande album ma non un album rivoluzionario. Ciò non significa che un gruppo di critici o di intenditori di musica possa dare giudizi oggettivi: vari gruppi di critici/esperti esprimono anche opinioni molto diverse, ma entro certi limiti. Ad esempio, credo che ci sia CONSENSO in tutti gli esperti di musica sul fatto che Bach, Mozart e Beethoven siano tra i più grandi musicisti e innovatori di sempre. Nessun critico concepirebbe una classifica delle migliori sinfonie senza inserire Beethoven nella top 10 con una o più delle sue sinfonie. Su questo c'è consenso, è un dato per non dire oggettivo ma comunemente accettato. 
E penso che ci sarebbe consenso sul fatto che gli U2 non possono essere esclusi dalle prime 2.500 posizioni di qualsiasi classifica.

La classifica di Progarchives è abbastanza buona perché, come ho potuto constatare scrivendo nel forum, non ci sono solo editori ma anche molti forumisti esperti di tanti generi musicali: qui non ci sono solo appassionati di rock, e questo fa di questo sito un pieno di grandi intenditori di musica (anche se ci saranno alcuni fan di certi gruppi che si iscriveranno solo per dare loro 5 stelle, ok).
Però anche la classifica PA è piena di difetti, ne dico solo uno: dalla Top 100 manca il prog tedesco. E questo, secondo me, deriva dal fatto che ci sono degli iscritti che sono qui solo per votare le loro band preferite. e dal metodo con cui è redatto, che è simile a quello di RYM, cioè dal fatto che è ottenuto con un algoritmo, e qui arriviamo al secondo punto.



PS La classifica ALL TIME di RYM, secondo me, è pessima: ma non credo sia la peggior classifica possibile. Come ho già scritto, se il "cittadino medio" facesse una classifica, questa sarebbe probabilmente peggiore di quella di RYM (ho fatto un esempio con Oasis, Tiziano Ferro etc). Gli utenti di RYM, presumo dai loro elenchi, hanno una maggiore conoscenza della musica rispetto all '"ascoltatore medio" e sono orientati verso determinati gruppi/generi. Le classifiche per decennio e per genere non sono poi così male, a volte sono buone. Ma sono piene di lacune, ea volte imbarazzanti ripetizioni: certi gruppi sono presenti con ascolti altissimi con troppi album, anche con quelli non particolarmente riusciti. Altri gruppi o artisti (U2) non raggiungono mai ascolti altissimi (il problema non è che i Pink Floyd siano più apprezzati degli U2: questo potrebbe essere reale, e giusto, il problema è che i Pink Floyd ottengono valutazioni molto alte per troppi album, mentre gli U2 non ottengono mai valutazioni molto alte). Ondarock è formato da giovani che hanno gusti simili a quelli di RYM, e infatti hanno in comune molti degli artisti che sono nelle prime posizioni. Ma le classifiche di Ondarock, sia da parte della redazione che da parte dei membri del forum, sono molto più varie, non trascurano del tutto big band di generi che non sono tra i loro preferiti.


Edited by jamesbaldwin - June 08 2023 at 10:46
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: 35951 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2023 at 13:05
I am translating the above to English (at least part of it after the citations/quotes), as this site has an English language policy. I like to be flexible, especially when it comes to speaking in Kobaian, but to be inclusive it does help to write in a common language, and sadly, no matter how hundin it is, Kobaian is not it. Oh, nor Italiano.

Originally posted by Giacomo Baldwino* Giacomo Baldwino* wrote:

These are my answers:

If you've read all the posts in this thread, including Saperlipopette's, you should have realized that he and I (and I think Logan and Lewian too) believe that NOT everything is equally subjective, and that not all judgments by listeners of music are on the same level: an expert music connoisseur will make more valuable judgments ABOUT EVERYTHING than a RYM forum member who only listens to rap or hip-hop or death metal: if this forum member also listens to how Tim Buckley sings or what composer Frank Zappa was , i.e. if he had given himself a real musical education, then he would have thought a lot before giving many rap or hip-hop or death metal albums 5 stars. In fact, it must be considered that the RYM rankings are not only by genre: they are also by historical period,and the one I find least reliable is the All Time Top 100. But the same goes for the decades: if you want to categorize the eighties, you can't just listen to (this is an example) synth-pop music, you have to listen to the major genres of music that have been a selling point and critical success over the years. Eighties: you have to listen, and well, to U2, for example.

Now, I also believe that if critics, or rock pundits, were to compile a top 1000 albums chart, they wouldn't leave out U2, as is the case with RYM.

This Thread derives from another one I opened (Is Italian Prog Epigonic?) where I quote the ranking of Enrico Merlin, Italian jazz guitarist, musicologist, who studied not only rock, pop and jazz music but also contemporary classical music before drafting the its ranking, which has musical innovation as its main selection criterion. The opinion of Enrico Merlin and other critics, music experts like him, and musicians too, is worth much more to me than the opinion of 100,000 members of the RYM forum or any other music site who sign up mainly to vote just a few bands he likes (and he's even worth a lot more than my opinion).Merlin has included two U2 albums, War and The Joshua Tree, and Radiohead's Ok Computer in his encyclopedia of the 20th century's 1,000 Most Innovative Records. About Ok Computer he wrote that various music sites (RYM!!) consider it the best album of all time, and he joked about this fact: he actually considers it a great album but not a revolutionary album. This does not mean that a group of critics or music connoisseurs can make objective judgements: various groups of critics/experts also express very different opinions, but within certain limits. For example, I believe there is CONSENT among all music experts that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are among the greatest musicians and innovators ever.No critic would conceive a ranking of the best symphonies without placing Beethoven in the top 10 with one or more of his symphonies. There is consensus on this, it is a fact that is not to say objective but commonly accepted.
And I think there would be consensus that U2 can't be excluded from the top 2,500 of any chart.

The ranking of Progarchives is quite good because, as I was able to ascertain by writing in the forum, there are not only publishers but also many expert forumists of many musical genres: here there are not only rock enthusiasts, and this makes this site full of great connoisseurs of music (although there will be some fans of certain groups who will sign up just to give them 5 stars, ok).
But even the PA chart is full of flaws, I'll just say one: the German prog is missing from the Top 100. And this, in my opinion, comes from the fact that there are subscribers who are here just to vote for their favorite bands. and by the method with which it is drawn up, which is similar to that of RYM, i.e. by the fact that it is obtained with an algorithm, and here we come to the second point.



PS RYM's ALL TIME ranking, in my opinion, is very bad: but I don't think it's the worst possible ranking. As I have already written, if the "average citizen" made a ranking, this would probably be worse than that of RYM (I gave an example with Oasis, Tiziano Ferro etc). RYM users, I assume from their listings, have more music knowledge than the "average listener" and are geared towards certain groups/genres. Rankings by decade and by genre aren't that bad, sometimes they're good. But they are full of gaps, and sometimes embarrassing repetitions: certain groups are present with very high ratings with too many albums, even with not particularly successful ones.Other bands or artists (U2) never achieve sky-high ratings (the problem isn't that Pink Floyd are more highly rated than U2: this could be real, and right, the problem is that Pink Floyd get very high ratings for too many albums, while U2 never get very high ratings). Ondarock is made up of young people who have similar tastes to those of RYM, and in fact have in common many of the artists who are in the top positions. But Ondarock's rankings, both by the editorial team and by forum members, are much more varied, not entirely neglecting big bands from genres that are not among their favorites.


*I knew a bald wino once, but his name was not Giacomo. Or maybe it was, I never really asked. He looked more like a Joe, or a Giuseppe. Maybe a Guido.
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: 5989 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2023 at 14:05
Sorry. I am writing from a computer that is not my own and it has enabled the automatic translation feature with google.

This is causing me quite a lot of problems, because I try hard to write in English (with my very bad English) but every time I edit one of my texts, it shows up in Italian, and so I have to correct it in English, and in the end my last message was published with the translation that the computer did with google.

So much work for nothing.
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: 35951 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2023 at 14:24
No worries, I figured that was the case, but I wanted to make my little Kobaia and bald wino jokes (I have a terrible sense of humour). I have that Google Translate tool for translating webpages -- installed to more easily read Ondarock. It should be easy to disable and later enable again. With Opera that I am using it shows up as an icon when in use, so I can easily turn it off from there and then go to Extensions to turn it back on.

With say, Chrome.

On your computer, open Chrome.
At the top right, click More Settings.
On the left, click Languages.
Under "Google Translate," turn Use Google Translate on or off.
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: 5989 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 08 2023 at 17:26
My final post.

(Answering to Stressed Cheese)

First reason: the knowledge of music

If you've read all the posts in this thread, including Saperlipopette's, you should have realised that he and I (and I think Logan and Lewian too) believe that NOT everything is subjective in the same way, and that not all music listeners' judgements are on the same level: an experienced music connoisseur will give more valuable judgements ON EVERYTHING than a RYM forumist who only listens to rap or hip-hop or death metal: if this forumist also listened to how Tim Buckley sings or which composer Frank Zappa was, i.e. if he had given himself a real musical education, then he would have thought long and hard before giving many rap or hip-hop or death metal albums 5 stars. Indeed, one has to consider that RYM's rankings are not just by genre: they are also by historical period, and the one I find least reliable is the all-time Top 100. But the same goes for decades: if you want to rank the eighties, you can't just listen to (this is an example) synth-pop music, you have to listen to the main music genres that were a selling point and critically successful in the eighties: you have to listen, and well, to U2, for example.

This Thread derives from another one I opened (Is Italian Prog Epigonic?) where I quote the ranking of Enrico Merlin, an Italian jazz guitarist, musicologist, who studied not only rock and pop music and jazz but also contemporary classical music before drawing up his ranking, which has musical innovation as its main selection criterion. The opinion of Enrico Merlin and other critics, music experts like him, and also musicians, is worth much more to me than the opinion of 100,000 members of the RYM forum or any other music site who subscribe mainly to vote only for certain bands they like (and is also worth much more than my opinion). Merlin included two U2 albums, War and The Joshua Tree, and Radiohead's Ok Computer in his encyclopaedia of the 1000 most innovative records of the 20th century. About Ok Computer he wrote that various music sites (RYM!!) consider it the best album of all time, and he joked about this fact: he actually considers it a great album but not a revolutionary album. This does not mean that a group of critics or music connoisseurs can make objective judgements: various groups of critics/experts also express very different opinions, but within certain limits. For example, I believe there is CONSENSUS among all music experts that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are among the greatest musicians and innovators ever. No critic would conceive of a ranking of the best symphonies without including Beethoven in the top 10 with one or more of his symphonies. There is consensus on this, it's not to say objective but commonly accepted fact. 
And I think there would be consensus that U2 cannot be excluded from the top 2,500 positions of any ranking.

The Progarchives ranking is quite good because, as I have seen from writing in the forum, there are not only editors but also many forumists who are experts in many genres of music: there are not only rock fans here, and that makes this site full of great music connoisseurs (although there will be some fans of certain bands who will sign up just to give them 5 stars, OK).
But the PA ranking is also full of flaws, for example: German prog is missing from the Top 100. And this, in my opinion, stems from the fact that there are subscribers who are only here to vote for their favourite bands. and from the method by which it is compiled, which is similar to that of RYM, i.e. the fact that it is done with an algorithm, and here we come to the second point.

PS RYM's ALL TIME ranking, in my opinion, is bad: but I don't think it is the worst possible ranking. As I have already written, if the 'average citizen' made a ranking, it would probably be worse than RYM's (I gave an example with Oasis, Titian Ferro etc). RYM users, I assume from their listings, have a greater knowledge of music than the 'average listener' and are biased towards certain groups/genres. The rankings by decade and genre are not that bad, sometimes they are good. But they are full of gaps, and sometimes embarrassing repetitions: certain groups are present with high ratings with too many albums, even with those that are not particularly successful. Other bands or artists (U2) never get very high ratings (the problem is not that Pink Floyd is more popular than U2: that might be real, and right, the problem is that Pink Floyd gets very high ratings for too many albums, while U2 never gets very high ratings). Ondarock is made up of young people who have similar tastes to RYM, and indeed share many of the artists in the top positions. But Ondarock's rankings, both by the editorial staff and forum members, are much more varied, and do not entirely neglect big bands in genres that are not among their favourites.


The second reason is the method by which a ranking is arrived at. 

I don't think that using an algorithm will lead to good results. Any ranking is based on comparison, and as I said before the reviewers must have listened to all kinds of music to be qualified. So I believe it's much better to produce a hierarchical list of songs, from 1 to 20 (or 50 or 100), which then has to be listened to by each member of the team. In this way, you get to listen to all the songs that are candidates to enter the ranking, and once you have listened to all of them you give them a weighted, hierarchical score. The ranking will be obtained with the songs that get the highest score. Another important thing is to put limitations on the artists' albums to be included in the lists, but not excessive limitations: for example 3 or 4 albums per artist as a maximum number. Ondarock used this system, except on one point: they did not put the rule that every member of the team had to listen to all the albums on the various lists: but being great music connoisseurs, every member will have listened to all or most of the albums that appeared. Finally, one could use selection criteria, which would still remain subjective in their application. If we decided to use 'Innovation' as the main criterion, as Enrico Merlin did, we would find ourselves excluding beautiful albums that did not bring any particular musical innovation but, if anything, brought an already long-standing musical genre to perfection. 



------


Thanks to all.





Edited by jamesbaldwin - June 08 2023 at 17:38
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>

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.