Objectivity in rating albums

^Which is exactly my point.
It’s our individual tastebuds that ultimately dictates what we appreciate.
I know how technically gifted say Annie Haslam or Steve Vai are…but I very much prefer Catherine Riberoux and David Gilmour over either.

Lewian wrote: David_D wrote: If to define "objective" as "having existence outside the mind", should rating criteria like production, song writing, originality and perfomance not be considered then as objective? (...) I can tell about my own point of view that I distinguish between these criteria mentioned here themselves and a raters evaluation of them.  The criteria themselves are at least to a certain degree objective, as defined here, but a rater's evalution of them/rating wil always be  to a certain degree/mostly? subjective. Generally the mind has a hard time to know what exists outside the mind, ........

Edited by David_D - March 23 2022 at 03:58

To be fair, I gave most of Gentle Giant's albums an objective 3-star rating recently. If I was being totally subjective though, I would've given them all a 2-star rating as I've never managed to acquire the taste for Gentle Giant. 

Psychedelic Paul wrote: To be fair, I gave most of Gentle Giant's albums an objective 3-star rating recently. If I was being totally subjective though, I would've given them all a 2-star rating as I've never managed to acquire the taste for Gentle Giant.

Logan wrote: I wish that ProgArchives ratings descriptors did not appeal to a sense of objectivity due to the subjective nature of evaluation. To each his or her own tastes. My scale would be more like ( I would want a wider spectrum and there is overlap in the descriptors, have done better ones before): 5. I love this! 4. I really liked this! 3. I like this. 2. Unsatisfying to me. 1. I really disliked/ loathed this. I like that that scale is explicitly subjective.

Edited by David_D - May 16 2022 at 04:46

David_D wrote: David_D wrote: Psychedelic Paul wrote: .... I've never managed to acquire the taste for Gentle Giant.  Life can be tough, but I wouldn't care too much.  reply 2: good point concerning the debate here

Psychedelic Paul wrote: At least I gave Gentle Giant a chance by listening to all of their albums recently, but to be honest, I prefer the Jolly Green Giant.

David_D wrote: ...I think some persons may be fond of or appreciate an album without actually "liking" it.

David_D wrote: Logan wrote: I wish that ProgArchives ratings descriptors did not appeal to a sense of objectivity due to the subjective nature of evaluation. To each his or her own tastes. My scale would be more like ( I would want a wider spectrum and there is overlap in the descriptors, have done better ones before): 5. I love this! 4. I really liked this! 3. I like this. 2. Unsatisfying to me. 1. I really disliked/ loathed this. I like that that scale is explicitly subjective.  As already said, I'm very fine with explicit subjectivity in rating scales, but "liking" seems after second thought to narrow to me as a rating criteria, as I think some persons may be fond of or appreciate an album without actually "liking" it.  So how about using "being fond of" or "appreciating" in rating scales?

In terms of appreciation, not fondness, I agree with the principle and once came up with a scale phrased more that way, but I also see some potential issues with not making it more explicitly subjective. Certainly you can appreciate music without enjoying it (without being fond of it). As a side-note, I don't agree with those who claim that, and I have seen it many times, everything about music is subjective. There are objective qualities to music even if said music has a somewhat different effect on every one who is exposed to it. There is music and all sorts of art that I think objectively good, in that it is competent, professional, does what it seems to intend to do well, which I don't enjoy because it's, say, not of a style that I like

On a related note, I think we should be careful when it comes to making claims of quality especially when it is not of an idiom that we enjoy. Commonly I am more interested when people describe the qualities of the music rather than the quality of the music as when quite a few talk about quality they really just mean, for instance if calling it of bad quality (garbage), that it's bad for them rather than its incompetent at what it does. When talking about quality and qualities, I think one should try to be more objective.

An issue I have with making it about appreciation without liking it is that I think that might lead to more of a bandwagon kind of scoring, and second and third guessing yourself and a kind of overthinking maybe. The reviews can reflect on if you appreciate it without really liking it. To use an example, one might not like Yes' Close to the Edge, or find it remarkable, yet give it a high score because one sees that others appreciate it so much and then come to a realisation that you should appreciate it more than you like it, and maybe it's problem with you for not liking it more, and thus score it higher than you would otherwise. While I see see some value in that kind of thinking, such thinking tends to perpetuate higher scores for classics because they are seen by others as classics.   And I have seen this kind of thing expressed in reviews where ratings are adjusted both higher and lower based on other reviews with the thought that this should be appreciated more or less than I do as made clear by the love or dislike in other reviews.

I have thought before that while I would like to see more objectivity in the reviews, it might be better served to see the ratings as a true reflection of how the music is liked by someone, and the average to be a true reflection of how much all of the raters cumulatively liked it. Just having the ratings reflect enjoyment simplifies it and does have a certain utility to it.

Edited by Logan - May 16 2022 at 07:25

David_D wrote: Ookaay, I guess, I have more thought of "fond" as "glad", and imagine that you can be glad of an album without necessarily "liking" it.