View Full Version : To score a review or not?
I wonder why people have to rate music that way. A song either appeals to me or it doesn't. Why all those x/y ratings? I've never seen/heard anybody do that at an art exhibtion (for example). "This William Turner painting - 8/10." :wtf:
Yes, I absolutely agree with you.
A song either appeals to me or it doesn't.
Yeah well some songs kinda appeal o me and kinda dont. Meat Loaf's songs are never that black and white to me, so I have trouble deciding if it does or not.
When i give something an "8/10" it means I like it, but it could be better. Im not a grea yttyper and it just lets me shorten eveyrthing i need to say.
a "9/10" is a song that really captures me, yet isn't 100% perfect.
That's how I function. and most who do that function.
You know what i dont understand? people who say thing liked "I hate it when people blah blah blah" when its so very clear their referring to a single individual. Its odious and semi-obnoxious.
Just say "why do you rate stuff like that? I dont understand why people feel the need to put songs out of ten like you do." ;)
juniper
15 Oct 2011, 03:39
I wonder why people have to rate music that way. A song either appeals to me or it doesn't. Why all those x/y ratings? I've never seen/heard anybody do that at an art exhibtion (for example). "This William Turner painting - 8/10." :wtf: People have rated music since (the beginning of time?) True, I don't know why we don't rate art. I give Picasso a 2 but Rembrant a 10. Seems funny to do so. I think for music or books or movies, it somehow lets people participate and feel like their opinion matters, in which it does, if it affects sales, like with charts for music, books and movies. Art? Not so much I think.
stretch37
15 Oct 2011, 06:10
handbasket is Meat's best album since couldn't have said it better. Just phenominal. I'm so excited right now about Meat's career and the sex-appeal of his band and the music being written centered around Meat's feelings and life experiences. I hope the rest of Meat's albums are about his stories and life experiences, especially enjoyed in the reviews thread when HIAH was compared to Johnny Cash's American recordings. Although Meats voice is still in way better shape than Cash was when cash was only about 6 years older at the time :P Meat really does know how to turn a song into a masterpiece, he is a true artist.
the meatpatti
15 Oct 2011, 07:31
I wonder why people have to rate music that way. A song either appeals to me or it doesn't. Why all those x/y ratings? I've never seen/heard anybody do that at an art exhibtion (for example). "This William Turner painting - 8/10." :wtf:
My thoughts exactly! Either I like a song/ album or I don't (same goes with art)! I know it's done all the time, but I just don't understand how somebody can honestly do that! How could I compare a Meat Loaf song with a classical composition ( e.g. The Fuge & Toccata by Bach ) - they're two completely different styles? So I have to categorize a song first, to compare similar styles. But where to start, where to end? Finally I could only compare the songs of a single artist with one another. But then - how could somebody compare BOOH with California Dreamin' ( here goes the style-problem again)? So it's all down to personal likings and preferences.
For me HIAHB is a phantastic album with some songs I prefer over the others due to personal preferences. 'California Dreamin' und 'Our Hearts and Our Souls' have Patti in them - that's all it takes to make them my favourites. But then - I heard the full album already more often than some of the so called classics in my collection. I like the melodies, I like the lyrics, I like the overall theme. Meats vocals are strong. And I like the style mix.
:up: So a BIG LIKE from me! :up:
PanicLord
15 Oct 2011, 11:47
I wonder why people have to rate music that way. A song either appeals to me or it doesn't. Why all those x/y ratings? I've never seen/heard anybody do that at an art exhibtion (for example). "This William Turner painting - 8/10." :wtf:
For me it's just a way of showing how much it appeals. Some songs appeal more than others and my scores reflect that. And art is constantly rated - the amount of money someone is willing to pay for a piece shows how much it appeals to them.
the amount of money someone is willing to pay for a piece shows how much it appeals to them.
Not necessarily. Some people don't buy art because it appeals to them but because the artist has a big name. It's an investment and/or a way to show that you can afford spending money on things like that. (On the art market, an item is not rated the same way people tend to rate music, by the way.) The people who do buy art because it appeals to them simply fork out the money because they like a particular painting, sculpture, drawing, photography, they usually don't apply rating systems to it.
Do you buy and listen to music because you like it or because of the way someone else rated it? "Oh, that album got only two stars in the latest Rolling Stone... and just three stars on Amazon... Hm... I like that band but it's probably not worth purchasing it." :??: Regardless of how many points/stars/whatever someone grants HIAH, will that have an influence on other forum members' decisions on whether to buy/like it or not? I guess most people are more interested in the style, the arrangements or to which extent Patti is featured on the album than in whether it gets a 5/10, 7/10 or 10/10 rating by someone.
It's alright to exchange feelings and opinions on a song but applying some kind of grading system appears kind of odd to me, especially since it's not clear to which criteria it actually refers to, as meatpatti pointed out. I have to admit that I did that once, too, but it turned out to be a waste of time. I rather attentively listen to music than rack my brains about whether I should grant a particular song/album x/5 or x/10 stars/points. (Just look at how often Wario has changed his rating so far. That should give you an idea of the value of such numbers. ;)) Sometimes I have the feeling that some people are more concerned with the review they are going to publish than with (hopefully) enjoying the music.
PanicLord
15 Oct 2011, 13:37
Not necessarily. Some people don't buy art because it appeals to them but because the artist has a big name. It's an investment and/or a way to show that you can afford spending money on things like that. (On the art market, an item is not rated the same way people tend to rate music, by the way.) The people who do buy art because it appeals them simply fork out the money because they like a particular painting, sculpture, drawing, photography, they usually don't apply rating systems to it.
True, it's not always down to appeal. But what I really was trying to say is that people who buy it because they are interested in art rather than showing off or making money are probably willing to spend more money on something they really like than something that they find quite nice but not exceptional. Therefore, in these cases, the amount of money they spend is a good gauge of how much they like it. I'm not saying you can necessarily equate each mark out of 10 to a certain number of £ - but people will spend more money on something they love.
Do you buy and listen to music because you like it or because of the way someone else rated it? "Oh, that album got only two stars in the latest Rolling Stone... and just three stars on Amazon... Hm... I like that band but it's probably not worth purchasing it." :??:
Well, ratings do come into my decision about a purchase. For example if a band I really like release an album that gets slated I may decide to defer the purchase until it becomes available in bargain bins or on special offer or something. Also, when I am looking into buying music from someone I am not familiar with and haven't heard before, I use ratings to help me assess whether it is something I am likely to be interested in. Again, it's not the only thing, but it helps.
Regardless of how many points/stars/whatever someone grants HIAH, will that have an influence on other forum members' decisions on whether to buy/like it or not? I guess most people are more interested in the style, the arrangements or to which extent Patti is featured on the album than in whether it gets a 5/10, 7/10 or 10/10 rating by someone.
Forum members, probably not to a huge extent, although I have to say the positive reviews do seem to have encouraged some members who wouldn't have bought it to get a copy.
It's alright to exchange feelings and opinions on a song but applying some kind of grading system appears kind of odd to me, especially since it's not clear to which criteria it actually refers to, as meatpatti pointed out. I have to admit that I did that once, too, but it turned out to be a waste of time. I rather attentively listen to music than rack my brains about whether I should grant a particular song/album x/5 or x/10 stars/points. Sometimes I have the feeling that some people are more concerned with the review they are going to publish than with (hopefully) enjoying the music.
The score is only a way of reflecting an opinion - ie 10 out of 10 is a very glowing review, 5 out of 10 an average review, 1 out of 10 a poor review. It's a really quick and simple way of summing up an overall opinion on something. I don't rack my brains or overanalyse it, I give a score that feels right and shows how much I enjoyed the music. I have to say I don't review things very often, but when I post one, I do like to take care over it so that it is (to me) well written, clear, fair, and hopefully interesting to read. Doesn't mean I've not thoroughly enjoyed listening to the music first - in fact it tends to mean I listen to it even more attentively so that I have a clear idea of what I'm going to say about it so that it truly reflects how I feel about it. The 2 things are not mutually exclusive.
Well, ratings do come into my decision about a purchase. For example if a band I really like release an album that gets slated I may decide to defer the purchase until it becomes available in bargain bins or on special offer or something.
You never know who exactly writes the reviews and what their motivation is. There are people who always give a 5/5 (10/10) rating even if it's a crappy album because they buy everything their favorite artist puts out and there are people who grant a good album only a 1/5 rating because it does not meet their personal preferences and expectations or because of other reasons (e.g. a long-time member left the band and they feel it's "not the same" anymore). When Meat Loaf's Rockpalast concert came out on DVD, it got only a 2-star rating on amazon.com, if I remember it correctly. When I read the reviews it turned out that the low rating had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the performance. It primarily was due to the fact that there were only two or three reviews in total at that time and that apparently the US version is missing two songs. In the meantime, more people have reviewed the DVD and is has a 4/5 rating at the moment.
You see, those kind of ratings can be misleading and a bit unfair to the artist. Someone who did a search for "Meat Loaf" around the time the ratings for the DVD were low might just have not clicked the item at all and rather opted for having a look at the 4- and 5-star stuff instead.
Evil One
15 Oct 2011, 14:32
You see, those kind of ratings can be misleading and a bit unfair to the artist. Someone who did a search for "Meat Loaf" around the time the ratings for the DVD were low might just have not clicked the item at all and rather opted for having a look at the 4- and 5-star stuff instead.But if they were from the US and looking at potentially buying a Meat Loaf product, then a 2 star review may have stopped them from buying a poor product. :shrug:
But if they were from the US and looking at potentially buying a Meat Loaf product, then a 2 star review may have stopped them from buying a poor product. :shrug:
It may have deterred them from bothering to check out the reviews and find out what exactly people like and what they don't like about the release. It's one thing to see a 2-star rating and assume that it's probably a "poor product" that's not worth paying attention to. It's another thing to actually read reviews that indicate that you get to see an interesting performance by a young Meat Loaf from a period of which not that much footage exists but that you have to be aware of the fact that it's shorter than the European version and that the audio is rather poor.
PanicLord
15 Oct 2011, 15:25
You never know who exactly writes the reviews and what their motivation is. There are people who always give a 5/5 (10/10) rating even if it's a crappy album because they buy everything their favorite artist puts out and there are people who grant a good album only a 1/5 rating because it does not meet their personal preferences and expectations or because of other reasons (e.g. a long-time member left the band and they feel it's "not the same" anymore). When Meat Loaf's Rockpalast concert came out on DVD, it got only a 2-star rating on amazon.com, if I remember it correctly. When I read the reviews it turned out that the low rating had absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the performance. It primarily was due to the fact that there were only two or three reviews in total at that time and that apparently the US version is missing two songs. In the meantime, more people have reviewed the DVD and is has a 4/5 rating at the moment.
You see, those kind of ratings can be misleading and a bit unfair to the artist. Someone who did a search for "Meat Loaf" around the time the ratings for the DVD were low might just have not clicked the item at all and rather opted for having a look at the 4- and 5-star stuff instead.
Oh I agree, and that's why it is only ever a part of how I decide and not the whole thing.
You need to read all the reviews and form your own opinion based on what you read, plus your own preferences, plus however else you decide.
But the point is, the scores can be useful when awarded sensibly.
White of High
15 Oct 2011, 16:12
For me it means: what I'm waiting from Meat.
For me FCOL will be always the best Meat song. Melody is great, lyrics is great, arrngement and strings by the smyphonic orhestra is almost great. The vocal is good as well.
This song is the non-plus ultra by Meat. I always wait the same quality and rarely get it. So I can compare any Meat songs...
Rage Against
15 Oct 2011, 16:24
I give the rating of songs on a 1 to 10 scale a 1.
You need to read all the reviews
Not necessarily all the reviews as sometimes there are just too many. ;) But you can pick a couple from each category and have a look at them. I'd avoid the ones that just state that "this album is crap" or "it's the best they have ever done", though, and check out the ones in which people actually elaborate on the content and why they think it is good or bad or mediocre. It's no substitute for listening to something yourself and form your own opinion but that can give you an idea of what to expect from a song / an album.
Not necessarily all the reviews as sometimes there are just too many. ;) But you can pick a couple from each category and have a look at them. I'd avoid the ones that just state that "this album is crap" or "it's the best they have ever done", though, and check out the ones in which people actually elaborate on the content and why they think it is good or bad or mediocre. It's no substitute for listening to something yourself and form your own opinion but that can give you an idea of what to expect from a song / an album.
Which is why I rate stuff out if ten.
If you see i rated Giving tree a 9/10 it means its a damn good track. I averaged everything out and gave the record a C-
Numbers speak louder then words sometimes, and with my "bad grammar" its for the best i minimize my typing intake.
Actually looking through each review thread for HIAHB and HCTB im the only one who seems to do the number out of ten method :|
Monstro
15 Oct 2011, 17:04
its for the best i minimize my typing intake.
Minimizing the font size would be appreciated as well :D
Numbers speak louder then words sometimes
The trouble is that a lot of people often pay more attention to numbers than to what's behind those numbers. (Not only with regard to music.) ;)
Julie in the rv mirror
16 Oct 2011, 06:51
I agree with Sarge. I don't think it's really fair to assign a number score (even though it's commonly done) to something like music, which is so subjective. That's why I chose not to assign scores in my review of HIAH. I just know what I like and what I don't when it comes to music, and I of course don't expect that everyone would agree with me. I'll never make a statement such as, "Record X is Artist Y's best album ever", because there is just no way to objectively measure that. I like what I like, regardless of how others feel, although it is often helpful to get feedback from others who like many of the same things I do. But, as Sarge said, I think it's more helpful to read why someone liked or disliked a song/album than just a number score.
chairboys
16 Oct 2011, 09:02
Numbers are absolutely fine. It's not an exact science but does usually give a general indication to the quality of a song. You can either agree or disagree with it just as you may not believe a worded review is right.
What about Strictly Come Dancing?
PanicLord
16 Oct 2011, 10:02
Yes, or Total Film or Empire magazine? A score reflects an opinion.
What about Strictly Come Dancing?
Dancing is not pop music. There are more obvious criteria available to judge someone's dancing than to judge a song. Dancing is a mix of arts and sports and when it comes to professional dancing, there are rules - which makes it easier to judge a dance. Dancers who are unable to handle the required technique and choreography will fail in most cases (unless they are funny), whereas a pop singer does not have to be perfect. A dancer who can't dance will hardly get a job but there are people who aren't great singers who got record contracts. It's easier to make up for bad singing than for bad dancing. Take Lou Reed, for example. Not a good singer, in my opinion, but he has some cool songs and his vocals suit them well. The audience of pop music is different from the dance audience and has different expectations as to what a good performance is, too.
A score reflects an opinion.
And are such scores useful? It would be okay if they indeed were opinions but apparently they are often meant to serve as recommendations. I once made the mistake of falling for a high score and went to the cinema to watch a movie. The flick turned out to be awful. So the 5/5 rating was useless - at least for me.
PanicLord
16 Oct 2011, 11:39
Dancing is not pop music. There are more obvious criteria available to judge someone's dancing than to judge a song. Dancing is a mix of arts and sports and when it comes to professional dancing, there are rules - which makes it easier to judge a dance. Dancers who are unable to handle the required technique and choreography will fail in most cases (unless they are funny), whereas a pop singer does not have to be perfect. A dancer who can't dance will hardly get a job but there are people who aren't great singers who got record contracts. It's easier to make up for bad singing than for bad dancing. Take Lou Reed, for example. Not a good singer, in my opinion, but he has some cool songs and his vocals suit them well. The audience of pop music is different from the dance audience and has different expectations as to what a good performance is, too.
And are such scores useful? It would be okay if they indeed were opinions but apparently they are often meant to serve as recommendations. I once made the mistake of falling for a high score and went to the cinema to watch a movie. The flick turned out to be awful. So the 5/5 rating was useless - at least for me.
Re dancing, the rules are only part of it. There is also technique, but also performance.
Re the film, that simply means your opinion was different to that of the reviewer. That can happen whether the reviewer wrote an essay or simply hGave a score.
[...] that simply means your opinion was different to that of the reviewer.That can happen whether the reviewer wrote an essay or simply hGave a score.
True but it's an example of scores often being useless and misleading. If something gets 4.5/5 on Amazon or 8.2/10 on IMDB does that mean that the song/album/movie is really good? No, because there still can be numerous 1/5 or 1/10 scores among the total number of ratings. There are music magazines which regularly publish repetive articles on the "500 best albums", "100 greatest singers", "Top 100 guitar players", whatever... :zzz: Nothing bores me more, even though usually some of my favorites make it onto those lists. They apparently reflect the preferences of the authors. Do I have to be told over and over again that The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, The Rolling Stones, etc. made music history? Doesn't that obstruct someone's view at less known but equally interesting artists? Is guitar player no. 99 on the "Top 100 guitar players" list not as good as no. 5 or no. 1?
By the way, look at this 2-star review (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/bat-out-of-hell-ii-back-into-hell-19931028) and compare it to the album's success and sales figures.
PanicLord
16 Oct 2011, 13:51
But the key thing is that the score accurately reflects the opinions expressed in writing. You could have either the score or the prose and come away with the same opinion of the album. Obviously the vast majority of people did not refuse to buy the album because of the review and/or the score. I guess most people heard AFL and wanted to hear more.
But our discussion is about whether it is odd to give a score to a review. Everything I've seen so far seems to suggest that it is reviewing itself that is worthless regardless of the method used because people make up their own mind.
Any scored review is really only as good as the reviewer is consistent with their scoring. A one off 8/10 really means very little unless you know the baseline that the reviewer is working against.
If you know that over a period of time a reviewer rates music (or films or art or food etc) highly that you really like then there's a very good chance that you'll like any new music (or film or art or food etc) that they rate highly that you haven't heard.
If you've no idea what they've measured against to achieve the 8/10 then really all it tells you is that they like it, but with no substance to really back the rating up.
PanicLord
16 Oct 2011, 14:01
Any scored review is really only as good as the reviewer is consistent with their scoring. A one off 8/10 really means very little unless you know the baseline that the reviewer is working against.
If you know that over a period of time a reviewer rates music (or films or art or food etc) highly that you really like then there's a very good chance that you'll like any new music (or film or art or food etc) that they rate highly that you haven't heard.
If you've no idea what they've measured against to achieve the 8/10 then really all it tells you is that they like it, but with no substance to really back the rating up.
But what you're talking about hear is the personal views of the reviewer - bias if you like. I can't see any reason why that would affect a written review any more or less than a score.
That's the point though. Isn't that what a review is? The personal view of the reviewer. The only way you can really understand whether a review is accurate is to have some knowledge of the reviewers tastes, if they give a good review (be it scored or not) then you'll more than likely only agree with the review, if your tastes are similar.
But the key thing is that the score accurately reflects the opinions expressed in writing.
No it doesn't. I've seen a 1/5 rating for HCTB (European 2-disc edition). The reviewer didn't think the album was bad. He gave it 1 star because the pages of the booklet were incorrectly attached to the digibook's jacket.
Rage Against
16 Oct 2011, 14:12
:lurk:
PanicLord
16 Oct 2011, 14:16
No it doesn't. I've seen a 1/5 rating for HCTB (European 2-disc edition). The reviewer didn't think the album was bad. No, he gave it 1 star because the pages of the booklet were incorrectly attached to the digibook's jacket.
Well ok - but that wasn't the one you posted! And I have already acknowledged that time wasters who don't score reviews properly in line with their views should be discounted.
That's the point though. Isn't that what a review is? The personal view of the reviewer. The only way you can really understand whether a review is accurate is to have some knowledge of the reviewers tastes, if they give a good review (be it scored or not) then you'll more than likely only agree with the review, if your tastes are similar.
Yes indeed.
A Slice Of English
16 Oct 2011, 14:17
I love watching/reading debates where one party tries to convert the other parrty to their way of thinking. Sometimes all that happens is heads butt together, rebound off and then carry on as before.
Like here.
Well ok - but that wasn't the one you posted!
The point is that such scores affect the overall rating. Some people bother to apply an "accurate" score that is in accordance with their actual opinion. Others are not that thorough and as you can see, some have odd criteria to judge something by.
PanicLord
16 Oct 2011, 14:38
I love watching/reading debates where one party tries to convert the other parrty to their way of thinking. Sometimes all that happens is heads butt together, rebound off and then carry on as before.
Like here.
Lol - but that's all part of the fun!
vBulletin® v3.8.10, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.