Overly generous ratings??

I'm pretty even when it comes to ratings. I rated albums anywhere from 5 stars to 1 1/2 stars. Of course my ratings here are based on how good it is in a jazz context, not necessarily if it is progressive or innovative. I haven't heard much jazz that is worth less than 3 stars; the only time this would happen is if it is "smooth" jazz (the kind that isn't good), or if it is jazz-related rock and doesn't have ANY jazz in it (certain Zappa albums, etc...). The rare occasion would be if the sound quality was poor, or the playing was very sloppy (which is rare in jazz)

The ratings should be based on if it is a good addition to a jazz collection, and to weed out the outstanding and great from the average or run-of-the-mill

5 stars = No jazz collection is complete without it
4 1/2 stars = Just as essential as a 5 star album, but doesn't quite hit the masterpiece status
4 stars = Exceptional album, usually just a great, solid album
3 1/2 stars = Might be a dud here or there, but at least half the album is essential jazz listening
3 stars = Average album, if you've heard this one, you've probably heard dozens like it. Good, but nothing special
2 1/2 stars = Another average album, except this one is boring, or very sugar coated smooth jazz
2 stars = Probably only 1 or 2 songs worth having, the rest is bad/average. Maybe the production is not so good; or it is not jazz-related, but might be enjoyed by a jazz fan. (sometimes this can be applied to 2 1/2 star albums)
1 1/2 stars = Poor quality/sloppy playing/sugar sugar sugar!
1 star = If an album gets one star or less, it's either the smoothest of smooth jazz, or is bad music in general.
1/2 star = use your imagination....




Edited by darkshade - 14 Jul 2011 at 3:58pm

Ricochet wrote: You know Hugues, a fellow countryman of yours I read is very generous with the ratings. As if all new jazz is riveting.

In my enthusiasm for this site I found myself wanting to review the albums I liked the most in my collection so, therefore, high ratings were inevitable.  Now that I'm going through the secondary material I'm much more judgmental and hard to please.

Ricochet wrote: Suddenly nobody is reviewing higher than 3.5.

Thinking of holding off on doing some reviews for a while, actually

But seriously, when I have time I'll review a few and see how they turn out. I believe I can change the rating one day, if I take a second look at an album and decide to edit a review?

And I'm going to try and review albums I've had for at least several months. Years is better. Though I may make an exception for one album that I believe needs some exposure that I've only had for a month or so.

Sean Trane wrote: Well actually these kinds of sites (such as ours, but RYM or more)  must also take on an encyclopedic view of the whole jazz spectrum, imho. After all, don't we announce ourselves as "ultimate" first and foremost???

That is a good point, but we'd need a collective effort. As I said, many reviews are personal.

harmonium.ro wrote: With only 7 ***** ratings out of 107 I think I'm on Hugues' side. I would round up to ***** a good number of my ****1/2 ratings on a simplified rating scheme like that of PA, but I am thanful that half stars are available here and let us differentiate between fundamental, transcendental masterpieces and albums that are perfect in their own way but not really up there with the former. Most of the reviewers here are experienced reviewers from PA, I doubt they are too generous with their ratings, why do you have this impression Hugues?

Ricochet wrote: Okay, serious mode. The site is new, the ratings for a specific album are few (or in many cases just one), they obviously need to settle in time. A lot of folks (especially from PA) have expressed coming here to hear new and great jazz, so they could very well focus on what they liked a lot. I find that there are few of us who are looking into jazz encyclopedically. Other than that, every member would now need to come and explain his methods / why isn't he more critic (in case he's one of those putting a lot of stars in) / why he's not thinking more globally about jazz instead of how much his pleasure points were tickled by some specific improv etc. I think there's a bit of harrassing in this.

idlero wrote: I never used (here or on PA) nor will use 1/2*  or *

I don't think going so low is the point.

Ricochet wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: With only 7 ***** ratings out of 107 I think I'm on Hugues' side. How? That wouldn't make us overzealous.

I'm on Hugues' side in the sense that I try to become more of a balanced reviewer. And I don't see how my posts implies anything about other people here.

With only 7 ***** ratings out of 107 I think I'm on Hugues' side. I would round up to ***** a good number of my ****1/2 ratings on a simplified rating scheme like that of PA, but I am thankful that half stars are available here and let us differentiate between fundamental, transcendental masterpieces and albums that are perfect in their own way but not really up there with the former.

Also, my favourite genres (Nu-Jazz and Third Stream) have averages of 3.92 and 4.09 in my ratings statistics, I think that's quite balanced.

Most of the reviewers here are experienced reviewers from PA, I doubt they are too generous with their ratings, why do you have this impression Hugues?


Edited by harmonium.ro - 12 Jul 2011 at 7:47am