Print Page | Close Window

Overly generous ratings??

Printed From: JazzMusicArchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.JazzMusicArchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=776
Printed Date: 19 Jan 2022 at 3:48am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Overly generous ratings??
Posted By: Sean Trane
Subject: Overly generous ratings??
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 3:20am
Can't help but wondering about the average ratings on some of these albums in the (still young) JMA database
 
I know it's about tastes and colours, but....
 
OK, those who know me from PA know that I'm a fairly "severe or conservative rater", which means that I tend to rate frolmthe middle of the scale as a starting point....
 
 
Of course I don't have as vast a knowledge about jazz as I do about prog... so there are entire categories or genres,  that are not "my thing", so I'm not likely to give them more than three stars even if they're considered as a masterpiece in their own right or genre.... but I can't help but seeing that a lot of my ratings are considerably lower than other members around the site.
 
 
Sooooo the question is: should we not rate more conservatively???
 
 
Any thoughts about this?


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....




Replies:
Posted By: snobb
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 4:47am
I believe this thread could be long as life and full of endless fights. I think every music fan has his own scale for albums he listened,and such scales are very various. The only thing I'm always surprise seeing a lot of 5* ratings for very marginal albums. It's not even question of taste - I just can't believe there are tens of 5* jazz albums released every year. 

I don't speak about jazz "golden fund" releases (and even them are great for some people and far not so great for others), but seeing for example almost everything what is released by modern days ECM rated as 5* albums looks a bit strange for me: yes,the label found their successful formula for contemporary jazz sales,but unfortunately such albums are usually very similar between each other. So -if you think one of them is masterpiece,it means all other clones are masterpieces as well? Same with third stream piano albums - if you like "Koln Concert" (personally I don't),does it means any other Jarrett solo piano release is masterpiece only because Jarrett repeats same formula regularly?

It's just my very personal opinion, but I think there some really great albums of almost every jazz or jazz-related genre (as rule released when one ore another sub-genre was on it's artistic peak), but total number of masterpieces is tens at best,not hundreds. Speaking about 80s,90s or 00s,I am really happy when one five star album could be found for every year, but it hardly happens.

Looking from another hand, fans who believe there are many 5* albums released every year,are real music maniacs - they just LOVE music in general,any music and it's great!


Posted By: js
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 6:32am
Somebody worries too much.  Stern Smile


Posted By: Kazuhiro
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 7:03am
I have submitted a review of Love Beach of ELP to the PA before. The rating that I acquired was a 3 star. I do not yet receive an attack.


Posted By: js
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 7:06am
This sort of speculation is not what the "Help us Improve the site" thread is supposed to be for, consider this thread moved. 


Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 7:58am
I like how we're jumping to the conclusion that this will be pointless arguing and nitpicking.  Tongue
Now, Hugues, moving on this new site was a good chance not to appear elitist compared to the rest of us, you obviously didn't care for that. Tongue



-------------



Posted By: Cannonball With Hat
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 10:09pm
@ Snobb: Well I think using any ol' rating system is a problem, being the site gives specific guildlines of how to rate albums. I have the same gripe at PA. People should rate albums according to the guidlines. You have the review to explain it and do with as you please. But it seems people prefer using their own personal liking scale.  This does create a problem. Using different types of rating systems does lead to some inconsistancies.
 
As for the topic...I imagine things will iron out better with more reviews/ratings. Which does imply more people. Preferrably these are people with some sort of jazz/music knowledge but people nonetheless. I don't usually keep up with reviews or the non forum parts of the site. How many reviews does jma have anyway? (How many members for the matter)


-------------
Hit it on Five.

Saxophone Scatterbrain Blitzberg

Stab them in the ears.


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 2:29am
Originally posted by snobb snobb wrote:

 The only thing I'm always surprise seeing a lot of 5* ratings for very marginal albums. It's not even question of taste - I just can't believe there are tens of 5* jazz albums released every year. 

I don't speak about jazz "golden fund" releases (and even them are great for some people and far not so great for others), but seeing for example almost everything what is released by modern days ECM rated as 5* albums looks a bit strange for me: yes,the label found their successful formula for contemporary jazz sales,but unfortunately such albums are usually very similar between each other.
 
So -if you think one of them is masterpiece,it means all other clones are masterpieces as well? Same with third stream piano albums - if you like "Koln Concert" (personally I don't),does it means any other Jarrett solo piano release is masterpiece only because Jarrett repeats same formula regularly?

It's just my very personal opinion, but I think there some really great albums of almost every jazz or jazz-related genre (as rule released when one ore another sub-genre was on it's artistic peak), but total number of masterpieces is tens at best,not hundreds. Speaking about 80s,90s or 00s,I am really happy when one five star album could be found for every year, but it hardly happens.
 
 
Hug
 
I now feel less alone on my planet!!!!ApproveCool
 
Slava, thanks for wording my concernso much than I could've done it!Clap
 
 


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 2:43am
 
 
edited....Wink 
 
 


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 5:18am
 
 
Edited.... Wink


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 5:41am
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.


-------------



Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 5:59am
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?


Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 6:31am
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

With only 7 ***** ratings out of 107 I think I'm on Hugues' side.


How? That wouldn't make us overzealous.
Then again, the number 4.0 / 4.5 stars is probably the most significant.

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

  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.


My ratings here will likely be 0.5 higher than how I would rate the album in full musical context (or simply in my own preferential box).


-------------



Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 6:53am
Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro 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. Question


Posted By: idlero
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 6:54am
I never used (here or on PA) nor will use 1/2*  or *


-------------
I think the problem with a lot of the fusion music is that it's extremely predictable, it's a rock rhythm and the solos all play the same stuff and they play it over and over again ...
Ken Burns


Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 6:59am
Originally posted by idlero 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.


-------------



Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 7:00am
Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro 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. Question


D'oh, your 107 ratings. *facepalm*


-------------



Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 7:27am
Originally posted by Ricochet 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.
 
I fully agree that the ratings have yet to be entered in great quantities and no doubt that they (ratings) will settle down, once the dust has fallen back on the ground.Smile
 
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's also how I rated from day1 in ProgArchives... I don't make an artiste's best album (to moi, of courseWink)  automatically a five, 4.5 or four star if it doesn't deserve it. I take (or at least try to take)  into consideration  an album's historical relevance and it's influential potential or proven influence. I sort of master my own view for an overall-view of  prog (and/or classic rock), but I must say that it's quite trickier for jazz, gioven my age and the much longer time lapse involved >> the subject is so vast, that it's rather difficult (if not impossible) to have total mastery of all its areas or genres.
 
But the thing is that right now, with every (or almost) album having an above-four-star rating, it's quite hard to make out the essential albums from the more anecdotic ones (Slava's example about Jarrett is perfect in this regard) if they're all equally-rated.Confused
 
re: rating justification: Well I was wondering if the reviewing members wouldn't have a space in his profile ( like in PA), where they could tell of their background and maybe explain his rating method...explain it once and for all there.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 7:35am
Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro harmonium.ro wrote:

Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

Originally posted by harmonium.ro 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. Question


D'oh, your 107 ratings. *facepalm*


I don't understand what you were trying to say anymore. LOL


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 7:46am
Originally posted by harmonium.ro 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?
 
Interesting process, and agreed on the principle,  although I would tend to downgrade (instead of upgrade)  a 4.5 into a 4 on ProgArchives, precisely to let "la crème de la crème" appear at the top.
Yes, Halfstar are so much nicer than full starsBig smileLOL 
The risk of collegial over-rating might actually mislead a newcomer in choosing  the ABC album (somewhat not at the top) from the XYZ band, instead of the MNO or PQR album (their real masterpieces) based on a minimal rating difference, and that very newcommer might be disgusted at trying another album if it's considered among the very best from XYZ... That's why it's important to have a significant margin between top rung and sexcond echelon albums. 
 
 
yes I know most raters are from PA and are experienced, but to grasp the overall scheme in jazz when most of us are still quite "tender" and still finding our way (that's valid for me as well) is very trticky...
 
That's why I prefer the conservative rating approach, instead of the over-appreciative total music fan that is too optimistic.
 
On Gnosis2000 (where I rate as well), we have a cool policy of not rating a new album (not just recent release, but any new acquisition) any higher than 11 (out of 15) to avoid the novelty factor.
http://gnosis2000.net/" rel="nofollow - http://gnosis2000.net/
 


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: idlero
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 8:01am
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

 
The risk of collegial over-rating might actually mislead a newcomer in choosing  the ABC album (somewhat not at the top) from the XYZ band, instead of the MNO or PQR album (their real masterpieces) based on a minimal rating difference, and that very newcommer might be disgusted at trying another album if it's considered among the very best from XYZ... That's why it's important to have a significant margin between top rung and sexcond echelon albums. 


I think you worry too much.  Better to try one or two albums that were overrated than miss some good albums because they were underated by some overcritical reviewers
And anyway , today  you can try almost anything before you buy, and you can consult more than one source for reviews, even professional ones.



-------------
I think the problem with a lot of the fusion music is that it's extremely predictable, it's a rock rhythm and the solos all play the same stuff and they play it over and over again ...
Ken Burns


Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 8:08am
Originally posted by Sean Trane 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.




-------------



Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 8:14am
Suddenly nobody is reviewing higher than 3.5. Tongue

-------------



Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 8:25am
Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

Suddenly nobody is reviewing higher than 3.5. Tongue


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

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.


-------------
We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/dreadpirateroberts%28member%29.aspx?reviews=all/" rel="nofollow - Reviews...


Posted By: Ricochet
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 8:56am
You know Hugues, a fellow http://freejazz-stef.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - countryman of yours I read is very generous with the ratings. As if all new jazz is riveting. Wink

-------------



Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 1:37pm
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.

-------------
Make a joyful noise unto the Lord...


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 3:03am
Originally posted by Chicapah Chicapah wrote:

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.
 
That's only normal behaviour to cater on with our favourite albumsSmile. I did the same in terms of reviewing (although I still have to do my fave Trane and Tyner reviews)...
 
I'm not so much on the reviewing proper (where you can explain the rating) than about the  StarStarStarStarStar rating and running (I do some rate & run as well, but I don't get stuck in the 5* mode)


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2011 at 3:09am
Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

You know Hugues, a fellow http://freejazz-stef.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - countryman of yours I read is very generous with the ratings. As if all new jazz is riveting. Wink
 
Yes, typically the type of behaviour I'm on aboutAngryWink....
 
Ok, new releases deserves their chances to be heard (I actually like a lot some Nu-jazz and acid-jazz)... but ratherthan reading this type or review and buying it on the reviewer's words, I'll go to my library system and make up my own mind...


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 3:54am
Originally posted by Ricochet Ricochet wrote:

Suddenly nobody is reviewing higher than 3.5. Tongue
 
I wish....Tongue
 
Remember that a 3 or 3.5 means a good album.... even if non-essential
 
Sooooo, it's not like you're being insulting to an album by giving it 3...it's actually quite a compliment...
 
 
 


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 3:47pm
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....




-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:00pm
If this site had a top 100 like at PA, it wouldn't include jazz-related albums like Funk, JR-Rock, etc.... right?

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: js
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by darkshade darkshade wrote:

If this site had a top 100 like at PA, it wouldn't include jazz-related albums like Funk, JR-Rock, etc.... right?

First part - it does
Second part - it doesn't


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:13pm
Originally posted by js js wrote:

Originally posted by darkshade darkshade wrote:

If this site had a top 100 like at PA, it wouldn't include jazz-related albums like Funk, JR-Rock, etc.... right?

First part - it does
Second part - it doesn't


Oh yea duhh!!! I knew that. I looked at it once a couple weeks back Embarrassed

Ok good, since I can't see a James Brown album in the top 100 (though any jazz fan who like a good beat should enjoy his music; it IS very jazzy at times, borderline funk-jazz)


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: js
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:28pm
The JBs are in Funk Jazz, James may still crack that top 100 yet.  ..Good God!! .. Hit Me!!  .. Hunh!!!    ..and so on


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:32pm
I don't have any albums by The JB's, only James Brown himself. At least 2 of his albums should be considered for funk-jazz like Revolution of the Mind or The Payback, as there is some jazz improv on top of funky goodness during these albums. But I would understand keeping it under funk, I mean, that's what it is.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: js
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:33pm
I'm going to move this thread to General Discussions, don't take the Just For Fun as a diss, that was just standard practice I got from your old buddy Tony back at the rock-n-roll site, wrongly placed threads go to Just for Fun, its nice so you don't have to think about it too much.

Help Us Improve this Site, at least at this site, means things that Max or the staff can actually change, for instance Alex's suggestion of changing Jazz Vocals to Vocal Jazz, great suggestion and we implemented it right away.
Neither Max or anyone here can change how people rate albums.


Posted By: js
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:34pm
Originally posted by darkshade darkshade wrote:

I don't have any albums by The JB's, only James Brown himself. At least 2 of his albums should be considered for funk-jazz like Revolution of the Mind or The Payback, as there is some jazz improv on top of funky goodness during these albums. But I would understand keeping it under funk, I mean, that's what it is.

I believe I have both of those albums, I'll check it out.
The JBs are one of my favorite bands of all time, no one can play like they do, no one.


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:38pm
Originally posted by js js wrote:

Originally posted by darkshade darkshade wrote:

I don't have any albums by The JB's, only James Brown himself. At least 2 of his albums should be considered for funk-jazz like Revolution of the Mind or The Payback, as there is some jazz improv on top of funky goodness during these albums. But I would understand keeping it under funk, I mean, that's what it is.

I believe I have both of those albums, I'll check it out.
The JBs are one of my favorite bands of all time, no one can play like they do, no one.


RotM is a live album, and probably would have a better chance of making it. Both albums don't really reveal their jazzier moments until you've listened deeper into the album.

Any recommendations for where to start with The JB's?


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: js
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:47pm
I would go with anything in the late 60s to early 70s, its all good. After that they start going with the P-funk sound, which is great, but that early JBs was something really special.
Most of the music of theirs that I have is on mix tapes and such. 


Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 4:57pm
Sounds good. As much as I enjoy the P-funk sound, it's not among my favorites. I like more the James Brown, Sly, Lettuce; more in the pocket funk. Pfunk has that too, but I dont know how to say this, it's sometimes a little too "slick" I guess...

I'll look at The JB's stuff and see what happens.


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2011 at 3:11am
Originally posted by js js wrote:

I'm going to move this thread to General Discussions, don't take the Just For Fun as a diss, that was just standard practice I got from your old buddy Tony back at the rock-n-roll site, wrongly placed threads go to Just for Fun, its nice so you don't have to think about it too much.

Help Us Improve this Site, at least at this site, means things that Max or the staff can actually change, for instance Alex's suggestion of changing Jazz Vocals to Vocal Jazz, great suggestion and we implemented it right away.
Neither Max or anyone here can change how people rate albums.
 
OK, thanks, JohnWink
 
I'll deit my post on first page...


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2011 at 3:23am
Originally posted by darkshade darkshade wrote:

Originally posted by js js wrote:

Originally posted by darkshade darkshade wrote:

If this site had a top 100 like at PA, it wouldn't include jazz-related albums like Funk, JR-Rock, etc.... right?

First part - it does
Second part - it doesn't


Oh yea duhh!!! I knew that. I looked at it once a couple weeks back Embarrassed

Ok good, since I can't see a James Brown album in the top 100 (though any jazz fan who like a good beat should enjoy his music; it IS very jazzy at times, borderline funk-jazz)
 
My remark about generous ratings was in no way linked tothe top list , which I haven't even bothered checking.
 
I simply never look at these top rated lists (except maybe at Gnosis2000)..
 
Soo just to be clear, I wasn't hinting at all at someone over-rating every album in order to skew the top-taing lists at JMA
 
I really think that jazzheads are above these teen-agers temptations and list-fixation/obsession... I man, outside Rico (who might be over 20 nowadays and wouldn't classify as a teenager anymoreWink), how many teenagers listen to jazz.... and if there are some, they're probably nort obsessed by list ... this list-skewing risk is mostly for MMA and PA
 
Originally posted by darkshade darkshade wrote:


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....


 
This is an excellent descriptionClap, and it similar to what I use
 
even if I wouldn't use the word exceptional for four star... I mean four star are not an exception, IMHO
I'd use exceptional for 4.5 stars and excellent for four star.
 
I like the sugar description for the lower ratings LOL


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: 16 Jul 2011 at 7:11pm
Evaluating jazz may be significantly different than evaluating prog--  obviously jazz has a unique approach to the way the music is made and presented, and therefore involves the listener in a different way, a different level of perception.  It may be that certain artists or substyles by nature will garner fairly consistent ratings, whether low or high.  I think of John Abercrombie;  though he's released many albums of varying quality, they often sound as if they were made the very next week, day, or even moment, rather than a distinctly new set of material that is notably different from the last.

Thank you for indulging this incoherent moment.



Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 2:36am

^^^^

 Makes quite a bit of sense to me

 

Rating albums in jazz must be different than rock albums... jazz existed before the very concept of an album really appeared... and even when it did, it rarely appeared to be digested completely by jazz artistes or circles (except maybe ECM), as they just made a bunch of songs and stuck them together...  Listening to 70's Shepp albums can be a bit dismaying for rock/prog fans, with civil rights oriented material next to crooner garbage stuff and some almost-straight-blues

 

Indeed in jazz, albums were recorded in just one or two session and no special care of making a real production (outside having a good or correct sound) and some were doing two or three albums a year, and didn't think in terms of cohesiveness or coherence, this despite jazzmen being for 0% much better musos than rock ones



-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Matt
Date Posted: 18 Jul 2011 at 4:22pm
If its good it will get a good rating. One thing I do not like reviewing albums that are on the other end of the spectrum for me, simply because I have to listen to them at least a few times, esp when doing the review. Since I have been here I have been doing the ones that I like primarily and a lot of the Latin ones so far are masterpieces in that genre. Since nobody really listens to Afro Cuban, I would rather point out the real goodies from my perspective. Same goes for Hard Bop. Many of the Blue Note albums that I have reviewed are listed in the top 25 releases of all time from them. One rule for me and that is if I still want to hear the album again after I played it completely it will get a minimum of four stars.

-------------
Matt


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2011 at 5:24am
Originally posted by Matt Matt wrote:

If its good it will get a good rating. One thing I do not like reviewing albums that are on the other end of the spectrum for me, simply because I have to listen to them at least a few times, esp when doing the review. Since I have been here I have been doing the ones that I like primarily and a lot of the Latin ones so far are masterpieces in that genre. Since nobody really listens to Afro Cuban, I would rather point out the real goodies from my perspective. Same goes for Hard Bop. Many of the Blue Note albums that I have reviewed are listed in the top 25 releases of all time from them. One rule for me and that is if I still want to hear the album again after I played it completely it will get a minimum of four stars.
 
Not meaning to be picky, here.... Shocked (and nothing personal I assure youSmile)
 
But this is exactly what I'm afraid of... Too many albums that I'd want to "hear again"  to warrant a fourth star
 
The way you just worded it,  makes me think that you'd be rating most albums you listen to at four stars
 
Maybe you meant pushing "replay" to hear that album a second time successively (I do that frequently, especially at reviewing time)... but even then I'd still find this overly-generous.


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2011 at 7:25am
My current goal for reviews, is to try and only write reviews for albums that I've owned for year or more, 6 months at the least.

It's very, very hard, as for everything that I buy, I feel like I can't review it yet, because I haven't 'lived with it' long enough.   I will essentially have to make exceptions in order to comment on 'new music' however, so I just have to remind myself not to get too carried away with the flush of something new and exciting I guess.


-------------
We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/dreadpirateroberts%28member%29.aspx?reviews=all/" rel="nofollow - Reviews...


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2011 at 9:31am
Originally posted by dreadpirateroberts dreadpirateroberts wrote:

My current goal for reviews, is to try and only write reviews for albums that I've owned for year or more, 6 months at the least.

It's very, very hard, as for everything that I buy, I feel like I can't review it yet, because I haven't 'lived with it' long enough.
 
I will essentially have to make exceptions in order to comment on 'new music' however, so I just have to remind myself not to get too carried away with the flush of something new and exciting I guess.
 
In my fave rating site, Gnosis2000, the propose that yopu waitt at least a few months before rationg a newly acquired album, or that you rate it no higher than 11 (out of 15), then return to re-rate after if you find your opinion hasd changed
http://gnosis2000.net/" rel="nofollow - http://gnosis2000.net/
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: Matt
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2011 at 3:59pm
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by Matt Matt wrote:

If its good it will get a good rating. One thing I do not like reviewing albums that are on the other end of the spectrum for me, simply because I have to listen to them at least a few times, esp when doing the review. Since I have been here I have been doing the ones that I like primarily and a lot of the Latin ones so far are masterpieces in that genre. Since nobody really listens to Afro Cuban, I would rather point out the real goodies from my perspective. Same goes for Hard Bop. Many of the Blue Note albums that I have reviewed are listed in the top 25 releases of all time from them. One rule for me and that is if I still want to hear the album again after I played it completely it will get a minimum of four stars.
 
Not meaning to be picky, here.... Shocked (and nothing personal I assure youSmile)
 
But this is exactly what I'm afraid of... Too many albums that I'd want to "hear again"  to warrant a fourth star
 
The way you just worded it,  makes me think that you'd be rating most albums you listen to at four stars
 
Maybe you meant pushing "replay" to hear that album a second time successively (I do that frequently, especially at reviewing time)... but even then I'd still find this overly-generous.
Life is too short to listen to half baked albums a second time by just being lazy. As I said, if they get a 2nd play I am enjoying it. I said on my previous post above about reviewing albums that I am not overly impressed with for the reason that I do have to play them repeatedly.
You don't need to highlight what I previously posted Sean. I know what I wrote. Why don't you come on What Are you Listening Too and post. You play that many albums and it would be interesting to see what you play.
 
That yellow colour by the way is not good as you can not read it on white background which is how the notification emails come through Confused


-------------
Matt


Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 8:13am
Originally posted by Matt Matt wrote:

 
 
. Why don't you come on What Are you Listening Too and post. You play that many albums and it would be interesting to see what you play.
 
 
well I did a couple time, but that thread is so quick that you retir,n the day after, and your last post a 2 pages behind. (it also takes time to load up the pages, because of the pictures. At work, it's ok, but at home, it can take up half a minute before all of them pictures are in.
 
--------------------------------------
 
Anyway, you can more or less see what I listen to by what I'm reviewing on the present site... It's been mostly that way since 2005 in PA, and it's not changing much since I'm on JMA.
 
right nows, it's mainly Shepp (almost finished), British Jazz (Rendell-Carr Quintet and graham Collier), Shorter, Rollins (just starting)... And I'm more or less finished on Andrew Hill and Sanders...
 
Actually when I review an album, I'm about to drop it from my rotation, sooo I can of recapsulate my feelings on it by writing the review... and probably won't be returning to it fior a few months... sometimes years


-------------
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicted musicians to crazy ones....



Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 9:50am
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by dreadpirateroberts dreadpirateroberts wrote:

My current goal for reviews, is to try and only write reviews for albums that I've owned for year or more, 6 months at the least.

It's very, very hard, as for everything that I buy, I feel like I can't review it yet, because I haven't 'lived with it' long enough.
 
I will essentially have to make exceptions in order to comment on 'new music' however, so I just have to remind myself not to get too carried away with the flush of something new and exciting I guess.
 
In my fave rating site, Gnosis2000, the propose that yopu waitt at least a few months before rationg a newly acquired album, or that you rate it no higher than 11 (out of 15), then return to re-rate after if you find your opinion hasd changed
http://gnosis2000.net/" rel="nofollow - http://gnosis2000.net/
 


I think that's a good idea too, revisiting an album at a stage after a review is done - just in case months or even years later, if it's a 'sleeper' album that takes a long, long time to win you over. But when it finally does...wow


-------------
We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/dreadpirateroberts%28member%29.aspx?reviews=all/" rel="nofollow - Reviews...



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.16 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2013 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk