Post by Arnaldo August 5, 2012 (41 of 88)
|
|
zeus said:
... The problem isn't with the star ratings, it's with some people's obsession with them.
Once again, the problem isn't with star ratings, nor with occasional reviewers' high marks. The beef is with official site reviewers' praising the Lord for almost every new freebie that comes their way. Even this thread title is misleading, in that (1) it diverts the discussion to tangential topics such as ratings vs. text, and (2) it generalizes the very distinct patterns of occasional vs. official reviewers.
Whether in text, ratings or yodeling, the official reviewers' red-carpet reception to new titles is statistically improbable, as confirmed by our resident mathematician, and should have been automatically flagged by the site's editor.
Reviewing, marketing or schmoozing? That's the question still unanswered. The rest is all baloney, which some here seem to find appetizing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
Whether in text, ratings or yodeling, the official reviewers' red-carpet reception to new titles is statistically improbable, as confirmed by our resident mathematician, and should have been automatically flagged by the site's editor.
I find there's a huge bias towards modern athletes in the record books these days - these measurements must be suspect and demean the holders of those from 100 years ago...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
I find there's a huge bias towards modern athletes in the record books these days - these measurements must be suspect and demean the holders of those from 100 years ago...
If the olympics were run like the review system here, everyone would win GOLD GOLD GOLD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
canonical said:
If the olympics were run like the review system here, everyone would win GOLD GOLD GOLD.
And if the athletes only came from Western countries, we'd not question it.
And the winners do generally get gold! With sport, we're not claiming that all the athletes are drugged to the eyeballs or that the system recording/passing judgement is corrupt but with musical prowess, that's naturally completely different...
|
|
|
Post by zeus August 5, 2012 (45 of 88)
|
|
jazz1 said:
I would rate the majority of the ones I have between 4 and 4.5 * maybe 2 or 3 of them 5 stars, which in my book is a very high score.
Go for it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polly Nomial said:
I find there's a huge bias towards modern athletes in the record books these days - these measurements must be suspect and demean the holders of those from 100 years ago...
There was a Puff piece on CNN last night in which Don Lemon was questioning the scanty attire, leaving nothing to the imagination, worn by athletes in the 2012 London Olympic competition. The mens' bathing suits were likened to thongs and the butt cheeks emanating from the females in the volleyball competition were more like Sport's Illustrated bathing suit covers.
Yes, Polly Nomial, a lot more has happened in the last 100 years than inflated scores and doping........
But I suppose none of this compares to the full nudity prevalent in the earliest Greek Olympics......talk about a major rating's booster...............
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
But I suppose none of this compares to the full nudity prevalent in the earliest Greek Olympics......talk about a major rating's booster...............
I think some sports promote a more flattering physique than others - can't imagine weightlifters (of either gender) have a huge following compared to (say) running... That'd be an off-switch for me if the Athenian dress code returned!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
"The beef is with official site reviewers' praising the Lord for almost every new freebie that comes their way."
I take exception to that cynical statement. As the newest of the Site Reviewers, I get a very few free discs from companies. I purchase nearly all the discs I review, and thanks to a long experience in choosing likely winners for my collection, I'm mostly lucky in my choices, and have been surprised and pleased at how many 5 stars I have to award. In fact, I have had to review my own critical faculties to make sure that I am not being seduced into generosity in some way. Like Steve I have found that the standard of performance and engineering is significantly higher with SACD than RBCD, partly because of the extra work and cost of production, and the desire of some artists and engineers to represent their output in the best way presently available.
As a former University lecturer, I also have long experience in working with common marking systems with colleagues which are consistent across various institutions because we were able to define criteria. The music magazine simple star system for performance and sonics is, however, obviously completely subjective and personal, although from my point of view it is also based on my experience and often arrived at by making extensive comparisons. As Steve says, it should not be taken as definitive, as there can be no such thing as "definitive" in music, given the huge number of subjective variables which are involved, so the "marks" given are merely indications of pleasure obtained at the time of listening, even when selective comparisons are made.
Choice of recordings to add to one's collection is entirely the responsibility of the purchaser, not of the reviewer. I do the work to choose and buy my discs, I only write to express my enthusiasm or otherwise, not to satisfy a company who sends me freebies, and I am sure this is true for my fellow reviewers, whose integrity is impeccable. My assessments can only point the general direction in which a prospective buyer might start looking.
I should add that I have never had any indication from a company sending me a free copy for review that the gift carries anything other than a simple invitation to offer any judgement of its worth which I may form, and no implication that any further gifts would be conditional on my approval. At least in the Classical world in which I usually work, companies have staff with great integrity. I'm glad to see that most people understand and use the marking system to help them in their choices, while others just take it too literally. It is what we reviewers say about the music's presentation that matters - otherwise we might just simply give some stars for the buyer to go on.
Happy listening, Geo
|
|
|
Post by seth August 6, 2012 (49 of 88)
|
|
Geohominid said:
I take exception to that cynical statement. As the newest of the Site Reviewers, I get a very few free discs from companies. I purchase nearly all the discs I review, and thanks to a long experience in choosing likely winners for my collection, I'm mostly lucky in my choices, and have been surprised and pleased at how many 5 stars I have to award. In fact, I have had to review my own critical faculties to make sure that I am not being seduced into generosity in some way. Like Steve I have found that the standard of performance and engineering is significantly higher with SACD than RBCD, partly because of the extra work and cost of production, and the desire of some artists and engineers to represent their output in the best way presently available.
Your reviews are always detailed with clear reasoning behind your rankings -- that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by wehecht August 6, 2012 (50 of 88)
|
|
seth said:
Your reviews are always detailed with clear reasoning behind your rankings -- that's all that matters.
+1
|
|
