|
|
|
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 (42 of 83)
|
|
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 (46 of 83)
|
|
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 (47 of 83)
|
|
seth said:
Your reviews are always detailed with clear reasoning behind your rankings -- that's all that matters.
+1
|
|
|
Post by wehecht August 6, 2012 (48 of 83)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
1. Still, you differentiate yourself from your colleagues in that you buy some, if not all, of your SACDs.
2. So, if your reply to my question, "reviewing, marketing or schmoozing?" is that you're reviewing, then quite frankly, your standards are way too low, whether in ratings or in text.
3. ...If you don't know what I mean, then a quick course in media ethics might be in order.
4. In the end, while I appreciate your reply, your reasoning seems more tailored to convince yourself than those critical of the official site reviewers' work.
1. Do you know for a fact that the other site reviewers review nothing but freebies? That's what your statement implies.
2. Mr. Miller's reviews are extremely detailed, and each one is obviously the product of hours of work. They represent his honest opinion about each disc. If you think his opinion is not valuable to you don't bother to read his reviews.
3. I'm sure every record company sending out review copies hopes to engender favorable reviews, or at least a quotable blurb, but they also know they may get just the opposite. Comparing a $15 free sacd with a Hollywood press junket and one on one interview time with whatever airhead the studio is hyping is patently ridiculous. Further your implication that the site reviewers are ethically challenged is gratuitously insulting.
4. There is no reasoning that will convince you on this subject since you are determined to see everything from statistical improbabilities to ethical lapses to nefarious plots, all intended to deprive you of the guidance you seem to require.
This has gotten really old, why not give it a rest?
|
|
|
Post by krisjan August 6, 2012 (49 of 83)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
...a vast majority of these 464 reviews are 4.5 and 5 stars, again, a statistical improbability in the real and unreal world, whether in SACD or RBCD.
I believe there is a faulty premise in your reasoning: you infer that SACD ratings should be normally distributed about a given average(not sure what your understanding of statistics is, but I'm assuming you know what a "normal" distribution is). With that assumption, the average rating would be ~2.5 stars with very few 1's or 5's. But I don't think a normal distribution is the best model for this reality.
I would expect the performance and sonic ratings of SACD's to be much closer to a Poisson's distribution where the majority of items are ranked near the high end with a tail that drops down quickly to the low ratings (look up Poisson's distribution if you aren't familiar with it). Why? Because we are talking about ratings of recordings done by high level professionals (both those performing and those doing the recording) so there is an implicit expectation of high standards. Yes, an occaissional clunker gets released every now and then (hence the tail of the Poisson) but the large majority are high quality (and hence, highly rated) products. With this statistical model, the "average" can easily be quite high (say, 4.5 out of 5) and thus I don't believe there is a "problem" with the site reviewers ratings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
krisjan said:
I believe...
+1
|
|
