conclusive proof that allmusic's "rating system" is flawed BULLSHIT

also i get the impression that the reason some crits don't feel comfortable with the star-rating system is that they don't want to "overrate" something they really like for their own crazy reasons (which they try to spell out in the review, which of course is there for you to read) but know a lot of other people will find flawed. and sometimes they don't want to overrate (without the scare quotes this time) something they're just interested in because it's part of the prevaling zeitgeist or whatever. then there's the "why did you give this album a generally positive review if you only awarded it two stars" syndrome, which is a pain in the ass if the writer is "generally positive" about the record (i.e. it's not even mediocre or anything; it's fine, enjoyable enough for a few listens) but would rather save the higher rating for something he gets a little more pleasure from.

-- stockholm cindy (disco_frie...), May 28th, 2004.

AMG = BASTARDS!

i dunno if it's just quality control, because in both cases the reviews were actually really badly written, but anyway, just an interesting note.

i still use amg all the time.

I give this thread 2 stars - awful awful start, but s/c's work, is, as always, sublime, and the strong flourish near the end somewhat redeemds the whack-ass bullshit that kicks the thread off.

Anyway, the true value of AMG is not in its ratings but its basic data: discographies, release dates, etc. Far as that goes, it's not perfect, but it's still the best thing out there.

allmusic was pretty close!

Anyone who would take AMG as the last word is just being lazy. When I looked up Gentle Giant to see which reissue to check out first, and they give no less than five albums four and a half stars, I don't bitch about it and blame AMG for misleading me. I take into account that they're written by an enthusiast who at least knows the music well. More often than not, if you actually read the reviews, you can get a good idea of which albums would stand out. But just in case, I go to other sources to narrow down my search. No big deal.

I give John Dougan and Andy Kellman props for consistently well done reviews of all the post-punk stuff.

The review hardly says, "He's prefabricated, therefore he sucks on principle," and the person who wrote it put Toxic and Tipsy on his last Pazz & Jop ballot.

I freely admit as a freelancer of some standing -- what is it now, six years? -- I wouldn't mind more in the way of payment. But I'd like to think that while they are capsule reviews and that I certainly have done a lot of them -- and that I rely on certain crutches and phrases! -- that I'm trying to inform as well as I can, as opposed to slapdashedly.

ST were such a fucked up band that establishing any kind of clear hiearchy of their records is going to be completely random. It's like saying, what's the best Black Flag record?

Personally, I ranks em as such:

Worldbroken
We Became Snakes
Pagan Icons
Surviving You Always

This is a completely scientific conclusion.

Obviously I was being a bit silly upthread, but that really is what happened with Saccharine Trust for me! Well, that and the reason I looked them up in the first place was because Sonic Youth thanked them on Evol and that came out the same year as We Became Snakes.

i know it's 2013 and this is a tired subject but it's pretty hilarious to me that Metal Machine Music still has a 1-star rating while e.g. Borbetomagus albums consistently get 4 stars

conclusive proof that allmusic's "rating system" is flawed BULLSHIT

never forgive or forget AMG for its treatment of Cardiacs

lol

ive not looked at amg often in the last decade but i can still remember a lot of scores

sugar - copper blue *****

my bloody valentine - isn't anything ****1/2

conclusive

though now they have the "user's rating" to optionally balance things like that
some xposts

nostormo what was the first time you got upset about a review or rating of an album you liked?

the only AMG review I ever read that sent me into a raging fury is this one:

Immolation "Unholy Cult" - two stars
Review by Adam Bregman

Immolation sounds like an opening band. If you go to a death metal show and endure three to five bands, Immolation might be the second or third band on the bill. They've toured with some heavy hitters like Cannibal Corpse and Six Feet Under, but on their fifth album, Unholy Cult, they do nothing to raise themselves higher on the death metal totem pole. Ross Dolan's vocals are fine, but are not any more monstrous than your average death metal growler. Musically, Immolation's songs have a sort of flat, relentless feel to them and, like Slayer, the leads seem tacked on in the middle of a song for no particular reason. The cover art for Unholy Cult is scary, but the music inside could be a little more evil.

I still can't believe there are people who care so much about "ratings." Is everyone illiterate suddenly? There's a reason people write all those words over next to the rating.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, September 19, 2005 4:01 PM (8 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i feel like there's a popular ilx catchphrase that sums up how thoroughly i agree with this post