You can still read the reviews on Pitchfork but to see the score, you have to become a paid subscriber. This raises an interesting question: does a score add or detract from a written review? I spent 15 years reviewing albums for a publication that didn’t use any kind of scoring method, and i can remember the days when the NME didn’t score reviews but Sounds did with its star ratings (out of a possible total of 5). Can’t remember whether Melody Maker did or not. Now it’s pretty much standard across all reviews.
However, I do think scoring tends to devalue the actual written critique and becomes a kind of over-simplified shorthand. Plus, in my experience, most releases are neither excellent nor terrible but sort of alright (if you like that kind of thing). Around the 3-star grade, or a 6 or 7 out of 10. But when we see an average score, we don’t feel especially inspired to read further, unless the review relates to an artist we’re already invested or interested in.
So, I think Pitchfork’s done me a favour. Now I’ll read the review and judge the album on the writing, not the score.
What do other Afterworders think about scoring reviews?
Melody Maker did score, I recall for its review of the Albion Band’s Rise Up Like the Sun it started off “You don’t give a folk album five stars” it of course did.
I always read the one star reviews they were particular favourites, I don’t recall Barry Norman giving a star rating for films, he reviewed Critters* I think it was saying how poor it was and how bad the ending was that I had to go see it.He was right.
*I think it was.
I remember the NME/MM divide over scoring which reflected the Beano/Dandy split between two organs from the same publisher marking their turf – hard-edged and cool or populist and fun. I like overanalysis, mild pomposity and worthiness*, so tended to go for the NME when I had the weekly choice, but often I would like to have had the mild (not full Smash Hits, you understand) buzz of MM.
I note that NigelT, early out of the critics’ enclosure at the CD Swap sweepstakes, has elected for a scoring system. I’ve no problem with that, but won’t be doing the same when I come to show my workings. It can be a bit reductive and mathematical, and I found (as I often do) that the tracks that cause me the most instant grief on assaulting my ears, after the Tig 6 become pearls of exquisite heaven. Who is to say whether such music should be 1,3, 5.5 or 12 out of 10?
If reviewers have to give a score, let it be out of 3. 1 is shit, 3 is absolutely brilliant and 2 is everything else. Mostly it can be ignored, but sometimes it’s a marker for a enjoyable ‘Mr Agreeable/Seething Wells’ demolition.
I’ve given this post a thumbs up, because I can and I like the irony.
*Does this mean I should like prog?
Well….you clearly DO have a problem with it..!! I did think twice, but recall many have used this in the past….and I don’t like prog much.
With using a scoring system myself, yes, but not with anyone else using scores, as I hope I made clear. Sorry for bringing your name into it, Nigel, but it was your use of scores that made me wonder if I wanted to do so.
“I like overanalysis, mild pomposity and worthiness*, so tended to go for the NME”
“*Does this mean I should like prog?”
By this logic, the NME should have liked prog…
Reeled!
I think it did, before punk, didn’t it? Afterwards it was careful to cover its tracks.
Did it?
If only there were AW members who were NME readers (at least 5-10 years older than me) and who could recollect and reflect on the 70s.
If only…
Well clearly not only – otherwise it would just be a collection of folk/prog/classic rock and Americana enthusiasts
In my early days of reading the music papers, I remember the NME letters pages being full of complaints about the slating the latest Yes/ELP/Genesis album had received.
Everything is 4 stars in Mojo these days so a bit pointless
Everything is awesome!
Surely pointless would be no stars?
I do wonder if there is a warehouse or big skip somewhere with a couple of months worth of 1 to 3 star albums that were reviewed, but not published.
(and does everything warrant a 4, otherwise the marketing people just won’t share new albums with them anymore)
I give this thread a 5
If Moose were here, I’m sure he’d say “I’d give it one. Hurrrr…”
I look at reviews with a view to buying albums. Less than 4 stars and I’m not interested. 4 or 5 stars and I will read the reviews and decide. Who wrote it is a factor too. There are reviewers that I mostly don’t share the same taste as. Sadly there are no longer any that I trust implicitly. They used to make decisions very easy.
Today you can easily try before you buy. I take pointers from reviewers, but new purchases are no longer a surprise.
I’m going to recall the heady days of Word – one of the bits I appreciated about the mag was NOT having a rating system.
Here’s the words, here’s my thoughts – make your own mind up.
I have bought a number of (supposed) 4 or 5 star albums (or 4 or 5 K’s as they were in Kerrang). Many do indeed warrant the score, but there were others that struggle to make 3 (obvious one, and QI Klaxon incoming – was Be Here Now)
I haven’t bought a music magazine in at least ten years. You can probably guess which was the last one I bought regularly, and that one didn’t offer scores on reviews.
Today if I was reading a review I would not pay any attention to the star rating and I can’t understand how anyone bases a purchasing decision on what score Reviewer X gave.
The star rating, for me, served the purpose of making me read the review. If it were 4 or 5 stars, I would read the review and contemplate buying the album if the general sense of the music and band was something I was interested in. Any other reviews, unless I was on a long flight and needed something to read, I would only read if it were artists I was aware off and interested in.
There are people on here who are great reviewers and actually do it professionally I think, so I would be fascinated to hear what happens. Presumably there are some terrible records released….or are there? Is everything now actually ‘pretty good’ or better? How much does a reviewer have to ignore their personal taste, or are they given things to review which is within their known genres – presumably that would then lead to them being more positive by default…?
Going back to my scoring mentioned above – I forgive you @Salwarpe and I was being a bit sensitive I think! Of course I was scoring based on my personal taste rather than some objective system.
The prevailing “courtesy” is that, if something stinks, quietly ignore it, and to try only to be positive. This is, arguably, as “the press”, as it now exists, largely more virtually than in printed format, is reliant on receiving review copies from the PR companies promoting it. Hand that feeds and all that. Having said, I am an enthusiastic amateur, across a number of largely non-paying sites, rather than anything remotely professional.
I tend to reserve any residual vitriol, learnt from the inky pages of choices of reading, when a callow youth, for here.
Thanks, Nigel – that’s gracious of you.
On further reflection, Rigid’s idea of a warehouse of 1-3 star albums makes me wonder why anyone would put a 1-3 star review album in a music magazine* – maybe that’s Mojo’s policy – only print the reviews of albums that are good.
Maybe there’s a certain requirement or obligation to review some releases (if seen as significant or record company obliging). In that case, it’s helpful I suppose, to have the red flag of a 1-3 star review**.
*we think this is mediocre, you probably will too, it won’t sell, but let’s fill out some space with something you are unlikely to read, unless you are on a plane and have already read the in-flight magazine and the safety instructions and the in-flight movies are not working.
** It’s shit, but we had to print, otherwise your monthly repeat of articles about how great Rumours was will be even more expensive. Bear with us.
This.
There are certain albums that must get reviewed. Say a new Dylan album. But those automatically get 5 stars (except the American songbook ones)
There must have been albums that have been given a drubbing on release that have somehow become five star classics, and five stars reviews that have lost their shine.
Certainly some television programmes have been given a meh that have developed to be classics, though of course there’s a difference in that it’s not a one off like an album.
I believe Hepworth famously gave Springsteen’s then worst album 5 stars in Q (Human Touch), but at least Q were generally prepared to put the boot in from time to time. Rags like Rolling Stone would give U2, Springsteen or The Who 5 stars if they released recordings of them doing the laundry
I see singles review pages from Smash Hits or Record Mirror on Facebook very often. It’s quite funny to read and see often how far off they were, but as Mark Ellen will say they had very little time to put these things together
I think Q gave Dire Straits On Every Street a 5* review too – I knew then they were wrong and am even more sure of it now.
Lou Reed’s Berlin was comprehensively panned on release.
Aren’t we forgetting? In the days before us mere plebs could access everything instantly, we had to rely on reviews . If the NME said “This is essential” most of us would shell out our three pounds fifty and give it a go. Similarly, if Derek Malcolm in The Guardian said “Best film of the year” most of us would find ourselves in The Odeon next Saturday.
Nowadays, who cares if some eighteen year old reviewer says “Go Buy Now!”, we can make our own mind up (after 6 listens of course).
I was such a fan of the NME that is was like Christmas every week for me when it came out. Then I moved to London and it came out A WHOLE DAY EARLIER! Bliss
There’s still a huge amount of albums released. Reviews help guide us toward something we might like. That said there’s no guarantee we will enjoy the album of the year. Obviously. Ia tend to be influenced by the writer, if it’s one I usually find myself in agreement with. There’s also the question of consensus. If all magazines and newspapers say this is great I think well there must be something in it. Scores are of less interest. A review iqs a juqdgement made rather quickly, with time that can be revised.
“What is this shit?”
Best review ever needed no stars. (Did it have stars?)
Nope. Quite a few words after the opening line .
https://smry.ai/www.rollingstone.com/music/music-album-reviews/self-portrait-107056
My biggest gripe has always been the reviewing on reissues ( I seem to recall I even wrote to The Word about it back in the day).
By and large, these are generally reviewed in the context of the album itself – i.e as if it was a new release. My contention is that 90% of folks who would buy a reissue would already own or at least know the album and so don’t really need to read a review on the base album.
These reviews never seem to address sound quality (i.e. is it worth an upgrade if you already own), are the “bonus tracks” up to standard etc etc.
Maybe I need to read Hi-Fi magazines for reviews.
I wrestle with this all the time. Also, there is the question of what impact it has on listener today compared to fifty years ago. Some don’t age well and others improve over time.
I’m not sure how it popped up on my feed, but some YouTubers were reviewing Instagram trending food places in London, and one said he’d score the noodle place he’d just tried, ‘Sixteen minutes’. This was apparently the time he’d be prepared to queue.