A bit OT: How do you rate an album?

[Wyvern]

This one goes for everybodybut I will like specially feedback from Sixxi and Hawk since they write for magazines and sites.

The premise goes like this. In a site I found a review from the latest Primal Fear album, they give the album 4.8/5. The reviewer raves about it and saids that PF have cycles so "Seven Seal" was good, "New Religion" was awful and this one rules.
In another site the reviewer gives 6,75/10 and says that the album is not as good as "Seven Seal" and not as melodic as "New Religion" (which he enjoys nevertheless) but fails to deliver the original sound of the band.

I started with PF with SS and then I bought NR (which I consider fantastic) and now the new one which I found weaker than the previous two. So I'm in between both reviewers.

The question at hand is: How difficult is for a critic to review an album stone cold objectively and give it a rating?

 

[poundingmetal74]

At the end of the day all reviews are subjective. Some people are absolutely moved by some songs and others think they're awful. All depends on what you like and what your perspective is. If you're a musician you'll have a different appreciation and different things to say about an album than a non-musician.

That said, when I review an album, I always look at three things:
Production: If a record sounds like shit, the chances I'll like it and will take the time to listen diminish quickly. Something that doesn't sound pleasant to your ears will almost always take longer to warm up to.

Performance: How does the band sound? Singer on key? Guitarist sloppy? Drums are on time? etc.

Songs: How are the compositions? Do the songs flow, make sense and seem rather creative or are they jarring? This is largely why I can't listen to "metal core" or whatever the new rip off of death metal is where bands play 45 riffs in a "song" that don't belong together.

 

[Psychonaut]

When I used to write reviews, I tried my best to go into them completely neutral. What made it difficult was that I listen to so many different styles of metal, I may or may not have been in the mood for what I was reviewing. It's hard to rate some ambient electronic stuff from Russia when you've been blasting Nile and Devourment for three weeks straight.

Another thing I found tough is that I've heard a lot of music in my day and seem to have some crazy disease that helps me retain even tiny nuances of a song (yet I can't remember where I left my shoes). I would pick up on melodies or drum tracks that sounded incredibly similar to someone else. I'd try not to compare but...

In the end, I really don't use single reviews to buy music. I do look at them often and if a band is getting high reviews everywhere, I'll check into them. Sometimes I like them and sometimes I don't (I've never been able to get into Mastodon despite the high praises). If it's a band I've been a fan of for a while, I just blind buy it and hope for the best. If nothing else, I have the complete discography and this satifies the collector in me.

 

[Hawk]

This one goes for everybody but I will like specially feedback from Sixxi and Hawk since they write for magazines and sites.
The question at hand is: How difficult is for a critic to review an album stone cold objectively and give it a rating?

The answer is that it is impossible to judge something that is so personal according to an objective standard. Remember that objectivity is a method, not an end result. You can approach a subject in an objective manner and still be wrong.

However for judging music I think that an objective approach ie, using an objective methodology in judging music; is impossible. There are to many emotional variables at play, emotions that we are sometimes not even aware of, that it is not even possible to monitor the process of evaluation consciously. When it comes to music all we can do, most of the time, not always, is go with the flow to where to music takes us.

That does not mean that a reviewer can trow caution to the wind. He must write down honestly what he feels about the music and must try as much as he can to explain why he is liking or disliking the music he is reviewing.

In this, it is much like an opinion, shure, you can say what you want, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to be able and willing to argue your point.

In any serious discussion or subject noone may expect to get away with just shouting some brainfart in the wind. That would have the same cognitive content as a dog barking in some far away yard.

 

[desert_demon]

I don't write reviews for magazines or anything like that but I sometimes will write a review on Amazon.com just to share my thoughts.
One thing I'm always careful of NOT doing and that even profesional reviewers do a lot is to compare an album with a past album of a given band (or even with an album from another band). I believe that all albums should stand by themselves.
Case in point - It seems that every single review of Metallica's Death Magnetic or Guns N Roses Chinese Democracy does nothing but mention past albums and compare them to the present albums.
Sometimes I just want to scream at the reviewer the following: Well, did you like the damn album or not!!