I've been thinking about how to review new CDs; specifically, whether or not to rate them with points or stars. One argument in favor is that a rating provides a benchmark for the review, in case my opinion is not clear from the text. The main argument against it is that I've seen how my opinion changes with repeated listening.
If CDs are to be rated, how many scale points should I use? I've seen four- and five-star systems, and even a 10-point scale. If you allow half-stars, four and five stars become 7- and 9-point scales respectively. The danger of too many scale points is false precision, which itself leads to unreliability of ratings.
I've decided to go with verbal labels, adapted from the Roots & Rhythm catalog. The categories will be "not recommended," "recommended," "highly recommended" and "essential." In this context, "recommended" is a fairly lukewarm endorsement. I am anticipating that, in the short run, a lot of CDs will be "highly recommended," and very few will be "not recommended."
Does that mean I'm a generous grader? Not at all. I guarantee you that when I was at WIUP-FM listening to all the free CDs sent to us by record companies, the majority of them went into the "not recommended" pile. But these days, I have to pay for my thrills. My selections come from known favorite artists or reviews I've seen elsewhere, supplemented by internet sampling.
Maybe someday I'll have enough readers to ask the record companies to send me freebies for the blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment