At left is the guide to record reviews from the 1979 edition of the Rolling Stone Record Guide. While it's not flawless, it does, I think, provide a reasonably well-defined rubric for album reviews. On this site, I will be using a similar five-star scale, with my valuations being based on the following considerations:1) Listenability/enjoyability: the best albums feature, very simply, good original songwriting, singing, lyrics, and musicianship; when one or more of these areas is lacking, then other aspects of the album should be consequently better. For instance, Bob Dylan is not a technically accomplished singer, but more than makes up for it with his songwriting and lyrics. It will be assumed that five-star albums feature almost all good material and little filler, if any.
2) Originality vs. professionalism: Less innovative records, when very well made, may carry as much weight as wildly experimental failures, and vice versa. I do not consider "professional" or "commercial" to be bad words, even though when taken to excess, these qualities can be bad, just as "experimental" often means "unfocused". Likewise, just because bands are innovative or experimental does not mean that their records are good listening.
3) Impact and influence: artists who sold little or no records when they were active often end up finding their audience years or even decades after the fact. Commercial failure (or success) will generally have little impact on the rating. Even though this site will focus only on albums from 1967, the albums' afterlives will also be taken into account.
I of course welcome all comments and criticisms, and do not consider any rating the last word on any album; I am always willing to change my mind and revisit an album, as taste is a work in progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment