The pitfall of music ratings/reviews

How many of you pay attention to music reviews or ratings before making a purchase?

And have you ever said No to buying an album based on a rating or review, only to discover that you quite like the release after finally hearing it?

I recently picked up a mint copy of Joni Mitchell's LP "Don Juan's Reckless Daughter" for a few dollars after shying away from it for years based on lousy reviews.

Turns out I love it.

Anyone with a similar experience?

 

When I became more than just casually interested in music back in the 70's, I did indeed read and pay attention to reviews. However, eventually I realized that any review was just an opinion of one listener, no matter how qualified or 'professional' in nature and that from my perspective they could go terribly wrong. Many of my biggest favourites are actually albums that have been maligned, for whatever reason, and many of them I have only discovered after resolutely refusing to believe what I had read about them in the past.

 

I did take it into consideration for a very short time when I started truly collecting music. But after a while it appeared a lot of it was crap.

 

well, from what i read on here and elsewhere, and from i already knew of them before, i was sure i wouldn't like the Garfunkel and Oates TV show. got bored and ended up watching all four episodes thus far on OnDemand, and quite liked it. Flight of the Conchords comparisons are understandable, but it's a cop-out to write the show off as a straight copy. it'll either last and be something of a sleeper, or IFC will cancel it after this season and it will languish in obscurity.

 

There was a time before youtube that I took music ratings with a grain of salt. Today I ignore music ratings completely.

 

Kind of hard to find new music without reviews, especially as you and the music business get older, but so many of the artists I discovered as a kid, and came to love, I owe to heartfelt reviews. Wouldn't be without, but they mainly function as an introduction, still have to fit my style. Really too much music now, don't know how you could navigate the scene without reviews, or at least some of the blurbs that often pass for reviews now. Of course, people here help a lot, but I don't really think of them a lot different from reviewers.

 

I don't listen to reviews all that often, especially ones after the '90s or so. It's not the end of be all last word for me, it never really was.

 

I'm not anti-review at all and still read them, but this no longer happens because of the Spotifies and whatnot. Though there are adjustments as even with good headphones listening on the computer is different than the stereo, and sometimes the distractions of the computer might not be fair to the music.

 

I think Frank Zappa said it best on the topic of critics as far as music is concerned. One of the great things about this forum and Amazon reviews is that everyone now can give their opinion of works, instead of just Rolling Stone and the New York Review Of Books editorial staffs. Thus we can sort of listen to what everyone thinks, and see what people have to say that is both good and bad about a certain cd or novel. I always thought Self Portrait by Dylan was just awful from what I read in one magazine, but when you read all the reviews online by everyday people one gets both sides of the story and ends up buying it!

 

I have bought many albums based on good reviews before I heard a note of music by the artists. Some of these include Cream, Arlo Guthrie, Steeleye Span, the Decemberists, and more. I've even bought albums based on bad reviews. When I read a review of Emerson, Lake and Powell, putting it down for the band "playing 7,8, and 9-minute songs like it's still 1971", I said, "Hey, my kind of stuff!", and bought it. No regrets.

 

A good (or great) review is more likely to lead me to buy something. A bad review does not often dissuade me from buying. I don't pay much attention to reviews by the general public (i.e. Amazon). Too many fanboys and haters to find a genuinely thoughtful review.

 

When I first starting buying albums in the late 60s, I always had to hear some of it first. FM radio was the first place I went to. After that, I could frequently hear it in a record store since they had open copies / promos of most new releases. I seldom bought anything blind. Only exception I can remember for sure is In Concert by Derek and the Dominos album on release day. I had Layla and loved it so I knew I couldn't go wrong with a live album by the group.

These days, I have to hear it before buying. Since most of my buying is used discs, I can usually play them before buying. The only reviews I read is this site - and that is mainly to find out what the mastering / sound quality is like.

 

Depends. Reviews on sound quality may sway me. Reviews on how good or bad an album is I don't hold on high esteem and I would never buy or not buy because someone says it's a good album or not. Now if the reviewer says an album sounds like a band I don't like it may give me doubts. Either way I don't blind buy albums. I listen to it first.


That's the difference between now and then. Reviewers and radio had the power to make who they wanted superstars. An entire generation's music taste was shaped by reviews and radio. Sad. At least today we can make these decisions for ourselves.

 

I've been thinking about this lately for some reason. Reviews are completely hit-or-miss with me. For the most part I don't read "professional" reviews anymore. I tend to habitually read Amazon reviews but I'm about to quit doing that as there seems to be absolutely no consistency between average ratings and whether I do or do not end up liking a particular record. I'll give a listen to anything a music-loving friend mentions but even that is hit-or-miss. What seems to work the best is hearing about such-and-such record, listening to it on Spotify, then buying it if I connect with it or moving on.

 

I don't pay attention to reviews about music, but for some reason, I do when it comes to everything else (like stereo gear, smartphones, TVs).
My pet peeve is periodicals that claim to list the "top 100 (insert list) of all time," when no one has ever heard everything that could be on that list.

 

Gotta take them ALL with a grain of salt, especially reviews by Rolling Stone. If they give U2 or Bruce Springsteen 5 stars....I don't believe it's a must buy.

 

Years ago the Rolling Stone Album guides were of value as long as you understood that some reviewers were wearing ear plugs when reviewing certain artists/music.
The Penguin guides to classical music were about 90 per cent ok and correct.

 

Before the internet, it was very hard to find any outlet that wrote about the music I liked. I think we had OP/Option Magazine and that was about it. As a result, I never really read or relied on critics. I sorta developed my own intuition about what I might like. I got to a point where I could hold an album in my hand and basically intuit whether I would like it or not based on various factors - album cover, mood, etc. Robert Crumb has written much more eloquently about this but I do think it's a real thing. I wonder, in this day of populist criticism and instant gratification, will this skill drop away like some kind of psychic tail we don't use anymore?

 

I have nothing to back this up but I believe those Rolling Stone reviewers have been sucking corporate record company teat for a looooong time. You are never going to convince me that David Fricke gives two craps about One Direction. Their reviews are worthless.

 

It depends on the type of music, I find. I have the PENGUIN GUIDE TO JAZZ (3 different editions) and that is a doorstop, but it's great to read. With secondhand CD's easier to find, I don't care as much. I still use AllMusic as a review website. But hey, if it's cheap, do you really need to care? I wouldn't bother about ROLLING STONE at all. I regularly read MOJO. The worst part is reading reviewers tell you which other bands the NEW music sounds like - I suppose it's shorthand, but it also seems dismissive, like 'it's been done before, buy it if you want to hear it again, just differently'. I'm always going backwards and forwards, rediscovering the older stuff and buying the more obscure new stuff, as that is going to be harder to find later on. I support creation and I'm old enough now to not get bogged down in the details.

 

I don't like reviews that just list other bands, but if a review says which aspects of other bands, that's useful information. When you say it sounds like The Kinks, that's meaningless, but if the lyrics are reminiscent of Something Else, or the guitars sound like "You Really Got Me," okay, that tells me something.

The trick is to find reviewers whose sensibilities are like yours, or at least who if they like something, that means I'm gonna hate it.

 

I usually read reviews after I've purchased the record.

 

Only reviews I pay any attention to in the last couple decades are those in either Shindig or Ugly Things magazines and even then , there are maybe only six or seven reviewers who are always dead-on with whether I would like something or not.
Some reviews on this forum sparked my interest on a few bands ( The National comes immediately to mind ) and there are a few members who seem to share my personal tastes on a large degree so I can usually trust what they say about a record.

 

The problem In find with placing too much faith in Amazon customer reviews is that really the only people who are likely to get on there and praise or criticise are those who either are blown away by an album (the 5 stars) or are fanboys and will likely give even a 2 star worthy release a 4 or 5 rating and of course those trying to discredit a band they've never liked.

The average Joe who gets an album and thinks its ok seem to be the least likely to go to the trouble....

 

20 people on Amazon give Dirty Work a five star rating.