RARB Reviewer Overall Score - Really?

[soccercta100]

So I'm commenting on the recent review of Clemson TIgeroar's "On The Hunt." A particular reviewer whom I will not name (but can easily be found on the review page) gave Tigeroar the following ratings in the 6 judged categories:

Tuning/blend: 2
Energy/intensity: 2
Innovation/creativity: 3
Sound/production: 4
Repeat listenability: 3
Soloists: 3

These ratings average out to 2.833, and yet the reviewer gave the album an overall rating of 2. Based on simple rounding, shouldn't the group have received an overall rating of 3? If someone could explain this to me then it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[michaelmarcus]

[mwpiper]

Thanks for posting! I can definitely understand where you're coming from, and this is a good place to clarify some of the mystique around scoring procedures.

For me, the "Overall" category stands alone as a seventh category. It is influenced by the other six categories, but is by no means a precise arithmetic mean. The score for each of the other six is a measure of what is done with songs compared with what could have been done (could the arrangements have been spiced up, could the production have been cleaner, could the soloist have been more moving, etc). The "Overall" score takes the bigger picture into account. It measures what the collection of songs can do for individual listeners and the a cappella community (entertain, inspire, set new standards, attract a larger audience, etc). There are a lot of qualities that define an album, so everything that doesn't quite fit into the six categories gets squeezed into a few paragraphs and that single digit "Overall" score. As Michael suggests, reading the commentary is usually a better bet than crunching numbers to get the most out of a RARB review. Hope that helps!

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]

[vandre]