Me Put On Show

Discuss our reviews or just talk about any old album.

Postby elocomotive » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:38 pm

So looking at Seth's stats, 89% of the album's RARB reviews are average or above average? Thanks for the details, Seth. I understand why there may be a derth of ones, but it seems like the fives and fours should be given out more sparingly.

...Uhuh... what's that.... oh, right, the Staticflow CD is in the hopper to be reviewed...

I think this matter definitely needs to be investigated by RARB... sometime next year!

Just out of curiosity, do you have a breakdown by each score (5.0, 4.7, 4.3... etc.)? Interested in what the "real average" RARB score would be and where your quintile groups are.
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:32 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby seth » Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:46 pm

I could calculate that, I guess, but I think people already place too much importance on the averaged scores. It's not clear that averaging the scores from three reviewers is meaningful. It's convenient, and we all want simple answers, but in reality, it's not that simple.

Your 89% number is a bit misleading though. Presumably, some of the albums in the (broad, approximate) Average category are above any precise average, and some are below. Let's be careful when we mix seemingly-precise things like "89%" and categories like "Average" that really mean "better than Weak, worse than Good".

If "Average" meant "within 1 standard deviation of the mean", and we had unbiased sampling from a normal distribution, we'd get 84% as Average or better. That's not what's happening here (our results are clearly skewed), but I thought it was an interesting comparison.
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 1:56 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Postby elocomotive » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:14 pm

Seth wrote: Your 89% number is a bit misleading though.

I live in Washington DC. Misleading numbers are our thing, man!
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 2:32 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby jsdiamant » Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:30 pm

well, Zack, there's your problem. the chord progression driving the song is Eb - bbm - Ab (or fm7). in the intro and choruses you did that, but it looks in the verses as though you tried to have chord extensions without the chords they're supposed to be extending. that's why it sounded wrong. and because the notes in the upper voices are so static, it sounds like "wow, the arranger missed a bunch of changes," not "wow, those are cool chord substitutions."

someone who knows more about theory than I do (I'm an ethnomusicology major) might want to elaborate.

Joshua S. Diamant RARB '02-'05

Posts: 431
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY


Return to zzCommunity Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest