<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top 5: Subjects</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/top-5-subjects/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/top-5-subjects/</link>
	<description>Our Top 40 Past . . . in the Present</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:31:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Barely Awake In Frog Pajamas,</title>
		<link>http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/top-5-subjects/#comment-4740</link>
		<dc:creator>Barely Awake In Frog Pajamas,</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 01:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/?p=731#comment-4740</guid>
		<description>Well, I did some digging through my old files and found the guidelines I was sent when I started writing for them. This is their explanation (and may well be on the site - I haven&#039;t looked)...

9 -- Best of Genre. This is an album that represents one of the best recordings of a particular genre, or a historically important recording/album. It is something that every listener interested in the genre and its history should hear. It is a rating that is used sparingly -- not every artist has a 9. 

8 -- Best of Artist. These represent the best albums the individual artist has to offer. These are landmark albums within their own catalog that every fan should hear. 

6 -- Good. While these records aren&#039;t as fine as ones that are rated &quot;Best of Artist,&quot; they still are quite strong, and offer a fair number of worthwhile songs. 

4 -- OK. These records are generally failed experiments, bland genre exercises, botched compilations, records filled with uneven material -- anything that doesn&#039;t quite fit the artist&#039;s normal quality standards. For dedicated fans, there are songs of interest, but other listeners shouldn&#039;t bother. 

1 -- Poor. The poor rating is reserved for albums that are out-right disasters or rip-off collections. The poor rating is used almost as sparingly as the Best of Genre rating -- in other words, it should only be used when an album is a complete waste of money, such as a collection or re-recordings that bills itself as a &quot;Greatest Hits&quot; compilation. 

As i recall, I would submit a numeric rating which was then converted to stars. With acts with extensive catalogs, there definitely does seem to be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I did some digging through my old files and found the guidelines I was sent when I started writing for them. This is their explanation (and may well be on the site &#8211; I haven&#8217;t looked)&#8230;</p>
<p>9 &#8212; Best of Genre. This is an album that represents one of the best recordings of a particular genre, or a historically important recording/album. It is something that every listener interested in the genre and its history should hear. It is a rating that is used sparingly &#8212; not every artist has a 9. </p>
<p>8 &#8212; Best of Artist. These represent the best albums the individual artist has to offer. These are landmark albums within their own catalog that every fan should hear. </p>
<p>6 &#8212; Good. While these records aren&#8217;t as fine as ones that are rated &#8220;Best of Artist,&#8221; they still are quite strong, and offer a fair number of worthwhile songs. </p>
<p>4 &#8212; OK. These records are generally failed experiments, bland genre exercises, botched compilations, records filled with uneven material &#8212; anything that doesn&#8217;t quite fit the artist&#8217;s normal quality standards. For dedicated fans, there are songs of interest, but other listeners shouldn&#8217;t bother. </p>
<p>1 &#8212; Poor. The poor rating is reserved for albums that are out-right disasters or rip-off collections. The poor rating is used almost as sparingly as the Best of Genre rating &#8212; in other words, it should only be used when an album is a complete waste of money, such as a collection or re-recordings that bills itself as a &#8220;Greatest Hits&#8221; compilation. </p>
<p>As i recall, I would submit a numeric rating which was then converted to stars. With acts with extensive catalogs, there definitely does seem to be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jb</title>
		<link>http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/top-5-subjects/#comment-4739</link>
		<dc:creator>jb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 21:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/?p=731#comment-4739</guid>
		<description>Dan: By &quot;turning into what passes for a hit single,&quot; I mean only it&#039;s getting some some radio airplay as a single, which is pretty rare for a classic-rock artist. 

BAIFP: I get it, but as I look at the Winwood discography page, I&#039;m not sure the stars provide any useful info. &quot;Arc of a Diver&quot; and &quot;Back in the High Life&quot; each get four and a half, but there&#039;s no indication within the review as to why; &quot;About Time,&quot; which includes some lukewarm comments from the reviewer, gets 3 and a half, which is just a tick less than &quot;Nine Lives,&quot; which is worshipfully reviewed and given four. As you suggest, regarding the star system, the Allmusic FAQ says &quot;we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist.&quot; Reading the reviews alone without the stars would not give a reader the idea that &quot;Diver&quot; or &quot;High Life&quot; are superior to &quot;Nine Lives.&quot; So there&#039;s a disconnect there, at the very least.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan: By &#8220;turning into what passes for a hit single,&#8221; I mean only it&#8217;s getting some some radio airplay as a single, which is pretty rare for a classic-rock artist. </p>
<p>BAIFP: I get it, but as I look at the Winwood discography page, I&#8217;m not sure the stars provide any useful info. &#8220;Arc of a Diver&#8221; and &#8220;Back in the High Life&#8221; each get four and a half, but there&#8217;s no indication within the review as to why; &#8220;About Time,&#8221; which includes some lukewarm comments from the reviewer, gets 3 and a half, which is just a tick less than &#8220;Nine Lives,&#8221; which is worshipfully reviewed and given four. As you suggest, regarding the star system, the Allmusic FAQ says &#8220;we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist.&#8221; Reading the reviews alone without the stars would not give a reader the idea that &#8220;Diver&#8221; or &#8220;High Life&#8221; are superior to &#8220;Nine Lives.&#8221; So there&#8217;s a disconnect there, at the very least.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barely Awake In Frog Pajamas</title>
		<link>http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/top-5-subjects/#comment-4738</link>
		<dc:creator>Barely Awake In Frog Pajamas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 20:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/?p=731#comment-4738</guid>
		<description>I did quite a bit of writing for AMG about 8-10 years ago and, at the time, the stars were supposed to be relative to the act&#039;s catalog. Don&#039;t know if it&#039;s still the same or not, but I imagine it is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did quite a bit of writing for AMG about 8-10 years ago and, at the time, the stars were supposed to be relative to the act&#8217;s catalog. Don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s still the same or not, but I imagine it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/top-5-subjects/#comment-4737</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 14:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jabartlett.wordpress.com/?p=731#comment-4737</guid>
		<description>I really love the song, but I am old. &quot;turning into what passes for a hit single nowadays.&quot;? When was the last time a song over 7 minutes was a hit single? 1978? Although I have heard this on the radio. Now I have to pay attention to see if they are playing a shortened radio edit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really love the song, but I am old. &#8220;turning into what passes for a hit single nowadays.&#8221;? When was the last time a song over 7 minutes was a hit single? 1978? Although I have heard this on the radio. Now I have to pay attention to see if they are playing a shortened radio edit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
