Five Star Blog?

Yesterday, i had a debate, via Twitter, about 5 star album reviews.

It all started when i happened to Tweet about an album review i had read the previous day. The reviewer had given the album in question a 5 star review. 5 stars being the maximum amount and therefore the highest accolade that that reviewer could bestow on an album.

Nothing wrong with that. After all, we see 5 star reviews, or their equivalent, all the time and i'm sure many of them are fully deserved. But, my problem came with the fact that the reviewer had suggested that 2 of the tracks on the album in question weren't actually that good and should, to use the reviewers own words, "be skipped".

Now, my question and the one that i posed on Twitter was. If there are 2 tracks on an album that the reviewer feels aren't that good, how can they then give the album the maximum amount of stars? Surely the album should only get, at the most, 4 stars?

I've always felt, possibly naively, that if an album got the maximum amount of stars, the reviewer must have felt that it was, in their view, perfect and couldn't really be improved upon. After all, if an album is not perfect, what sort of accolade could you give a perfect album when you've run out of stars?

This could, of course, apply to anything that is being reviewed. Whether it be books, movies, tv programs etc etc.

One other point i made was that i sometimes feel that certain reviewers have made up their mind about the number of stars to give an album, before they've even heard it. Some artists seem to get 5 star reviews regardless. You already know how many stars the album is going to get without even looking. The artist in question is, in my opinion, one of those. That's not a criticism of the artist, just an observation.
But, this probably a another topic for another day.

After posing my original question, one of my followers on Twitter answered: "If an Album has 12-15 tracks and 10 of them are masterpieces, you wouldn't give it a 5 star rating?"
A fair enough question and one that i answered with: "No I wouldn't. I'd probably give it 4 stars & question why they put those "filler" tracks on there".
My friend then came back with: "Even the greatest albums didn't have all perfect tracks, would you give 4 stars to Abbey Road (by The Beatles)?"
My answer was: "Good point and good album, but how about Maxwells Silver Hammer and Octopus's Garden (Both of which are on Abbey Road)?".
We continued, Friend: "The importance of an album is not in the in ideal track, it's in the music and the message and what it inspires".
Me: "Can't really disagree with that and it's all down to personal choice after all. But is it a 5 star album if you don't like all tracks?".

I do see my friends point of view and i expect that many others would agree with him. But, i'm sure we can all think of examples of favourite albums of ours, by our favourite bands that have, at least, one duff track on them.
Now, if you came to have to review that same album, how many stars would you give it? Honestly?
My guess is that many people would give that album a 5 star review. But, if you always skip "that" track, should you?

The Beatles are a good case in point and were mentioned in that original Twitter conversation.
The Beatles are and always will be, one of my favourite bands and their albums are amongst my favourites. But, even the most ardent Beatles fans will admit that there are usually "filler" tracks on their albums. I mentioned "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and "Octopus's Garden" from Abbey Road. But, what of "Yellow Submarine" from Revolver, or "When I'm Sixty Four" from Sgt Pepper?
Other examples are available and not just from The Beatles either.

I have many albums on which i love every single track. Albums with, in my opinion, no fillers, or duff tracks. I'll name just two examples that spring to mind:
Sex Pistols - 'Never Mind The Bollocks' and
Supertramp - 'Crime Of The Century'.
Those choices also give you some idea of my eclectic musical tastes!

So, i guess the question is. Should those favourite albums be rated higher, by me, than albums on which there are those filler tracks? Especially if, as an overall body of work,  i actually prefer the albums with the filler tracks?

Oh dear, what have i started?
Maybe, as i suggested to my Twitter friend. In the end, it all comes down to personal preference? After all, when it comes to music and anything artistic for that matter, taste is very much a personal thing and one persons masterpiece, is another persons worst nightmare.

Discuss.

PS: As it happens, this morning, i read a review of the "new" Amy Winehouse album.
It features demos etc that she was working on before she, sadly, died recently.
I was fully expecting this album to get the usual 5 star review. But, the reviewer was very fair and gave the album 3 stars. Because of what he felt were substandard tracks.
See, it can happen....

Starry, Starry Night.

Light pollution & the night sky.
Some recent experiences.

What's it like where you live?

A, lying on my back on the beach, vlog

Death Of The Movie Star?

I saw a piece in my newspaper this morning about the new film "Avatar" & the fact that it is already on course to become one of the biggest grossing films of all time.

But, as with all of these blogs & indeed my vlogs, thinking about this article led me on to thinking about another aspect of the film business.

What do you actually call a motion picture these days? Is it a 'film", or is it a "movie"?
This is one of those questions that pops up in my head whenever i refer to a motion picture.

As you can see from the beginning of this blog, i've started off by saying "film". This is probably because i'm British & this is what we still tend to refer to a motion picture as. Even in these days of American culture seemingly taking over the world, the term "film" is still hanging on by it's fingertips in the UK.

But, what is the correct term & does it really matter anyway?
Well, for me at least, it does matter. I, like a lot of people, spend an increasing amount of time online & a lot of that time is spent conversing with people from the USA. Now, as i'm sure we all know, the Americans always refer to motion pictures as "movies".

So, where did the word "movie(s)" come from in the first place?
Well, according to Dictionary.com (a very valuable website & one i have to use far too often), as expected the word "movies" is a shortened form of "moving pictures". And according to the site, the word "movies" was first used in around 1912.

The word "film" can be used to describe the actual filming process itself, what the motion picture is recorded onto & also the finished product. Apart from several other unrelated definitions too.

So, i'm going to make a unilateral decision & say that, in future, we should just use the term "movie(s)" to save us all a lot of confusion & debate.
Just think how much shorter this blog post would have been, if i hadn't felt the need to clear this up first!

Anyway, on to the main feature. As they would say at the movies.

As i was saying, the movie Avatar has already grossed over $745 million, or £460 million. So, it is well on it's way to becoming only the fifth movie in history to gross over $1 billion.

There is nothing too remarkable about this, i suppose. Especially as the director of the movie, James Cameron, is resposible for highest grossing movie of all time, Titanic ($1.84 billion btw)

But, what is different about Avatar though, is that it's "stars" are all, with one exception, relative unknowns. The exception being Sigourney Weaver, who is hardly the biggest movie star in the world. Although she's still a fine actress in my opinion.

Apparently, James Cameron wanted to concentrate on getting the technology correct, to enable the movie to be shot in 3D. This, as you can imagine, cost a lot of money ($237 million) & probably didn't allow too much to be spent on signing up "A" List movie stars.

So, is this the beginning of the end for the "A" List movie star? After all, if a movie can become one of the biggest grossing of all time & without the draw of any of the big name stars, will this send a message to other directors & movie production studios?

Yes, i accept that the 3D aspect of Avatar is a big draw in itself & i know of several people who have seen the movie more than once, to enable them to see it in 3D. But, i also know of people who have been to see Avatar, more than once, for no other reason than that they thought it was brilliant.
But, nobody appears to have been put off going to see Avatar by the lack of big star names.

Too often these days, any new movie seems to be more about the star names involved & less about the actual movie itself. For, me at least, this can be a big turn off. I don't go to the movies to see a star name, i go to see what i hope will be a good movie.

We all have our favourite movie stars. Just as we all have our favourite authors, or musicians. But, we soon stop buying, reading, or listening when those favourites stop producing good material.
I think, with the movie industry in particular, there has been far too much substandard material produced over recent years. With far too much reliance on big star names to try & attract us to go & see that substandard material.

Maybe another aspect of this is the actual cost of making a movie, when you have to pay top dollar to get an "A" List star, or stars to sign up?.
Avatar cost $237 million to film, without any of those big star names. Would that movie ever have been made if it was felt a big star name was needed? Could the cost of have justified? Or, would the production values have been lessened by the need to pay top dollar for that star name, or names?

Hopefully, in my view anyway, the huge success of Avatar, which i haven't seen by the way, will make movie makers sit up & take stock.
Maybe now is the time to start concentrating on original story lines & production values, rather than on those big star names? Or, on sequels & tired remakes?
Or, maybe, in these credit crunch times, the big movie stars will have to take a pay cut?

I don't expect many people will moan about that?