“Every time I see those posters on the tube, announcing some new album with lists of stars underneath, my heart sinks.”- David Hepworth, Founder of Q Magazine.
The star rating system can be seen across various platforms nowadays, from films to restaurants and from hotels to music reviews. In a world where opinions fly around like bees in a hive, it is almost impossible to avoid being hit between the eyes with a star or two, telling you how good, or bad, something is. Whilst these ratings can help inform us if an album is worth listening to or how good Justin Bieber’s performance was last night, are star ratings a lazy form of journalism and just where did this idea of labelling with a five pointed shape come from?
The first music magazine to introduce star ratings in the UK was Q in 1986. “I have to confess it was my idea,” says Q founder David Hepworth. “I was looking for a way to differentiate the magazine from the competition and also to make clear that the reviews were for the benefit of the readers, rather than the writers.” Soon after Q introduced them, other music papers followed suit; Kerrang! began to review with a five ‘K’ rating system and Pitchfork used a 0.0-10.0 decimal rating classification. Now nearly all music guides use a rating system, but are they a help or a hindrance?
Whilst star ratings provide a quick, visual evaluation, it can be argued that this ranking detracts from the actual review. “I can see why ratings systems exist: they’re a useful shorthand, conferring decisions in an instantly graspable manner and seem to be popular with readers,” says Angus Batey, former writer for NME, Q and MOJO. “The problem is that ratings give readers an excuse not to read reviews... why bother with [writing a review] when the red blobs at the bottom convey the information you’ve come for in a much more convenient package?”
Although stars can be helpful for readers, these ratings must be taken with a pinch of salt. Editors sometimes moderate a journalist’s star rating to fit in with the publication’s ethos. “I sometimes changed star ratings if I thought they were wrong,” says Q founder Mark Ellen. “Q's reviews were meant to be the voice of the magazine and not of the individual reviewer.” Writers also tend to avoid awarding extremities such as one or five stars. Sitting on the fence and granting an average rating is much easier than standing out from the crowd and making a bold statement. Alternatively, “most music journalists don’t have a clue and so give an average mark rather than commit themselves,” says Everett True, former editor of Melody Maker.
Whilst the star rating system has been a useful tool over the last 30 years since it was first introduced in music journalism, as with most things, it too comes with its faults. As readers take less time to read the review and instead just glance at the star rating, where does this leave the future of reviews? Writers may continue to compose lengthy and insightful evaluations or they may just be scrapped altogether. However, with the clear popularity of star ratings, one thing is for sure – they are not going away anytime soon.