Keep in mind a couple of things, please. First of all - this is NOT merely a situation of taking the best overall rating of an album and subtracting ten, a la on the Starostin site. I do regard evaluation of an artist based on its peak output the best way to go, but I also believe that it's possible for a band that's not rated 5 *'s to make a virtually "perfect" album.

Second of all, while I initially felt that factors such as consistency were important in determining a band rating (in fact, the mathematics of band ratings page incorporates consistency), over time I have decided this is not the case. While it's acceptable if a group puts out several decent and good albums but has trouble getting to "the next level," the fact remains that the group could NOT get to the higher level. As a corollary, while it is possible for a band to get a lower band rating than suggested by the best album, it is NOT possible for it to get one higher.

And finally - I do not care about the influence a band has had on other groups when it comes to the rating. If a group was great but the general public hasn't taken to them greatly, that's the general public's fault and not the group's. So basically, I don't care if Led Zeppelin is the most influential hard rock band ever - they ain't getting more than a 3, and that's that.