Best Ever Albums

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 18:14:26 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 23:14

Listmeister wrote:

Ripfork.com just sucked a couple hours out of my life. 'S okay, I'm sitting at work watching my servers run hour-long processes. Just wanted to say, thanks for showing me another addictive website.

ha. unfortunately they never update it anymore.

Re: A method for rating your albums

Listmeister — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:55:55 GMT

Author: Listmeister

Posted: 11/13/2013 22:55

meccalecca wrote:

I think they've just gotten more serious. Better is subjective. As bad as those 90s reviews were (I definitely read P4K when it first began), the current state of their reviews is disgustingly self-congratulatory. I'm not sure which version I'd rather have. I like some of their other content, but the reviews have always been horrendous. But it has led to some pretty amazing content on http://ripfork.com/

Ripfork.com just sucked a couple hours out of my life. 'S okay, I'm sitting at work watching my servers run hour-long processes. Just wanted to say, thanks for showing me another addictive website.

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:18:11 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 20:18

dmercado wrote:

They've gotten better, though. I was reading some of their album reviews from the late 90's and they gave me a pretty good laugh. My favorite was when they say John Coltrane is a big influence on drum n bass:

http://web.archive.org/web/200408100648...uard.shtml

Re: A method for rating your albums

dmercado — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:13:29 GMT

Author: dmercado

Posted: 11/13/2013 20:13

meccalecca wrote:

everything about Pitchfork reviews is ridiculous. the scores are the least of it.

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 15:05:18 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 20:05

dmercado wrote:

That kind of accuracy is unwarranted in my opinion, which is also the reason why I think the accuracy of Pitchfork reviews is completely ridiculous.

everything about Pitchfork reviews is ridiculous. the scores are the least of it.

Re: A method for rating your albums

dmercado — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:55:54 GMT

Author: dmercado

Posted: 11/13/2013 19:55

Norman Bates wrote:

50 is "average", I wasn't offended, but it sort of passed unnoticed.
60 is a bit better - average with one or two strong songs, or overall deserving of a slightly better adjective than average.
70 is "good", or average but excellent in part, or interesting although not necessarily what I would listen to repeatedly (for reasons of genres for instance? I don't know really). Though it's not a guarantee, 70 is the limit I have established for making an appearance in a year chart if there is still room enough.
80 is "very good", or mostly "excellent" with one or two drawbacks, somthing like that.
90 is "excellent". It's the limit I have established for appearing in one of my decade chart.
100 is "a masterpiece", "sublime", "genius", whatever totally subjective superlative quality I find in the work.

Below 30 is "really bad". I'd rate 5 or 10 for something downright offensive to my ears, a little bit more if I felt it was "bad" or I simply don't like it. Between 30 and 50, I feel there is something, but it's still not good.

I've been trying to go through a similar approach; sometimes thinking of a 60 as 3 stars and vice versa helps in giving a quick reassurance. Also, I've been getting rid of "75". That kind of accuracy is unwarranted in my opinion, which is also the reason why I think the accuracy of Pitchfork reviews is completely ridiculous.

Re: A method for rating your albums

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:34:23 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 11/13/2013 19:34

Necharsian wrote:

It's weird, recently ive started to (unintentionally to begin with i think) just stop listening to music immediately after an album has finished. As in, I wont start listening to another album right after another. Ill just let whatever ive just heard soak in. Sort of like a 4'33" after every album i guess. I think it's helped me distinguish different sounds from a particular album that maybe would go unnoticed or that i could easily associate with another band or album, especially if i was listening to a bunch of similar sounding albums in a row. I dont even think this has anything to do with what youre talking about but somehow reminded me of this haha

Hmm... that sounds like a good idea, especially for first listens. I should make an effort to do that more often. 🤔

Re: A method for rating your albums

mickilennial — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:04:41 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 11/13/2013 19:04

Taking small breaks inbetween throws my "groove" off if you can call it that. I like listening to album after album in a steady flow when I can as my interest shifts with my mood.

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:01:15 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 19:01

Nech, I think that makes perfect sense, and relates to what I was talking about. It's similar to the way I approach big museums. When possible, I tend to make multiple trips taking in different sections at a time rather than doing it all at one. Attempting to connect to a vast collection of any type of art is overwhelming. If that work is all emotionally resonant, it'll eat you alive.

Re: A method for rating your albums

Necharsian — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:56:16 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 11/13/2013 18:56

meccalecca wrote:

yeah. it seems like there's a lot of people who just breeze through an album one time and rate it immediately after without allowing any time to digest it. It's why lot of really deep lyrical albums get so overlooked. A cool unique sound might win someone over on first listen, but can lose the appeal over time and repeated listens

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:44:57 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:44

Gowienczyk wrote:

More people need to think like this, honestly.

Re: A method for rating your albums

LittleM1971 — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:37:30 GMT

Author: LittleM1971

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:37

Gowienczyk wrote:

This is true, and I can respect this but I feel like I run a 50/50 of analyzation of a record and emotions of a record for how I rate anyway.

I agree with this.

I would never use the system i employ to judge a record on first listen or an artist I've never tried before.

The initial requirement for me is just listening and getting a positive from my 'gut instinct'. I guess some of us just need a way of trying to order those initial instincts.

Re: A method for rating your albums

mickilennial — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:35:43 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:35

meccalecca wrote:

absolutely. that's why I tend not to rate albums I don't like initially. at least not the more complex stuff. need time to unravel

More people need to think like this, honestly.

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:32:12 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:32

Gowienczyk wrote:

Mhm, I don't contest that at all. The worst thing a piece can art can do is to have no resonance whatsoever. But like I said, emotions have changed (or formed) through time.

absolutely. that's why I tend not to rate albums I don't like initially. at least not the more complex stuff. need time to unravel

Re: A method for rating your albums

mickilennial — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:30:11 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:30

meccalecca wrote:

Well, I still think the best work of the most technical bands like King Crimson can have loads of emotional value. and lots of punk can express no emotion whatsoever.

Mhm, I don't contest that at all. The worst thing a piece can art can do is to have no resonance whatsoever. But like I said, emotions have changed (or formed) through time.

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:25:30 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:25

Gowienczyk wrote:

I can appreciate a technical composition just as much as any other technical art; while I prefer minimalism and subtleties I do find myself enjoying the works of Can and Genesis just as much as I like The Temptations and The Beach Boys.

But theres something to be said as "this album/band is a grower, hold on to it".

Well, I still think the best work of the most technical bands like King Crimson can have loads of emotional value. and lots of punk can express no emotion whatsoever.

Re: A method for rating your albums

mickilennial — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:16:43 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:16

meccalecca wrote:

I just tend to believe that music that evokes no emotion has failed at the number #1 goal of pretty much all music. It's just like how many painters can strive for mastering hyperrealism, but without any depth to the work, what's the point.

It's why punk came to destroy prog.

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:14:40 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:14

Gowienczyk wrote:

Yeah, but to someone else: I'll still rate it what it deserves on RYM but probably shelf the record for the time and revisit it later to see how my emotions have changed or developed since. It's happened to quite a few bands for me.

Re: A method for rating your albums

mickilennial — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:10:34 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:10

meccalecca wrote:

well I think that's a fair approach, and I pretty much do that as well. But if something is technically fantastic and yet resonates zero emotion, does any of that technical stuff matter?

Re: A method for rating your albums

meccalecca — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:06:34 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 11/13/2013 17:06

Gowienczyk wrote:

This is true, and I can respect this but I feel like I run a 50/50 of analyzation of a record and emotions of a record for how I rate anyway.

well I think that's a fair approach, and I pretty much do that as well. But if something is technically fantastic and yet resonates zero emotion, does any of that technical stuff matter?