Best Ever Albums

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Wed, 9 Mar 2022 18:04:25 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 03/09/2022 23:04

Rhyner wrote:

Second, and relatedly, I'd like to understand the origins/rationale behind how you have chosen to structurally conceive of your scale, in order to better point the way to an ultimate rating formula/function/algorithm for it. Any way you choose to quantify things on a scale is in some sense arbitrary, and could have been done differently. With temperature this is obviously so, as there are three different scales in widespread use (Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin). Any one of the three is a perfectly intelligible temperature scale, but the three have clear differences (e.g. 0 C = 32 F = 273.15 K; does doubling this temperature make more sense in one of the three scales than it does the other two?).

Let's assume for the moment that I'm correct in 2.5 being a crucial fixed point of your scale that helps define it. What I'm wondering in this hypothetical case is why you chose to fix this 2.5 positive-vs.-negative-accumulation turning-point concept at 2.5 rather than at, say, 5. Five seems a perfectly natural point for that, assuming we're starting from scratch in assembling a rating scale. Is there any particular guiding principle you have that dictates having 2.5 be the correct number of that specific fixed point? I presume, based on what you've previously written, that trying to get your scale calibrated/aligned with that of Scaruffi plays a big role here, but is there some other fundamental aspect of how you choose to rate art that has naturally led to these decisions?

Tl;dr, here's the second question:

2. What is the origin/rationale behind how and where you have decided to structurally fix the "joints" (as discussed in question one) of your scale?

Re: "based on Scaruffi" continued...

Not sure if there's anything left to say re: Scaruffi except maybe that the accuracy of his goal posts was discovered only after much listening (of music). Later, cinema, the vast majority of which I had declared most of my ratings before his (and still, roughly 80% accuracy), so this only further verified the similarities in criteria and goal posts after his ratings were made available. (Edit: before that, the same verification process with Jazz, where I rated most of mine before his ... still approx 80%). And yet later, Paintings have helped me further clarify on my own (and still are), but haven't been verified with Scaruffi yet because he has never rated any. So I didn't see his 9s and what-not and automatically gear my scale to those (many of his 9s were 9.5+ for me at first, and even some 8s and other lower ratings were up there). This came about more and more AFTER listening and comparing. In other words, the accuracy was "discovered" and "verified" rather than "assumed" or "an automatic influence" prior to this.

Re: the rest of #2...

"2.5" seems to be the exact point where a work passes a threshold between "indifferent" quality and a very very very minor positive accumulation (2.6...) in relation to the rest of the scale above that. 5 probably isn't this point simply because "average" or "mediocre" is still a positive advancement in the grand scheme of things (even if could be called "very poor" relative to an all time masterpiece). 5 still would imply that the artist/band/film-maker/painter is expressively engaged and inspired and making a legitimate effort and creative endeavor (even if all of this could be called underwhelming). This points were first theorized as "logical" points, but further verified by listening to many many works descending gradually from 7 on down to check that each of the qualitative steps were in line with this or close. "Or close" because, again, they should not be considered "finalized" (particularly 2.5, which may be lower) but should be considered "most likely true or close".

"5" could certainly seem true as the joint where the above threshold takes place, particularly in relation to 8s, 8.5s, 9s, and above. But when going through 5s and below, it does seem to occur (very gradually) a bit lower. 2.5 (still being tested if I ever have enough patience to complete such tests!) seems like where it really begins. Though the accumulation at 2.6 and so on is so low that it is hard to decipher.

Raw or more fundamental scores have been discussed/proposed between DelBoca and I (in different words). But never fully concluded. And as the scale has changed shape in small ways, these alterations have put a damper in determining this. But I am totally open to ideas/breakdowns/theories.

As it stands, assuming 2.5 is the exact point of "indifference" (no accumulation up or down, or virtually so). It might be something like...

2.5 = 0 (zero positive qualitative accumulation)
2.6-4.9 = very gradual accumulation from 0.1-0.9
5.0 = 1
6.0 = 2.5
7.0 = 6
8.0 = 12
9.0 = 24
9.3 = approx 27.5
10 = approx 55 (full 10/10 at least, seems to be "double" a 9.3 or close)

--------------------------------------------

Rhyner wrote:

Third, a bit on the logarithmic nature of your scale. Logarithmic scales can be counterintuitive (for evidence just look back at your discussion with Seth about how the rating-by-halves math "doesn't make any sense"), but they're really just a more manageable way of looking at data with high variability that might be unwieldy when dealt with in its otherwise more intuitive "raw" form. To quote Wikipedia on one of the most famous logarithmic scales, the Richter scale: "it's essential to understand the Richter scale uses logarithms simply to make the measurements manageable (i.e., a magnitude 3 quake factors 10³ while a magnitude 5 quake is 100 times stronger than that)." It's much easier to talk about threes and fives and eights rather than 1000s and 100000s and 100000000s.

But behind the threes and fives and eights are these more unwieldy numbers. I'd like to know if the same is true in principle with your logarithmic-type rating scale. For instance, on your scale two 7.0s might be equivalent to an 8.0, but in the same way as with the Richter scale, are there "raw" versions of these scores that can be added in the traditional arithmetic way? To pick numbers arbitrarily, let's say the "raw" quality score, not yet converted to your logarithmic-type ten point scale, of a 7.0 is 85. Then two of these would add to 170. Which means 170 is the "raw quality" score of the more tidy and manageable 8.0. And since two 8.0s make a 9.0, the "raw" quality, logarithmically "de-converted" score of 9.0 is 340. And so on. (Don't worry about the numbers being at all correct; I just want to know if the principle applies.)

Thus:

3. Would it be fair to say that whatever the function/process is that determines the numerical "level of quality" of a work, the last step in giving it a rating is in some sense logarithmically converting the "raw" quality score to a more tidy numerical value on your ten point scale, such that you could take these ten point scale scores and run the process backwards in order to deal with these scores in their more "raw" form? Or is there something fundamentally keeping us from doing that?

Yes, I think you have that right, assuming I'm following you.

The element that makes it hard to get an exact determination (and that has been discussed between DelBoca and I) is that the logarithm might fall short of explaining factors of "accumulation" that come into play and that pose themselves as anomalies in certain comparisons. Per the above (estimated, rough draft) scale I answered above, a 10/10 is 55 times a 5. But in practice, this doesn't seem to be true. If one had 55 5.0s in a row, each of them un-repetitive from the other, but also an accumulation upon the last, one would NEVER reach a 10/10. Yet, per those numbers, we should. But it doesn't really work that way. It would be more accurate to say that those numbers may work if one could place 55 5.0s in the same space/time as the initial 5.0. In other words, WITHOUT increasing space or time, 55 times over. Then one could perhaps have a 10. The "consecutive" version doesn't accumulate fast enough to change shape/development/quality per unit of time needed to get anywhere near the profundity, density, depth of a 10. It would be just one 5 after the other and maybe that would equal something above a 5, but exactly what is unclear. Direct accumulations like this only seem to work between two closer points, but not when the gap is too great.

So such a basic logarithm/scale probably isn't detailed or expressive enough to show the true needs of accumulation.

So there are probably 2 sets of numbers: one like the above. Another that illustrates "density" of accumulation.

It is currently being "tested" by me (and was being discussed with DelBoca) that the "real" scale is between these two points or maybe even "only" the "density of accumulation". And the "extent" of accumulation is not truly accurate as it doesn't work out in practice particularly when comparing 2 points where there is a large enough gap in aesthetic/artistic development.

(I'll leave it there for now but let me know if I need to explain more)

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Sun, 6 Mar 2022 12:47:28 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 03/06/2022 17:47

Rhyner wrote:

No worries at all. I totally understand that real life gets in the way of this silly internet stuff. I was planning on putting up another batch of questions last weekend but similarly got distracted by things I consider more pressing. So I get it. Take all the time you need. To be honest, I was worried you might be getting annoyed with me for not responding yet to what you said. I'll get around to that (and lots more questions)...eventually.

Thanks Rhyner, looking forward to what you have.

Definitely not getting annoyed, so whenever you're ready is fine.

Re: My Criteria For Art

Rhyner — Sat, 5 Mar 2022 21:54:02 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 03/06/2022 02:54

No worries at all. I totally understand that real life gets in the way of this silly internet stuff. I was planning on putting up another batch of questions last weekend but similarly got distracted by things I consider more pressing. So I get it. Take all the time you need. To be honest, I was worried you might be getting annoyed with me for not responding yet to what you said. I'll get around to that (and lots more questions)...eventually.

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Sat, 5 Mar 2022 14:43:15 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 03/05/2022 19:43

@ Rhyner

Just wanted to drop in and let you know that about a week ago I suddenly got a major family and work related situation (simultaneously) on my plate and have just been too exhausted by the end of each day to delve into this and put together a decent response. BUT I do want to reassure you that I am not ignoring you and I certainly haven't forgot. I am pretty sure I'll have a day off this upcoming Tuesday, so if I haven't replied any further before then, I should be able to no later than on Tuesday.

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Sat, 26 Feb 2022 15:26:12 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/26/2022 20:26

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE...

Rhyner wrote:

2. What is the origin/rationale behind how and where you have decided to structurally fix the "joints" (as discussed in question one) of your scale?

Scaruffi did help a lot with the "goal posts". And obviously his reviews/insights have influenced my own evaluations in many cases (particularly Rock). Not that he came up with a 10 point scale for me (or anyone) obviously. Tons of people use that, and I was using a 10-point scale long before I came across him.

But certainly, the more I recognized the (much more often than not) consistent accuracy in his ratings and (especially) how they seemed to be placed on an aligned scale that was made up of a very logical "mathematical" progression as the one I've gradually arrived at over time, this of course was (and remains) as "goal posts" that greatly assisted in organizing my own.

But this still had to be observed and "discovered" as he provides little to no clarification of this (I've even asked him directly and his response was basically "I'll leave that for you to figure out :-)" ). And the only way to plausibly "discover" this is to go through enough of it oneself and draw the conclusions oneself as per the first part of this answer. So, yes, he was and continues to be very influential, but it is an over simplification if we declare only that my scale is based on his (I know you're not saying this). My earliest Scaruffi-esque lists and criteria page (which can probably still he found on listology via way back machine) would demonstrate a pretty long term gradual progression towards what I've arrived at. Early on I was rating many of the 8.8-9.2 works (plus a number of others no longer rated so high) as 9.6s, 9.7s, 9.8s and what-not because I was less familiar with the very highest works and parts of the scale that I am now. Gradually those came down closer to his ratings. And as the highest parts of the scale were more closely evaluated and in some cases newly "discovered" and "tested" (the return to Classical after years with just Rock and Jazz, evaluation of paintings and Sistine Chapel...), a new height to the scale came to view. For a long time there was "no" 10. I think I had Beethoven and Mahler's 9th at the very top around 9.6 or 9.7 or 9.8 and just didn't have a 10, but assumed if it existed that it would be just a bit above those and went from there to compare against on down to the lower ratings.

This may seem like a tangent, but I am mainly illustrating the idea that the scale had to be "discovered" through testing, comparing many works, across multiple art forms...

It is first and foremost based on comparable qualitative phenomena; the "math" is second to that, an attempt to clarify the values (which are only meaningful in comparison to each other) across the scale.

SORRY I HAVE TO GO AGAIN. WILL TRY AND FINISH UP RESPONDING TO YOUR WHOLE POST LATER TODAY/TONIGHT

TO BE CONTINUED...

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Fri, 25 Feb 2022 17:28:00 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/25/2022 22:28

Rhyner wrote:

Okay, here we go. As I already said, there's too much that I want to ask about for me to fit it all reasonably into a single post, so I'm breaking it up into sections. This first section is just three questions I have about the scale itself. These questions might concern things that you've obliquely addressed in previous things you've posted, but as far as I can tell they haven't been answered head on. And fyi I did read the newly updated (to me, at least) criteria page, so I think I'm fairly up to date on what you've posted in the forums on the topic. I'm trying to build a mental picture of every aspect of this scale and how you envision it being used, because all of that is very helpful in developing a precise mathematical formula/function/algorithm that accurately models what you're going for. I'm trying to build from first principles.

These four questions don't (yet) have anything to do with the whole rating-by-halves math, or how a rating is determined. They're only about the ten point scale itself--its structure, how it relates to itself, what its mathematical "essence" is, etc...

--------------------------------------------

First, I'm curious about how you fundamentally and conceptually divide it up, structurally ("at its joints", so to speak). Let me give you an example to help explain what I mean. The Celsius temperature scale is defined by setting 0 as the freezing point of water and 100 as its boiling point. Other temperatures also have significant importance, such as -273.15 being the lowest possible temperature, but the two fixed points of 0 and 100 by themselves define the scale perfectly well, and everything else follows from there.

What I'm wondering is if there are perhaps a couple of similar fixed points that define your scale, from which everything else follows. The obvious, go-to answer would be the extremes, 0 and 10. Zero sets a floor of lowest quality beyond which nothing can be worse, just as 10 similarly sets a ceiling of highest quality. But in what you've written about your scale, I see some other potential "joints". The number 2.5 has especially jumped out at me in what you've said recently, as a turning point of sorts such that above that point quality generally accumulates in a positive way, whereas below it there is a "negative" accumulation. I like analogies, so I'm going to relate this to the temperature scale I've been discussing. This particular "turning point" property of the 2.5 point makes me think of the freezing point (0 degrees Celsius, above which things pleasantly thaw and warm and below which things grow ever colder and less hospitable). And naturally the correlate of absolute zero (-273.15 C) is your scale's lowest value, 0. Other numbers that strike me as having significance are 5 and 7.5. Five could correspond with something like room temperature, or perhaps human body temperature (average, nothing particularly special, etc., but right on the cusp of beginning to distinguish itself/starting to be noteworthy at all). Then 7.5 (or 7.3?) naturally takes the boiling point role ("perhaps the lowest point that will remain truly extraordinary"), another transition point. And 10 is naturally the highest possible temperature, beyond which physics breaks down. This particular division is nicely symmetrical, with the evenly spaced points of 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 defining four important segments, each with a different character in some sense.

I'm not saying I think this lines up perfectly, one-to-one, or even that this necessarily even a good ballpark analogy to how you structurally conceive of your scale, but it should give a pretty good idea of what I mean by the following, my first official question of this post:

1. What are the significant turning points, or "joints", of your scale (if it has any), and do you consider any of these to be fixed points that define the rest of the scale?

Thanks Rhyner, good questions. I don't recall how much these have been discussed here or maybe by PM but it's no matter. They're pretty essential to know and to build from.

Yes, you're right, I have defined it primarily by those points. It remains possible they are subject to change as the lowest and highest are the most difficult to test consistently (few examples), and I sometimes think 2.5 is maybe "really 2.0" but let's stick with this (and if it needs adjustment, we can do that).

But yes, 0 ... 2.5 ... 5 ... 7.5 (with 7.3 being the same with "some" minor reservations, just like 8.8 could be called a "9" with some mild inconsistencies or reservations but still the main qualities) ... And then of course 10 at the top as the ultimate ideal above all.

Your idea of each seems fine. Seems like you get the idea of these "joints".

Another important point that is gaining steam recently is the idea that the accumulative power of a part may start gradually declining below 7.0 (so 6.9). It still accumulates but the "added value" when "combined" with an equal part, may get less and less on down from there.

Rhyner wrote:

First and foremost, based on "testing", comparing many works (thousands of rock, jazz albums, classical, paintings, films) and the accompanying "qualitative phenomena" that one experiences across the scale, relative to the different levels. Ex: Actually experiencing over and over again, that at "X level" it is twice the impact of this "Z lower level", and so on. And then seeing more and more how aligned this tended to be by a peculiar consistent rise and fall across the scale. And this got increasingly fine tuned and adjusted as I experienced more and more works across the scale.

TO BE CONTINUED (including probably more to this answer) ... (Sorry short on time, have to answer in parts)

Re: My Criteria For Art

Rhyner — Thu, 24 Feb 2022 23:28:45 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 02/25/2022 04:28

Okay, here we go. As I already said, there's too much that I want to ask about for me to fit it all reasonably into a single post, so I'm breaking it up into sections. This first section is just three questions I have about the scale itself. These questions might concern things that you've obliquely addressed in previous things you've posted, but as far as I can tell they haven't been answered head on. And fyi I did read the newly updated (to me, at least) criteria page, so I think I'm fairly up to date on what you've posted in the forums on the topic. I'm trying to build a mental picture of every aspect of this scale and how you envision it being used, because all of that is very helpful in developing a precise mathematical formula/function/algorithm that accurately models what you're going for. I'm trying to build from first principles.

These four questions don't (yet) have anything to do with the whole rating-by-halves math, or how a rating is determined. They're only about the ten point scale itself--its structure, how it relates to itself, what its mathematical "essence" is, etc...

--------------------------------------------

First, I'm curious about how you fundamentally and conceptually divide it up, structurally ("at its joints", so to speak). Let me give you an example to help explain what I mean. The Celsius temperature scale is defined by setting 0 as the freezing point of water and 100 as its boiling point. Other temperatures also have significant importance, such as -273.15 being the lowest possible temperature, but the two fixed points of 0 and 100 by themselves define the scale perfectly well, and everything else follows from there.

What I'm wondering is if there are perhaps a couple of similar fixed points that define your scale, from which everything else follows. The obvious, go-to answer would be the extremes, 0 and 10. Zero sets a floor of lowest quality beyond which nothing can be worse, just as 10 similarly sets a ceiling of highest quality. But in what you've written about your scale, I see some other potential "joints". The number 2.5 has especially jumped out at me in what you've said recently, as a turning point of sorts such that above that point quality generally accumulates in a positive way, whereas below it there is a "negative" accumulation. I like analogies, so I'm going to relate this to the temperature scale I've been discussing. This particular "turning point" property of the 2.5 point makes me think of the freezing point (0 degrees Celsius, above which things pleasantly thaw and warm and below which things grow ever colder and less hospitable). And naturally the correlate of absolute zero (-273.15 C) is your scale's lowest value, 0. Other numbers that strike me as having significance are 5 and 7.5. Five could correspond with something like room temperature, or perhaps human body temperature (average, nothing particularly special, etc., but right on the cusp of beginning to distinguish itself/starting to be noteworthy at all). Then 7.5 (or 7.3?) naturally takes the boiling point role ("perhaps the lowest point that will remain truly extraordinary"), another transition point. And 10 is naturally the highest possible temperature, beyond which physics breaks down. This particular division is nicely symmetrical, with the evenly spaced points of 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 defining four important segments, each with a different character in some sense.

I'm not saying I think this lines up perfectly, one-to-one, or even that this necessarily even a good ballpark analogy to how you structurally conceive of your scale, but it should give a pretty good idea of what I mean by the following, my first official question of this post:

1. What are the significant turning points, or "joints", of your scale (if it has any), and do you consider any of these to be fixed points that define the rest of the scale?

--------------------------------------------

Second, and relatedly, I'd like to understand the origins/rationale behind how you have chosen to structurally conceive of your scale, in order to better point the way to an ultimate rating formula/function/algorithm for it. Any way you choose to quantify things on a scale is in some sense arbitrary, and could have been done differently. With temperature this is obviously so, as there are three different scales in widespread use (Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin). Any one of the three is a perfectly intelligible temperature scale, but the three have clear differences (e.g. 0 C = 32 F = 273.15 K; does doubling this temperature make more sense in one of the three scales than it does the other two?).

Let's assume for the moment that I'm correct in 2.5 being a crucial fixed point of your scale that helps define it. What I'm wondering in this hypothetical case is why you chose to fix this 2.5 positive-vs.-negative-accumulation turning-point concept at 2.5 rather than at, say, 5. Five seems a perfectly natural point for that, assuming we're starting from scratch in assembling a rating scale. Is there any particular guiding principle you have that dictates having 2.5 be the correct number of that specific fixed point? I presume, based on what you've previously written, that trying to get your scale calibrated/aligned with that of Scaruffi plays a big role here, but is there some other fundamental aspect of how you choose to rate art that has naturally led to these decisions?

Tl;dr, here's the second question:

2. What is the origin/rationale behind how and where you have decided to structurally fix the "joints" (as discussed in question one) of your scale?

--------------------------------------------

Third, a bit on the logarithmic nature of your scale. Logarithmic scales can be counterintuitive (for evidence just look back at your discussion with Seth about how the rating-by-halves math "doesn't make any sense"), but they're really just a more manageable way of looking at data with high variability that might be unwieldy when dealt with in its otherwise more intuitive "raw" form. To quote Wikipedia on one of the most famous logarithmic scales, the Richter scale: "it's essential to understand the Richter scale uses logarithms simply to make the measurements manageable (i.e., a magnitude 3 quake factors 10³ while a magnitude 5 quake is 100 times stronger than that)." It's much easier to talk about threes and fives and eights rather than 1000s and 100000s and 100000000s.

But behind the threes and fives and eights are these more unwieldy numbers. I'd like to know if the same is true in principle with your logarithmic-type rating scale. For instance, on your scale two 7.0s might be equivalent to an 8.0, but in the same way as with the Richter scale, are there "raw" versions of these scores that can be added in the traditional arithmetic way? To pick numbers arbitrarily, let's say the "raw" quality score, not yet converted to your logarithmic-type ten point scale, of a 7.0 is 85. Then two of these would add to 170. Which means 170 is the "raw quality" score of the more tidy and manageable 8.0. And since two 8.0s make a 9.0, the "raw" quality, logarithmically "de-converted" score of 9.0 is 340. And so on. (Don't worry about the numbers being at all correct; I just want to know if the principle applies.)

Thus:

3. Would it be fair to say that whatever the function/process is that determines the numerical "level of quality" of a work, the last step in giving it a rating is in some sense logarithmically converting the "raw" quality score to a more tidy numerical value on your ten point scale, such that you could take these ten point scale scores and run the process backwards in order to deal with these scores in their more "raw" form? Or is there something fundamentally keeping us from doing that?

--------------------------------------------

That's it for now. I'll have some more questions formulated for you tomorrow, most likely.

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:21:59 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/24/2022 19:21

Albums - with track ratings (plus some notes) - currently under discussion:

NONE are "final" or "official". Still under consideration, being worked on...

Ys - Joanna Newsom
1: 7.3
2: 6.0
3: 7.1
4: 7.4
5: 5.0

Misc notes...

Ys is among the "anomalies" that don't seem to follow my ratings scale despite having excellent "continuity" and not having "disparate halves" or really any disparate tracks (like, for instance Ummagumma) that would upset the accumulation and cause its parts to be more of an average of their ratings instead of an accumulation of them.

Tracks 1-3, collectively "feels like" (palpable impact) approx 8.0 (even though it "should" accumulate higher per the numbers?)
Tracks 4-5 collectively "feels like" 7.4-7.5 (even though it "should" accumulate higher?)

By "feel" or "palpable impact" = at least 15.5. Per (probably incorrect) "criteria page" ratings scale, this would mean a 9.0. This is probably no longer accurate. (See scale being considered below). 15.5 would now mean 8.5. Still doesn't explain...

-Why doesn't Ys seem to accumulate (qualitatively) above 8.5? Or, even lower, Scaruffi's 8 (8.2?)? Per "ratings by halves" that are under consideration, it should at least be 8.8 (mathematically, if not palpably). (Sometimes it seems like 8.8-8.9 palpably too, but more often, around 8.5)
-Is it because the tracks, even though individually rating high enough, don't "accumulate" from each other to higher qualitative degrees because they are each developing too similarly and not quite varied enough?
-Are the lower rated tracks (2, 5) enough to bring it down whereas "criteria page" ratings scale and prior incarnations don't indicate this? How much value does a 6 and 5 add (or detract) from the higher rated tracks? Has this been underestimated?

Lorca - Tim Buckley
1: 7.7-7.8
2: 7.0-7.1
3: 5.8-6.0????
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 7.1-7.2

-This provides a good point of comparison with Ys because they're both 5, generally lengthy tracks. And Lorca is for sure (both palpably, and by rating the tracks) 9.0 at least and probably 9.1, maybe even 9.2/10.
-It may be important to note that Lorca achieves its "9.1" in about 39.5 minutes. Ys achieves its rating (whatever it is) in about 55.5 minutes. Does time added to an achievement (thus less consistency per unit of time) affect the overall rating more than previously thought or accounted for by the ratings scale?

Spiderland - Slint (1991)
1: 7.0?
2: 6.6?
3: 6.2?
=7.9?

4: 6.7?
5: 5.3?
6: 7.1
=7.7-7.8?

=8.8-8.9/10

-Potentially another good point of comparison... Just need to work out the track ratings to compare. Also 39.5 minutes. "Palpably" feels higher than Ys (most listens) despite possibly having lower track ratings. Is the 16 minute faster running time the main explanation for the discrepancy? Or, again, is Ys having 2 tracks below 6.5 enough to justify?

Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968)
1: 6.9-7.0
2: 7.0-7.1
3: 5.3???
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 5.6???
6: 6.9-7.0
7: 6.6-6.8?
8: 6.3???

Astral Weeks is one of the more similar 8.8+ albums to Ys ("narrative style", compositionally, type of emotional expressivity). It is certainly superior to Ys overall (not necessarily by a huge margin) but this gives a good point of comparison because I/we know Ys must be lower than it yet is also comparable so as to figure out why there is a discrepancy between it's "math" rating and "palpable" rating (as in, Ys can't be higher than 9.0 yet seems to be per the "math" so obviously something is incorrect about this).

(Note that probably the most musically similar album to Ys of all the 7.3+ albums would be Joni Mitchell's Hejira, so this can be used as well to give a lower 8 context)

Blonde on Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966)

1:
2:
3: 7.0-7.1
4: 6.7-6.9?
5:
6: 6.4-6.5?
7:
8:
9:
10:
11: 6.5-6.9?
12:
13:
14: 7.6-7.7

Happy Sad - Tim Buckley (1968)

1: 6.6-6.8?
2: 6.4?
3: 6.4-6.9???
4: 6.3?
5: 7.3
6: 5.8-6???

Note: Lots of question marks for these especially while I am still working out "smaller scale" ratings 6.9 and below...

The Black Saint & The Sinner Lady - Charles Mingus (1963)

1: 6.8+?
2: 6.8+?
3: 6.8+?
4: 7.9-8.0?

Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles (1967)

Overall: 7.0-7.1

1: 4.3?
2: 4.0?
3: 5.1?
4: 5.0?
5: 3.8?
6: 4.3?
7: 5.3?
8: 5.8-6.0
9: 3.5?
10: 3.8?
11: 5.3?
12: 3.5?
13: 6.5-6.9

A Hard Day's Night - The Beatles (1964)

Overall: 5.0-5.1

1: 5.0?
2: 3.8?
3: 3.5?
4: 3.0?
5: 4.0?
6: 4.0?
7: 4.0?
8: 4.0?
9: 3.0?
10: 3.5?
11: 3.9?
12: 3.6?
13: 4.0?

Films:

Rosemary's Baby - Roman Polanski (1968)

1st half: 7.1-7.3???
2nd half: 7.6-7.9???

Overall rating seems like: 8.4-8.6
Rating, per Scaruffi, is: 9.0

If "new" ratings scale (below) is correct or close, it seems like an anomaly that RB would be 9.0 (per Scaruffi; 8.4 - 8.6 per me, which would also be more in tune with the scale numbers I have). On the other hand, there is a possibility that film, dealing more with "total continuity" than most albums, as it tends (most cases) to follow a complete, very cohesive narrative from start to finish (especially directors like Polanski that take great care that practically every scene is both narrative and emotional/thematic development towards a whole) may be able to attain "more than the sum of its halves" than the ratings scale indicates. Film in particular offers potential evidence that an extraordinary degree of continuity can potentially bring smaller sums to higher ratings than the scale otherwise indicates and there may need to be additional "equations" to reflect this (as DelBoca and I have discussed on many occasions). Albums like Mingus' Black Saint, Slint's Spiderland, and others may be very good rock/jazz comparisons for this phenomena.

Note that Films seem to follow more closely to the "old" ratings scale (the one still displayed on my criteria page), so perhaps those are still correct or close under the circumstance of "ideal continuity".

Brazil - Terry Gilliam (1985)

1st half: 7.2-7.4?
2nd half: 8.0-8.1+?

"Palpably" it definitely seems to accumulate, impact, have the depth of, on the order of a high-8.9, or 9.0. So, the "math" needs to be made sense of as it doesn't seem to add up to the new scale (but, as it is 15.2 or possibly above, it works out or surpasses the "old" one still listed on my criteria page). So, again, may be a case of "total continuity" making the overall score greater than the apparent sum of its parts...

North by Northwest - Alfred Hitchcock (1959)

1st half: 7.3-7.5?
2nd half: 7.6-7.9?

Touch of Evil - Orson Welles (1958)

1st half: 7.5-7.6?
2nd half: 7.9?

"NEW" RATINGS SCALE "Combo Ratings" (aka "Ratings by Halves" (UNDER CONSIDERATION / MID TESTING / UNOFFICIAL)

13.6-13.7 = 7.8
13.8-13.9 = 7.9
14.0-14.1 = 8.0
14.2-14.3 = 8.1
14.4-14.5 = 8.2
14.6-14.7 = 8.3
14.8-14.9 = 8.4
15.0-15.1 = 8.5
15.2-15.3 = 8.6
15.4-15.5 = 8.7
15.6-15.7 = 8.8
15.8-15.9 = 8.9
16.0-16.1 = 9.0
16.2-16.3 = 9.1
16.4-16.5 = 9.2
16.6-16.7 = 9.3
16.8-16.9 = 9.4
9.5+ ???? TBD

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Thu, 24 Feb 2022 14:19:00 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/24/2022 19:19

Thanks Rhyner, looking forward to what you come up with and will do my best to answer your questions. DelBocaVista, i imagine too, and will probably be better with more detailed math stuff.

Please note too, that I am using the following post (below in quotes) to provide (and keep updating) certain album ratings by tracks that DelBoca and I have been discussing and testing to see if we can solve those that seem to have anomalies (don't add up) and those we can use as comparison. Etc.

It also lists a version (an abbreviated one) of the ratings scale (ratings by halves) that is closer to accurate per current evaluations. If you're going to use numbers from that scale, it would probably be better to start with this newer one than what's currently listed on the criteria page.

(And I will bump the post every now and then should it get too far behind the thread)

AfterHours wrote:

Albums - with track ratings (plus some notes) - currently under discussion:

NONE are "final" or "official". Still under consideration, being worked on...

Ys - Joanna Newsom
1: 7.3
2: 6.0
3: 7.1
4: 7.4
5: 5.0

Misc notes...

Ys is among the "anomalies" that don't seem to follow my ratings scale despite having excellent "continuity" and not having "disparate halves" or really any disparate tracks (like, for instance Ummagumma) that would upset the accumulation and cause its parts to be more of an average of their ratings instead of an accumulation of them.

Tracks 1-3, collectively "feels like" (palpable impact) approx 8.0 (even though it "should" accumulate higher per the numbers?)
Tracks 4-5 collectively "feels like" 7.4-7.5 (even though it "should" accumulate higher?)

By "feel" or "palpable impact" = at least 15.5. Per (probably incorrect) "criteria page" ratings scale, this would mean a 9.0. This is probably no longer accurate. (See scale being considered below). 15.5 would now mean 8.5. Still doesn't explain...

-Why doesn't Ys seem to accumulate (qualitatively) above 8.5? Or, even lower, Scaruffi's 8 (8.2?)? Per "ratings by halves" that are under consideration, it should at least be 8.8 (mathematically, if not palpably). (Sometimes it seems like 8.8-8.9 palpably too, but more often, around 8.5)
-Is it because the tracks, even though individually rating high enough, don't "accumulate" from each other to higher qualitative degrees because they are each developing too similarly and not quite varied enough?
-Are the lower rated tracks (2, 5) enough to bring it down whereas "criteria page" ratings scale and prior incarnations don't indicate this? How much value does a 6 and 5 add (or detract) from the higher rated tracks? Has this been underestimated?

Lorca - Tim Buckley
1: 7.7-7.8
2: 7.0-7.1
3: 5.8-6.0????
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 7.1-7.2

-This provides a good point of comparison with Ys because they're both 5, generally lengthy tracks. And Lorca is for sure (both palpably, and by rating the tracks) 9.0 at least and probably 9.1, maybe even 9.2/10.
-It may be important to note that Lorca achieves its "9.1" in about 39.5 minutes. Ys achieves its rating (whatever it is) in about 55.5 minutes. Does time added to an achievement (thus less consistency per unit of time) affect the overall rating more than previously thought or accounted for by the ratings scale?

Spiderland - Slint (1991)
1: TBD ... 6.8+?
2: TBD ... 6.8+?
3: TBD ... 6.5+?
4: TBD ... 6.8+?
5: TBD
6: 7.1

-Potentially another good point of comparison... Just need to work out the track ratings to compare. Also 39.5 minutes. "Palpably" feels higher than Ys (most listens) despite possibly having lower track ratings. Is the 16 minute faster running time the main explanation for the discrepancy? Or, again, is Ys having 2 tracks below 6.5 enough to justify?

Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968)
1: 6.9-7.0
2: 7.0-7.1
3: 5.3???
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 5.6???
6: 6.9-7.0
7: 6.6-6.8?
8: 6.3???

Astral Weeks is one of the more similar 8.8+ albums to Ys ("narrative style", compositionally, type of emotional expressivity). It is certainly superior to Ys overall (not necessarily by a huge margin) but this gives a good point of comparison because I/we know Ys must be lower than it yet is also comparable so as to figure out why there is a discrepancy between it's "math" rating and "palpable" rating (as in, Ys can't be higher than 9.0 yet seems to be per the "math" so obviously something is incorrect about this).

(Note that probably the most musically similar album to Ys of all the 7.3+ albums would be Joni Mitchell's Hejira, so this can be used as well to give a lower 8 context)

Blonde on Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966)

1:
2:
3: 7.0-7.1
4: 6.7-6.9?
5:
6: 6.4-6.5?
7:
8:
9:
10:
11: 6.5-6.9?
12:
13:
14: 7.6-7.7

Happy Sad - Tim Buckley (1968)

1: 6.6-6.8?
2: 6.4?
3: 6.4-6.9???
4: 6.3?
5: 7.3
6: 5.8-6???

Note: Lots of question marks for these especially while I am still working out "smaller scale" ratings 6.9 and below...

"NEW" RATINGS SCALE "Combo Ratings" (aka "Ratings by Halves" (UNDER CONSIDERATION / MID TESTING / UNOFFICIAL)

13.6-13.7 = 7.8
13.8-13.9 = 7.9
14.0-14.1 = 8.0
14.2-14.3 = 8.1
14.4-14.5 = 8.2
14.6-14.7 = 8.3
14.8-14.9 = 8.4
15.0-15.1 = 8.5
15.2-15.3 = 8.6
15.4-15.5 = 8.7
15.6-15.7 = 8.8
15.8-15.9 = 8.9
16.0-16.1 = 9.0
16.2-16.3 = 9.1
16.4-16.5 = 9.2
16.6-16.7 = 9.3
16.8-16.9 = 9.4
9.5+ ???? TBD

Re: My Criteria For Art

Rhyner — Thu, 24 Feb 2022 13:56:04 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 02/24/2022 18:56

Good points all. I guess you could sum up the point I was making by noting that the rating-by-halves thing is a simplified, rule-of-thumb method for ease of use rather than mathematical exactitude. I see that you've updated the criteria page since I last read it and you now go over this exact point in detail. Fair enough. I could have perhaps saved us some time by noticing that earlier.

I do want to note that it's precisely because I understand there's a difference in tenths of a point at different values on your scale that the rating-by-halves math is (naively, simplistically, "on the face of it") inconsistent. DelBocaVista pretty much nailed this point, more succinctly than I, in his reply to me.

In any case, I still have lots of thoughts, and lots of questions. Sometime later today I'll get them down in words. I realize you two have probably covered most if not all of the territory that I'm about to ask you to rehash, but maybe not. But even if so, it will help catch me (and anyone else reading this) up on the state of the conversation, and who knows--maybe I can provide a new way of thinking about things that sheds some important light or even breaks a logjam and effects some serious progress. It often seriously helps to have a new set of eyes on a problem. On your critera page you say:

AfterHours wrote:

This Ratings Scale has been fine tuned over years of experience to be very aligned and logical, without being too complicated. It is likely that a more detailed or advanced math would produce an even more exacting and intricate version, with more complex formulas than what I've provided, but in the interest of simplicity of understanding and ease of application, I've maintained it as is. Also, I am not sure I could muster the time or the advanced math that might produce such a version, but if I did (or someone else did) it would likely smooth out some very minor uneven gradations and slight inconsistencies between some of the formulas in relation to others.

I'd like to think I could be that "someone else", or at least a major contributor in this endeavor.

So yeah, later today I'll be asking you a bunch of questions. I think I'll probably have to break them up into multiple posts, because I have a lot of them. Brace yourselves.

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:58:57 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/24/2022 05:58

Rhyner wrote:

Oooh, dry nerdy math talk about ratings systems! One of my favorite subjects!

I'll need to digest and ruminate more fully on the giant wall of text above to contribute more to this conversation, but I do have one observation off the top of my head that could potentially be of value. It's something I've always wondered about ever since I first saw your "rating by halves" math, and has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Your ten-point scale seems to me to be logarithmic, and I'm pretty sure you confirmed to me, in some previous conversation, that it basically is. In which case traditional arithmetic operations don't apply, at least not in a uniform and simplistic way. Which means something like this...

AfterHours wrote:

9.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.2 or 15.3. Examples: 7.6/10 + 7.6/10; 8.3/10 + 7.0/10

...is no bueno. In logarithmic terms, two 7.6es do not add the same as some other combination that adds up to 15.2. If 7.6 + 7.6 = 9, then 8.3 + 7.0 (or even 8.3 + 6.9) should be higher, more like 9.1. The more disparate the numbers, the bigger the difference would be. For example, 9.5 + 5.7 should, on the face of it, be something like 9.7 or 9.8. This example is helpful in getting the point across because if the 5.7 is purely additive to the quality of the piece as a whole, then you should certainly expect the resulting score to be higher than the 9.5 on its own. Yet 9.5 and 5.7 combine to the 15.2 that should equal a score of just 9.0 according to your stated rule.

Of course this is all ignores confounding factors, like how your the logarithmic base of your scale seems to fluctuate as you go up and down the scale itself, or whether there is some threshold that the second half of an album needs to cross before its contributions begin factoring positively into the final score, or whether the scale is not simply logarithmic but something more complicated (for instance, it might factor in the "consistency per unit of time" and thus the length of an album is nontrivial).

Or this could all be futile because it's a matter of trying to quantify and compare proverbial Wittgensteinian beetles in Wittgensteinian boxes. Although that shouldn't affect the math.

I do have more thoughts, but I think they'll need to congeal a bit more to be coherent and of any use to anyone.

Thanks for your input Rhyner and feel free to keep it coming.

As you've correctly observed, the scale itself (even if it were still "correct") is...

1. Overly simplistic.

2. some shifts in upward or downward surge seem "unnatural", and some combos seem illogical

1: is mostly intentional for user friendly purposes. I simply wanted to provide a general guide to how others could verify and figure out the ratings quickly and easily without a lot of calculation and additional math beyond judging the scores of each half. It has long been known that this was an overly simplistic version of it and that a more detailed or advanced math would probably be necessary to truly illustrate the "qualitative curve" or "logarithm" of it.

2: knowing that it is overly simplistic pretty much guaranteed some minor discrepancies and imperfect "combos". It was not totally clear at the time if a very low half + a very high half (such as your 5.7 + 9.5 example for "15.2") would equal the same as two high halves that have the same combined total (such as 7.6 + 7.6 for 15.2). Mainly because this is so difficult to find examples of and verify (Sun Ra's Atlantis is the only potential suitor that approaches such, off the top of my head). It is extremely rare (perhaps non-existent) for an artist operating at the level of a 9.5 to -- within the same work and time of inspiration -- produce another half of said work on the order of a 5.5 or so. This is because it is practically impossible for these to be of the "same" work. Beethoven's 9th-level artistry (or thereabouts) would never feature a half (of similar musical content) of only 5.5-level artistry because this in itself would be an entirely different music (and thus a different, completely incohesive, music). Much of what the higher ratings could be said to be representative of are higher or more profound, impacting "developments" of all the various art forms, and in many cases, their various genres. So, for instance, A 5.5 level "Tristan and Isolde" would be something not even recognizable to Wagner, comparatively trivial like The Sound of Music soundtrack or something. There's no such thing as a 5.5 level Tristan and Isolde in part because it is perhaps the highest, most emotionally astonishing and creative development of the opera + orchestral score that has ever existed. To lessen this too much (all the way down to 5s and 6s) would be to transform or "devolve" it into a form of opera or theatrical music that is too different and increasingly trivial (as you get closer and closer to the lower scores). It is almost certainly true that, below a certain point, lower-rated halves would have a deteriorating impact relative to a very high half as one gets into the higher ratings. So it should prove true that a 5.7 would not add to but be detrimental to the score of a 9.5, to use your example. That's a MASSIVE drop it quality. Remember too, that this is two equal length halves. So if you can imagine the most incredible music work ever (or close, being a 9.5) -- I don't know what that would be for you -- but let's say something like Beethoven's 9th. So it's 9.5-or-above self for 60 minutes and then suddenly being maybe Wellington's Victory for another hour to complete the work, the overall score would (and should) drop quite a bit with so much discrepancy in quality and so much cumulative qualitative momentum lost.

Current evaluations indicate this may start as high as 6.9 (a very gradual deterioration in accumulative power down to none at probably around 2.5, then "minus accumulation" below that).

Another way to see this is that all the "tenths" of a point are not equal. The tenth of a point that represents the differential in quality between, say, a 5.0 and a 5.1, is not the same as the (much more valuable) tenth of a point between, say, a 9.1 and a 9.2. It only takes some trivial improvement to advance from 5.0 to 5.1. It might take a minor masterpiece added to a work to advance it from 9.1 to 9.2. So these "increments" have different values at certain points of the scale -- not all equal. Which probably goes some way to explaining the "unnatural" upward or downward surges you are seeing at certain junctures of the scale. Again, that doesn't mean there probably isn't a better more accurate representation of them than the current scale shows. I'm open to ideas.

Re: My Criteria For Art

DelBocaVista — Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:46:15 GMT

Author: DelBocaVista

Posted: 02/24/2022 05:46

Rhyner wrote:

I'll need to digest and ruminate more fully on the giant wall of text above to contribute more to this conversation, but I do have one observation off the top of my head that could potentially be of value. It's something I've always wondered about ever since I first saw your "rating by halves" math, and has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Your ten-point scale seems to me to be logarithmic, and I'm pretty sure you confirmed to me, in some previous conversation, that it basically is. In which case traditional arithmetic operations don't apply, at least not in a uniform and simplistic way. Which means something like this...

AfterHours wrote:

9.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.2 or 15.3. Examples: 7.6/10 + 7.6/10; 8.3/10 + 7.0/10

If you compare a 9.5+5.7 to a 7.6+7.6
- yes the first track is an improvement to a greater extent than the second track is lowered (jump 7.6 to 9.5 is greater than drop from 7.6 to 57)
- but the inconsistency of the two parts (9.5 v. 5.7) is detrimental
- and these two factors cancel each other out

Also 5.7 is not inherently additive. At the 9.5 level, it takes more than a 5.7 from the second half for the score to maintain

Re: My Criteria For Art

Rhyner — Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:01:55 GMT

Author: Rhyner

Posted: 02/24/2022 03:01

Oooh, dry nerdy math talk about ratings systems! One of my favorite subjects!

I'll need to digest and ruminate more fully on the giant wall of text above to contribute more to this conversation, but I do have one observation off the top of my head that could potentially be of value. It's something I've always wondered about ever since I first saw your "rating by halves" math, and has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Your ten-point scale seems to me to be logarithmic, and I'm pretty sure you confirmed to me, in some previous conversation, that it basically is. In which case traditional arithmetic operations don't apply, at least not in a uniform and simplistic way. Which means something like this...

AfterHours wrote:

9.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.2 or 15.3. Examples: 7.6/10 + 7.6/10; 8.3/10 + 7.0/10

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:36:35 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/22/2022 21:36

DelBocaVista wrote:

The worst an album can be is the weighted average of its songs.
The best is what your accumulation math would amount to.
The album is really somewhere in between.

Agreed (except the "in between" score is still to be determined as to how accurate it would reflect the overall rating, but I agree that it makes sense in theory).

DelBocaVista wrote:

I see two ways to do this...

1) Calculate a score that rates the consistency/cohesion of the album's combination of "artistic rating/emotional expression/conceptual expression/creativity"
- This would be the weighted average of consistency/cohesion for each song
- Each song is itself scored by the weighted average of its relation to the other songs, including itself
[Why include itself? Let's say there's an album with just two equal-length tracks which are unrelated. At any given time, what you're listening to has total cohesion (100% weight) to itself, lest it be so inconsistent that you'd see that reflected in the artistic rating. So that means overall cohesion is a 5 instead of a 0]

The consistency/cohesion score would determine how far up the ladder you go from the low end rating to the high end rating. But the jump is front-loaded so that half way up is represented by ~70% of the points instead of 50%. For example, halfway between 8.0 and 9.0 is ~8.7 because the jump from 8.7 to 9.0 is worth as much as the jump from 8.0 to 8.7.

[Note 1: that 70%-at-50% concept means pacing 1.4x , an amount that dwindles down to eventually 100%-at-100%. At 58% through, I have it at 79% of the points (1.36x), not worth explaining why....]

[Note 2: The same concept would apply to uneven lengths (which is what I first came up with it for). For example, let's say you have 2 songs and they are both 10 minutes and both are rated 7.0. They add to 8.4 in your old system. At the halfway point (50%) of that time doubling from 10 minutes to 20 minutes, by which I mean the 14.14-minute mark rather than 15-minutes (because of the square root of 2), the rating will jump from 7.0 to about 7.98 (assuming consistency): 7.0 + 70% * 1.4. At the actual 15 minute mark, around 8.11. So that means that a 10-minute 7.0 and a 5-minute 5.6 (the first half of another 7.0) yield ~8.11. Or, three 5.6s yield an ~8.11, meaning for triples you add 2.51 points (instead of the 1.4 you add with doubles). I wonder how close that is to how you've been doing it]

So for example, let's say Ys is as low as 6.6 (weighted average of the songs, assuming I'm right about Monkey and Cosmia) and has high as 9.3 (same), but that its cohesion is only a 5. It would get 70% of the 2.7 point differential: 6.6+1.9 = 8.5

I'm not completely sure I was 100% tracking with this, but the basic idea is intriguing and seems similar to my thinking, without that much math involved in actual practice, except maybe something like it or approximating it on some occasions just to double check (but also you lost me a little on the math, while reading -- I would probably just have to use some of this math myself and then I would be 100% tracking ... but pretty sure I get the gist for the time being).

The challenge with this, in regards to Ys specifically, is that it's cohesion/continuity is quite high, so remains a mystery. UNLESS its purely a developmental point of "over-repetition" (which I kind of doubt, but it sticks in the back of my mind as an explanation). An obvious example being if an album simply consisted of 2 Sister Rays, exactly repeated (no variance between them), would it be 8.6 + 8.6 in full accumulation (so 9.5+?)? No. Due to no development from the first Sister Ray to the last, they would very possibly be just an average of each other (8.6 total) or maybe a mild accumulation overall because perhaps more Sister Ray is still a little better than one even if just repeated (so maybe something like 8.9).

(I realize we've already discussed this idea, just reminding of it, thinking aloud so to speak...)

Obviously Ys isn't that poor in terms of repetition but I can see an argument that, while it has 3 7+ tracks, one could maybe say they don't accumulate as much as other albums that might feature less repetitive development between tracks. Maybe... (again I'm skeptical of that being a true flaw with Ys, while it would certainly hold true for the Sister Ray example).

DelBocaVista wrote:

2) Same as #1, but apply incrementally as you build out the album (with multiply cohesion scores, each referring to the increasingly large comparisons of halves).

So for example, Emily is a 7.2 and Monkey is a 5.0, which should ordinarily yield a 7.5 per your old system, but in this case is only a 7.4 because of poor cohesion, and so on...each doubling being stifled so that you only reach 8.5....

I have a feeling #2 is closer to what you've been doing.

Yes, this is pretty aligned with my thinking. For the record I have Ys at something like:

1: 7.3
2: 6.0
3: 7.1
4: 7.4
5: 5.0

The old system is definitely changing. I compared some low 7s (6.8-6.9) and high 6.5 (6.7...) albums (DSOTM, Same Trailer Different Park, Pontiac) to my newer track ratings and also the higher rated albums, and the gaps seem more correct than ever.

I also tested Happy Sad (8.2), Daydream Nation (8.2), Ys (Scaruffi 8.2 presumably; AH approx 8.5) and Marquee Moon (8.2) and each had a very similar phenomena where they added up to "15.0" or so (Ys perhaps higher). So with that happening with 8.2s increasingly as a rule and not an exception, it is unlikely that all of those are now "anomalies".

My current "working theory" scale (only per the overly simplistic "combo ratings" w/ no additional "continuity" math etc) is getting closer and closer to a doubling every 1.0 increase instead of 1.4. Meaning:

2 equal halved 5.8s = 11.6 = 6.8/10
2 x 6.0 = 12 = 7.0/10
2 x 6.3 = 12.6 = 7.3/10
2 x 6.5 = 13 = 7.5/10
2 x 6.8 = 13.6 - 7.8/10
2 x 7 = 14 = 8.0/10
2 x 7.3 = 14.6 = 8.3/10
2 x 7.5 = 15 = 8.5/10
2 x 7.8 = 15.6 = 8.8/10
2 x 8.3 = 16.6 = 9.3/10

etc

This doesn't quite explain those (supposed) 8.2s (Ys, MM, etc) but it gets closer, while at the same time within range of my current thinking on most of the rest.

DelBocaVista wrote:

I also wanted to point out that:
- Surprising to see Lorca so high, almost at VU & Nico/Doors level and higher than Astral Weeks even. Impressive for a 5-track album where only one track is an all-time masterpiece.

I'm still revisiting Astral Weeks with these "rediscovered" ideas in mind, but Lorca seem completely legit after several revisits recently.

If I were to sum up the key, it is when attentively following Buckley's vocal performance, really recognizing the emotional character in it -- just how far into the "depth of oblivion" his "blues" are. And, perhaps most importantly, the "deathly" and "dark" and nakedly emotional character that accompanies this, which might best be termed "ghoulish". It is harrowing and moving just how far he seems to be reaching down into the depths of his psyche, to a point of oblivion that seems like it can't be scavenged any further, to express his "blues".

My most recent track ratings for Lorca should clear it up (and match more closely with the newer "combo ratings" being considered above)

1: 7.7-7.8
2: 7.0-7.1
3: ??? Undecided ... Maybe 6.0? Again, may come easier to me as I revise and fill out ratings below 7.0
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 7.1-7.2

(still tinkering with Lorca's tracks ratings but those should give you a very good idea. They're, each, very likely (discounting #3 which I haven't decided) one of those two numbers. Also may mean the "combo ratings" listed above are STILL too low. We'll see as I check other albums out and make adjustments.

DelBocaVista wrote:

I feel like a lot of 5.5 tracks are going to be elevated to 6.0, so maybe you should change the cutoff for your list. Otherwise, might see some Rolling Stones on there...

Cosmia is pretty damn good 😄

You're probably right.

I agree that Cosmia is pretty good. 5.5 maybe even 6 were both under consideration. A rating in the 5-5.5 range over 7 min isn't especially "bad". It just doesn't add much to the rating like the better tracks do. Again this may come to light a little more as I start rating and revising more below 7.0.

Side note: I am increasingly opening up to the idea that the "accumulation factor" starts declining below 7.0 (very gradually at first), meaning 2 7s may accumulate to something like an 8.0, but two 6.5s perhaps "only" 7.3 or 7.4 (instead of 7.5), 2 6.0s maybe something like 6.7 (instead of 7), and so on, very gradually down (they're still accumulating, just less so). By the time we're at 5, it could be as low as 2 5s equals a 5.3 or 5.5 or something. And probably at 2.5 or 3 (or thereabouts) there is literally no accumulation (meaning each song could be 2.5 and the whole album still a 2.5, a literal representation of "the worst an album can be is a weighted average of its songs"). And then 2.4 or below (or maybe 2 or below), the songs have an increasingly detrimental quality. In other words, a 2.4 or maybe 2 (something like this) becomes a lower rating (2.3, 2.2 etc) simply by increasing its running time and not improving itself. So five 2.4s in a row would maybe be "2.3" or "2.2" or something like this. Not worked out much at all -- just something I am considering and seems to have more truth to it than the current scale indicates (mainly that it starts dropping at 6.9; whereas the current criteria scale shows this occurring far lower). We've discussed this before. And I think I even had my official scale illustrating it close to this way at one point. But it seems like it may be coming back into play. Feel free to float some scales or math in this direction if you want (or if you already have, just highlighting that again).

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:26:03 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/22/2022 21:26

Albums - with track ratings (plus some notes) - currently under discussion:

NONE are "final" or "official". Still under consideration, being worked on...

Ys - Joanna Newsom
1: 7.3
2: 6.0
3: 7.1
4: 7.4
5: 5.0

Misc notes...

Ys is among the "anomalies" that don't seem to follow my ratings scale despite having excellent "continuity" and not having "disparate halves" or really any disparate tracks (like, for instance Ummagumma) that would upset the accumulation and cause its parts to be more of an average of their ratings instead of an accumulation of them.

Tracks 1-3, collectively "feels like" (palpable impact) approx 8.0 (even though it "should" accumulate higher per the numbers?)
Tracks 4-5 collectively "feels like" 7.4-7.5 (even though it "should" accumulate higher?)

By "feel" or "palpable impact" = at least 15.5. Per (probably incorrect) "criteria page" ratings scale, this would mean a 9.0. This is probably no longer accurate. (See scale being considered below). 15.5 would now mean 8.5. Still doesn't explain...

-Why doesn't Ys seem to accumulate (qualitatively) above 8.5? Or, even lower, Scaruffi's 8 (8.2?)? Per "ratings by halves" that are under consideration, it should at least be 8.8 (mathematically, if not palpably). (Sometimes it seems like 8.8-8.9 palpably too, but more often, around 8.5)
-Is it because the tracks, even though individually rating high enough, don't "accumulate" from each other to higher qualitative degrees because they are each developing too similarly and not quite varied enough?
-Are the lower rated tracks (2, 5) enough to bring it down whereas "criteria page" ratings scale and prior incarnations don't indicate this? How much value does a 6 and 5 add (or detract) from the higher rated tracks? Has this been underestimated?

Lorca - Tim Buckley
1: 7.7-7.8
2: 7.0-7.1
3: 5.8-6.0????
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 7.1-7.2

-This provides a good point of comparison with Ys because they're both 5, generally lengthy tracks. And Lorca is for sure (both palpably, and by rating the tracks) 9.0 at least and probably 9.1, maybe even 9.2/10.
-It may be important to note that Lorca achieves its "9.1" in about 39.5 minutes. Ys achieves its rating (whatever it is) in about 55.5 minutes. Does time added to an achievement (thus less consistency per unit of time) affect the overall rating more than previously thought or accounted for by the ratings scale?

Spiderland - Slint (1991)
1: TBD ... 6.8+?
2: TBD ... 6.8+?
3: TBD ... 6.5+?
4: TBD ... 6.8+?
5: TBD
6: 7.1

-Potentially another good point of comparison... Just need to work out the track ratings to compare. Also 39.5 minutes. "Palpably" feels higher than Ys (most listens) despite possibly having lower track ratings. Is the 16 minute faster running time the main explanation for the discrepancy? Or, again, is Ys having 2 tracks below 6.5 enough to justify?

Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968)
1: 6.9-7.0
2: 7.0-7.1
3: 5.3???
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 5.6???
6: 6.9-7.0
7: 6.6-6.8?
8: 6.3???

Astral Weeks is one of the more similar 8.8+ albums to Ys ("narrative style", compositionally, type of emotional expressivity). It is certainly superior to Ys overall (not necessarily by a huge margin) but this gives a good point of comparison because I/we know Ys must be lower than it yet is also comparable so as to figure out why there is a discrepancy between it's "math" rating and "palpable" rating (as in, Ys can't be higher than 9.0 yet seems to be per the "math" so obviously something is incorrect about this).

(Note that probably the most musically similar album to Ys of all the 7.3+ albums would be Joni Mitchell's Hejira, so this can be used as well to give a lower 8 context)

Blonde on Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966)

1:
2:
3: 7.0-7.1
4: 6.7-6.9?
5:
6: 6.4-6.5?
7:
8:
9:
10:
11: 6.5-6.9?
12:
13:
14: 7.6-7.7

Happy Sad - Tim Buckley (1968)

1: 6.6-6.8?
2: 6.4?
3: 6.4-6.9???
4: 6.3?
5: 7.3
6: 5.8-6???

Note: Lots of question marks for these especially while I am still working out "smaller scale" ratings 6.9 and below...

"NEW" RATINGS SCALE "Combo Ratings" (aka "Ratings by Halves" (UNDER CONSIDERATION / MID TESTING / UNOFFICIAL)

13.6-13.7 = 7.8
13.8-13.9 = 7.9
14.0-14.1 = 8.0
14.2-14.3 = 8.1
14.4-14.5 = 8.2
14.6-14.7 = 8.3
14.8-14.9 = 8.4
15.0-15.1 = 8.5
15.2-15.3 = 8.6
15.4-15.5 = 8.7
15.6-15.7 = 8.8
15.8-15.9 = 8.9
16.0-16.1 = 9.0
16.2-16.3 = 9.1
16.4-16.5 = 9.2
16.6-16.7 = 9.3
16.8-16.9 = 9.4
9.5+ ???? TBD

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Tue, 22 Feb 2022 16:24:15 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 02/22/2022 21:24

This post's main purpose is as a continuation from a conversation that DelBocaVista and I are mid (via PMs) about my ratings scale, especially in regards to what (lower ratings) make up the higher ratings.

My last update for this can (as of Feb 2022) be seen on my criteria page "ratings scale" where the "combo ratings" or "ratings by halves" are listed under each set of ratings.

These numbers now seem to me to be incorrect (too low).

They were never intended to be complete or ideal "equations" for the higher ratings, just a simple (overly simple) guide that could help lead one to more confidently determining them and being able to more easily double-check them if/when needed.

I noticed discrepancies more and more when I was recently going through paintings and comparing 6.8-7.3-rated works to higher rated works and it kept appearing that the gap between those and highest ratings was wider than initially thought, despite those 6.8-7.3s seeming (generally) correct. This was topped off when most recently evaluating Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, where the qualitative magnitude seemed so high that it seemed like a 7-7.3 was being achieved practically every 10x10 feet or maybe 20x20 feet in some sections (the whole work - Last Judgment + Ceiling - is approx 6600 square feet, so roughly 30 times 15x15 which is 225 square feet). This was perhaps explainable with the "qualitative infinitude" phenomena that seems to occur as a 10 is reached or closely approached, but it still hung in my mind as something of a "mathematical anomaly" (that one would apparently take "only" two 7s to reach 8.3 and about 3-4 for a 9, but a 10 seemed to hold about 30 or more of them over, in succession, accumulation).

When I returned to music and started listening to songs/tracks, this brought about the same phenomena/questions. As I started to upgrade many of these, it appeared more and more that most of the ratings above 6.8 (at least) are made up of greater magnitudes of quality than was previously accounted for on my ratings scale. It also became clearer that I was docking too many points for smaller works that were not nearly as "extensive" as a comparable album but yet had a very high consistency and/or density of emotional/conceptual/creative expression, and in many cases should be getting the same rating. My own criteria page states that it is an accumulation of BOTH consistency and degree that are given (generally equal) measure, but I had actually lost sight of this (partially). It was those (often relatively small scaled) paintings where I began "rediscovering" this in my criteria and then with songs/tracks.

Logically, this started to reveal discrepancies with the album ratings: what it took (qualitatively) to achieve them, what (qualitatively) their smaller parts (song or track ... by half... by avg quality...) needed to achieve to accumulate up to said higher rating.

So DelBocaVista and I have been discussing this, by PMs. We are now bringing it down to this thread because it is just way easier to communicate while keeping track of original messages and replies in the forum than by PM. In the PMs it can be hard to track a conversation amidst many consecutive message-replies in a row under the same subject header (without constantly switching things up). The other reason that could prove helpful is the potential that another user or users may possibly join in and provide some insight into this. That isn't being asked for or expected necessarily, but is a possibility and would be welcome should it occur.

I do want to warn that this is usually pretty dry nerd talk about ratings and numbers underlying the ratings (and the like), with little colorful talk about the "art" or "content" of the works under discussion (and even when this occurs it tends to be very brief, abbreviated). DelBoca and I have had an ongoing conversation about this for years that we take up from time to time when thoughts arise on this subject, and if you think my posts in the forum are sometimes "haphazard", you have no idea what he has had to put up with! 🤣 Plus, we sometimes converse in a semi-shorthand style without a lot of detailed explanation (because we usually already know what the other means without much added reference or detail needed to back it up). By that I don't mean that it will be "over people's head" or even hard to follow. Just that there may not be much explanation provided (because we've usually already worked out or explained the main point under discussion farther back in the conversation).

Anyway, this will really just be a continuation of a conversation between DelBoca and I, but of course you're welcome to chime in if you want to.

Re: My Criteria For Art

DelBocaVista — Sat, 22 May 2021 12:03:58 GMT

Author: DelBocaVista

Posted: 05/22/2021 16:03

DommeDamian wrote:

Can I get access to that album, I wanna hear it

It was just one track, which makes the 3/10 idea all the more silly

Re: My Criteria For Art

DommeDamian — Sat, 22 May 2021 04:15:09 GMT

Author: DommeDamian

Posted: 05/22/2021 08:15

TiggaTrigga wrote:

https://soundcloud.com/18114/sets/haze-side-a

I listened to the first song "guILLty" and I like it; noticed some G-funk synths in there. To me it kinda has a similar impression that "The Tragic tale of Bisen Fransisco" from Signor Benedick the Moor's El Negro gives in making a proper introduction. But that may just be because I've listened to some of El Negro lately, lol

Any influences?

Thank you man, appreciate it. That's right, that G-Funk synth was a last minute flavor we added. And you are very right about The Tragic Tale of Bisen Fransisco, although guILLty has a more Pharrell-ish intro.

My influences are many, for this track in particular was mainly Hopsin and DJ Quik.

Re: My Criteria For Art

DommeDamian — Sat, 22 May 2021 04:09:59 GMT

Author: DommeDamian

Posted: 05/22/2021 08:09

DelBocaVista wrote:

Wouldn't it be something if that 40 has become 40,000 and one of us here has come across your album? 😲

Just yesterday I relistened to a comedy recording I made in 2011 featuring me rapping while my friend played piano and sang falsetto. I've deluded myself into thinking we have a legit shot at a Scaruffi 3/10+ because I threw in some vocal phrasing references to Beefheart's "Pachuco Cadaver" (and also Warren G and Nate Dogg's "Regulate") which went over his head :)

Can I get access to that album, I wanna hear it

Re: My Criteria For Art

AfterHours — Fri, 21 May 2021 16:20:38 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 05/21/2021 20:20

DommeDamian wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Ok, thy brave soul, I'll check it out though I might want to hear the whole first before rating it. Do you know when you expect to have the 2nd half complete/released?

Regardless of what I eventually think about it and rate it, it will surely go down in history as superior to Gangsta Bitch Casserole (which is a satirical hip hop album I made with a couple friends about 15 years ago, and distributed to like 40 people as a joke). So just know that if my rating is a bit low, it could just mean I'm jealous of your talent :lol:

Awesome man.
My 2nd half aka the entire thing is out September 10th.

and a satirical rap album from the mid 2000s, wow :o

Ok cool - thank you, feel free to remind me around that time