Best Ever Albums

Re: What do your ratings mean?

Tha1ChiefRocka — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:42:23 GMT

Author: Tha1ChiefRocka

Posted: 11/13/2018 20:42

AfterHours wrote:

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

First, I have to gather up my various energy crystals and sacred totems in my lambskin ritual satchel. I then set out at 4 am to get to the nearest natural body of water. Once there, I place the various trinkets and crystals in a crescent shape to represent the yin and yang of the Sun and Moon. I begin to play the album. As the sun rises over the lake, depending on the solar declination, various objects will light up corresponding to the music that is being played. I record the data into several categories including empathy, apathy, piquancy, angularity, humor, stickiness and digestion. (This will help me determine the physical and mental impact of the album later.) These categories are subsequently rationalized into a fractional outcome. (Keep in mind that 7 is the base line and that numbers greater than 7 are added, and numbers less than 7 are subtracted.)

Here, for an example,

The Beatles Abbey Road

Empathy- 10:7
Apathy- 1:7
Piquancy- 2:7
Angularity- 1:7
Humor- 11:7
Stickiness- 10:7
Digestion- 10:7

Total- 37/49

This album may aid in digestion and humor, but it could also result in an increase in degreelessness.

Finally! Someone really undestands me! :lol:

No problem mate.

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:21:57 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/13/2018 20:21

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

Finally! Someone really undestands me! 🤣

Re: What do your ratings mean?

Tha1ChiefRocka — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:16:49 GMT

Author: Tha1ChiefRocka

Posted: 11/13/2018 20:16

First, I have to gather up my various energy crystals and sacred totems in my lambskin ritual satchel. I then set out at 4 am to get to the nearest natural body of water. Once there, I place the various trinkets and crystals in a crescent shape to represent the yin and yang of the Sun and Moon. I begin to play the album. As the sun rises over the lake, depending on the solar declination, various objects will light up corresponding to the music that is being played. I record the data into several categories including empathy, apathy, piquancy, angularity, humor, stickiness and digestion. (This will help me determine the physical and mental impact of the album later.) These categories are subsequently rationalized into a fractional outcome. (Keep in mind that 7 is the base line and that numbers greater than 7 are added, and numbers less than 7 are subtracted.)

Here, for an example,

The Beatles Abbey Road

Empathy- 10:7
Apathy- 1:7
Piquancy- 2:7
Angularity- 1:7
Humor- 11:7
Stickiness- 10:7
Digestion- 10:7

Total- 37/49

This album may aid in digestion and humor, but it could also result in an increase in degreelessness.

Re: What do your ratings mean?

Tap — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:10:44 GMT

Author: Tap

Posted: 11/13/2018 18:10

antaiospiano wrote:

Or did I just not understand my own words too? XD

lol

my system is pretty complicated check this out

1 - not as good as 2
2 - not as good as 3
3 - not as good as 4
4 - not as good as 5
5 - not as good as 6
6 - not as good as 7
7 - not as good as 8
8 - not as good as 9
9 - not as good as 10
10 - not as good as 10.5

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:50:36 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/13/2018 17:50

antaiospiano wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Oh yes: and thanks for the advice to "find less exciting music to get less excited about".

When did I say that? Or did I just not understand my own words too? XD

It wasn't a serious reply but to clarify... The quotations call attention to the joke, which was putting words in your mouth (so to speak) to make fun of your "calm down" comment.

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:41:35 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/13/2018 17:41

antaiospiano wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Kidding/sarcasm aside, I am not in the interest of making haphazard lists and uninformed selections. I usually find when people have an issue with this, it tends to be borne in a lack of understanding that there exists a massive amount of astonishing music they have yet to hear and experience (usually Classical, Jazz and the most creative and astonishing works of Rock), and they assume their view of this is already complete. If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, did it really fall? It's an understandable position. So what can occur is an assumption that I must be being hyperbolic -- because there couldnt possibly be albums that are this amazing/profound if theyre not being talked about by most media or my friends (or something along this line of thinking).

It might also help to understand that my criteria page is an attempt to answer most/all of the essential questions Ive been asked over the years about my ratings, while also tying all its points together with the fundamentals/common denominators that serve my evaluations, rankings, etc.

I think the way you say “the most creative and astonishing works of Rock” kinda gives away how you think about rock, and that you only deem it of high quality if it conforms to the criteria of classical music and jazz. I see people make that mistake a lot. They say: “see, I value hip hop, I’m open minded”, but the albums they show (often Kanye’s MBDTF or Kendrick’s TPAB) are the albums that show the most resemblences with classical music or jazz (or rock for that matter), be it stylistically or through choice of instruments.

Seems like you're trying to make assumptions about something you yourself haven't experienced. If you haven't assimilated the albums on my lists (or a very small percentage of them) your opinion doesnt really count for much (same if it were me to another's list of albums I was unfamiliar with or hardly familiar with).

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:37:23 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/13/2018 17:37

antaiospiano wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Just because you didnt understand what you read doesnt mean I dont :wink:

Hahaha don’t go full Jaden Smith on me now. Tell me, how do you discern ‘awe-inspiring’ from ‘amazing’? It’s great that the dictionary gives you a definition, but in the end it is a feeling. And what you find awe-inspiring one moment will be boring another; it’s all dependent on your mood, how much you’ve listened to it in the past couple days, etc. So that’s why I said: in the end you’re just following your gut; you’re doing what anybody else is doing. Which is not bad in itself, but it would’ve sufficed if you just put one word behind every rating like everyone else. Those dictionary definitions don’t really give much more information; it just changes the question from: “am I awe-inspired?” to: “did I feel an overwhelming amount of reverence?”. It’s just as vague.

All answered if you read my criteria page.

Re: What do your ratings mean?

Boltzmann — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:17:56 GMT

Author: Boltzmann

Posted: 11/13/2018 15:17

AfterHours wrote:

Oh yes: and thanks for the advice to "find less exciting music to get less excited about".

When did I say that? Or did I just not understand my own words too? XD

Re: What do your ratings mean?

Boltzmann — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:13:59 GMT

Author: Boltzmann

Posted: 11/13/2018 15:13

AfterHours wrote:

Re: What do your ratings mean?

Boltzmann — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:53:28 GMT

Author: Boltzmann

Posted: 11/13/2018 14:53

AfterHours wrote:

Just because you didnt understand what you read doesnt mean I dont :wink:

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:54:42 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/11/2018 16:54

Kidding/sarcasm aside, I am not in the interest of making haphazard lists and uninformed selections. I usually find when people have an issue with this, it tends to be borne in a lack of understanding that there exists a massive amount of astonishing music they have yet to hear and experience (usually Classical, Jazz and the most creative and astonishing works of Rock), and they assume their view of this is already complete. If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, did it really fall? It's an understandable position. So what can occur is an assumption that I must be being hyperbolic -- because there couldnt possibly be albums that are this amazing/profound if theyre not being talked about by most media or my friends (or something along this line of thinking).

It might also help to understand that my criteria page is an attempt to answer most/all of the essential questions Ive been asked over the years about my ratings, while also tying all its points together with the fundamentals/common denominators that serve my evaluations, rankings, etc.

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:20:58 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/11/2018 16:20

antaiospiano wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

The following is an excerpt from my criteria page. Full page is here: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

I thought I had to calm down, but dude, get some fresh air.
And I hate to shit on something that you clearly put a lot of thought in, but all I read is a lot of fancy words without a clear definition, so I think in the end you still just follow your gut.

Oh yes: and thanks for the advice to "find less exciting music to get less excited about".

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:17:01 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/11/2018 16:17

antaiospiano wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

The following is an excerpt from my criteria page. Full page is here: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

Just because you didnt understand what you read doesnt mean I dont 😉

Re: What do your ratings mean?

Boltzmann — Sun, 11 Nov 2018 08:40:59 GMT

Author: Boltzmann

Posted: 11/11/2018 13:40

AfterHours wrote:

The following is an excerpt from my criteria page. Full page is here: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

Re: What do your ratings mean?

RoundTheBend — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 20:43:23 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 11/11/2018 01:43

sunnydhamm wrote:

I reserve 0-50 for interludes.

Pretty much, esp. in rap music. 9/10 it ruins the album.

Re: What do your ratings mean?

Boltzmann — Sat, 10 Nov 2018 17:43:36 GMT

Author: Boltzmann

Posted: 11/10/2018 22:43

This is how I rate albums. My chart however is based on my own enjoyment of the music, so that doesn’t reflect these criteria.

10/10: At least one aspect of the sound that this album introduced can only be derived to another piece of music in that it is also music, and it has caused an avalanche of pieces of music influenced by it that have enjoyed immense mainstream appeal if the album itself hasn't already. (Clear example: Pet Sounds)
9/10: At least one aspect of the sound this album clearly introduced new musical ideas that may be considered to be a new genre, but it is clearly influenced by another piece of music and it has created at least a small trend in music. (Clear example: Black Sabbath (clearly influenced by Jimi Hendrix, but also clearly sparked up something you could call a new genre))
8/10: Every part of this album clearly exists within a genre, but at least one aspect of the sound clearly didn't copy a style of another piece of music by adding small stylistic differences to the genre or mixing other genres with it. (Clear example: The Hurting by Tears For Fears (clearly new wave, but clearly different than any other act))
7/10: Every part of this album is clearly derivative to another piece of music, but it still sounds like the artist(s) understand the genre and do it justice. (Clear example: I Am Not A Doctor by Moloko (it never really mixes genres, but merely switches between genres in a fast pace, and they're clearly not the best actor in none of those genres))
6/10: Every part of this album is clearly derivative to another piece of music, and it sounds like the artist(s) didn't even try to do something original. (Clear example: Stadium Arcadium by rhcp (has nice songs, but is clearly a part 2 to Californication))
5/10: Every part of this album is clearly derivative to another piece of music, and it sounds like the artist(s) didn't make this with the goal to make music (art you can hear), but clearly put emphasis on other art forms like story-telling, poetry, comedy, or even something completely unrelated to art like expressing one's opinion, or pushing a political agenda. (Clear example: We're Only In It For the Money by Frank Zappa (the genre of the album is clearly psychedelic rock/baroque pop, but it sounds awful because they don't even try to make it good, because their only goal with that album is ridiculing psychedelic rock and voicing their opinions))
Lower ratings are 5/10 albums on which it is clear that the skills lack to make the music that was envisioned, or there is clearly something wrong with recording or mixing, etc. I don't often encounter such albums.

I completely ignore aspects to the album that have nothing to do with music like the message, visuals, consistency, skills (in another way than described above, namely like this: "I could've made this too", because these are people that clearly don't understand the difference between music and sport), and other bad reasons to claim music is 'good'. The overall piece of art can still improve by these aspects, but things like the message and visuals are completely different art forms. So what I'm saying is that a piece of music with a message and visuals is in fact three pieces of art that exist next to each other, because these art forms can simply not mix. For example: music cannot be enhanced by visuals, merely be clarified by it (like through dance). You might - because of the dance - look at the music differently, but for a music critic that shouldn't be necessary. You can however rate these parts seperately, but you shouldn’t take the mean out of them, ‘cause the resulting number will have no meaning whatsoever. Examples: a great song with an awful music video would end up with a 6/10 rating; a great song with simple and superficial message would too.
Consistency is one that I find hard to deal with myself, since it goes against my gut; this is why I think that rating songs makes more sense than rating albums.

Re: What do your ratings mean?

manurock — Fri, 9 Nov 2018 04:15:42 GMT

Author: manurock

Posted: 11/09/2018 09:15

As many people here, my rating tends to be the average of track ratings, and I try to give more important to longer tracks if the album has them by "rounding up" or down towards the longest track(s). Also the general feeling the album gives me can give it an extra or loss of 5 points.

I am not happy with the rating. In fact, I don't know why, maybe because I value music as an art itself or because I don't consider myself an expert, but albums hardly ever go under 70. I am also quite perfectionist, so I don't have that many 85+ either. So yeah, not very useful ratings, you should kick me from this website 😜

What ratings are for me esentially is a guide in order to order my chart the best possible and to know whether I should include the lastest album I have listened to it or not.

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Wed, 7 Nov 2018 17:03:13 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/07/2018 22:03

^^^ Oh, didnt realize this was an old conversation I'd already posted on 🤡

In any case, my page has been revised since then so...

Re: What do your ratings mean?

AfterHours — Wed, 7 Nov 2018 17:01:27 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/07/2018 22:01

Concise version...

Ratings Scale

0 - 4.9 – BELOW AVERAGE, IRRELEVANT

5.0 - AVERAGE/MEDIOCRE

5.5 - ABOVE AVERAGE

6.0 - GOOD

6.5 - EXCELLENT

7.0 – SUPERB/BORDERLINE EXTRAORDINARY … At 6.8+ the work will prove quite competent expressively, providing a very effective rendition of its emotional/conceptual content. These will often strike a qualitative balance between very well-executed and (as we get closer to 7.3+), borderline extraordinary. Upon evaluation and scrutiny, these works will usually prove short on depth (even if marginally), to be a bit too derivative or not quite creative enough to truly belong among more singular, remarkable or stunning examples (7.3 and above). These are often the most immediately recommendable and dependable works for those wanting great experiences but are just starting off or are relatively unfamiliar with a genre or type of art.

7.5 – HISTORICALLY EXTRAORDINARY/AMAZING ... At 7.3+ the work will begin to really stand out historically as creatively and emotionally/conceptually extraordinary or amazing.

Definitions of extraordinary being applied: "Highly exceptional; remarkable" and "Beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established." --Dictionary.com / The Free Dictionary.com

Definition of amazing being applied: "To affect with great wonder; astonish." --The Free Dictionary.com

8.0 – AWE-INSPIRING ... At 7.8+, the work will start becoming a truly awe-inspiring experience. These are often masterpieces by most definitions of the word, and will usually be cornerstones of their genre or confluence of genres.

Definition of awe-inspiring being applied: "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like." --Dictionary.com

8.5 – NEAR MASTERPIECE … At 8.3+, the experience will transcend nearly all works of art of its genre or confluence of genres. It will be awe-inspiring like an 8/10 but a bit more consistent and/or reach higher peaks. At this level, the work will usually have taken on most of the characteristics of an all-time masterpiece (9/10).

9.0 - ALL TIME MASTERPIECE ... At 8.8+, the experience will be very astonishing and will reach degrees of emotional/conceptual impact or significance to such an extent that it will stand out as an especially intense, thorough or deep exploration, development and culmination of its expressiveness and creativity. A work that has reached this echelon will stand out to history as an achievement in its genre or confluence of genres that may never be equalled or surpassed.

9.5 - SUPREME MASTERPIECE ... At 9.3+, the experience seems like an utterly impossible achievement. An achievement so astonishing that, regardless of the type of emotional and conceptual content, it inspires awe comparable to a life-changing, miraculous religious experience or as if discovering and unraveling some very profound mysteries of existence and the universe. It will produce such effects thoroughly and in a manner so singular and exceptional that it will tend to completely revolutionize one's concept of what an artist and work of art are capable of expressing.

10 – EPITOME OF ART … At 9.8+, the experience is so beyond the generally perceived heights of human artistic capability that it is very difficult to adequately describe. It is a work that would be overwhelmingly miraculous, and would tend to leave one astounded, moved and struck by waves of epiphany throughout the experience towards a seemingly inexhaustible ingenuity, staggering emotional depth and conceptual significance. As we reach a full 10.0, the work will have achieved, beyond any other, a particular quality where even as it can be thoroughly understood and experienced when a knowledgeable, extensive effort is made, such will also prove so inspiring and its emotional/conceptual weight so transcendent and dynamic, that perceiving it only seems to extend the possible meaning or interpretations into what seems like an infinite, ultimately indefinable depth of significance that feels like it can both be grasped and yet endlessly open to further assimilation. No matter the scrutiny, it will seem above criticism and evaluation, as if artistically “priceless”.

It is also a work that will prove to be a culmination of the development of its art form, brought to a previously unimaginable creative epoch, causing a paradigm shift that will resonate for all time. It will prove to be axiomatic that the artist has now achieved an emotional and conceptual conviction in his art on the order of a profound religious devotion. His own understanding of his art will be so refined and rarefied that it will seem informed by divine guidance. His technical rendering and emotional conveyance will have assumed the quality of a profound spiritual revelation, seeming sacred and impossible to behold. In this will be found an ultimate and revelatory unveiling of self through the whole of his art and an idealization of the purpose of art itself, a development formally complete but so fundamentally true and of such depth and allusion that it is infinitely reflective and suggestive, transfigured to immortality.

A 10/10 does not necessarily mean "100% flawless", though probably approaches this in many regards. One could probably conceive of flaws in anything being qualitatively judged, so this is not the claim. "Flawless" can also be quite relative to the task or ambition undertaken. One could view a flawless painting of a bowl of fruit, and there are many of these. Alongside this, one could view Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and yet perhaps conceive of some minor flaws in the work. So is the bowl of fruit the greater work of art because it's more "flawless"? Or should we take much stronger consideration of the creativity, expressive impact and significance of each work when comparing them? A 10/10 represents a seemingly unsurpassable combination and accumulation of creativity, expressed emotional conviction and conceptual significance, relative to all forms and genres of art throughout the history of mankind. It is the ideal from which all others are judged.

________________________

For thorough explanation, see my criteria page, here: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15503

Re: What do your ratings mean?

craola — Wed, 7 Nov 2018 16:22:32 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 11/07/2018 21:22

i have an excel spreadsheet that represents my ratings sans the 0-100 scale, where every album starts at 0 and goes up or down from there. i have certain checkboxes that are typically on a binary scale, though certain qualities allow for negatives (so like -1 to +1). my favorite albums can have a score of 13 or 27 or 5. the scale really only evaluates them relative to the artist's own output. it's a pretty nerdy and useless system, to be honest, but i like it. a lot of the time, the intent of the artist defines which qualities are even measured, so i suppose i could determine the relative maximum for something and divide the given score by that for some sort of academic evaluation, but that spoils the fun. i like the messiness of it as it is. it brings into question some age old questions about relative length, superiority of genre, etc. that gives me pause. and because it's time-consuming and nerdy, i generally only use this scale for albums i super love.

i always feel torn about ratings around here, and i have reset mine at least twice in the last 2 years. i don't like capped scales because the scores tend to change too much relative to each other, and it's rather absurd in my mind to rank MINGUS / BARTOK / TALK TALK / DANIEL JOHNSTON on the same scale. i inevitably come across two albums that i've rated 70 a piece, and i get upset with myself because the half-decent jazz quartet are certainly more capable than the half-decent post punk band, and then i go slightly mad. i digress. around here, i suppose a 50 equates to nothing at all. the zero score. the hello status quo. i didn't love it. i didn't hate it. apathy. not even exciting enough to be boring, which i save for like a 60 or something. anything less than a 50 is mildy annoying to disdainful on some level, i suppose. anything above a 50 is pleasantly charming to outright fanatically stimulating. i'm pretty inconsistent with my scores though. it's slightly maddening.