Best Ever Albums

Re: Rating Albums

Boogn1sh — Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:23:19 GMT

Author: Boogn1sh

Posted: 11/02/2009 20:23

I feel like some of these systems that you all have devised are a bit too analytical, you might be missing the point of a lot of great albums if for instance you rate every individual song on an album then take the average. Some albums are great for reasons that you can't pin down, but the effect of the album as a whole is so specific and so successful at what the artist was trying to achieve that you can't help but deny they have succeeded. Averages do not take into account the effect of an album as a whole, which is the context I think they should be judged on. .

If your rating individual songs you're rating on album on whether or not it is a singles album, as opposed to as an entity onto itself. When you start rating the individual songs of an album it becomes more consumer reports style, are you looking for a great album, or a great value proposition?

You don't see people rating paintings out of 10 (god I hope no one is), and its because people have gotten past the need to assign a value judgment and would rather have an intelligent discussion about different aspects of the work apart from "how perfect/not it is"

I'm not a huge fan of rating systems in general, my enjoyment of an album is too personal and subjective to assume someone else will relate and react to it the same way I will. Not because I'm special in any way, but because I recognize that we all hear things differently, so someone telling me "this is a 100 out of 100" doesn't mean much to me. I would MUCH rather read someones reaction to an album that has no score out of anything at the end. An album is not a toaster, it has value beyond whether or not the individual components work or not.

PS Rembrandt's "Christ in the Storm on the Sea of Galililee" 10/10

Re: Rating Albums

RFNAPLES — Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:34:20 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 11/01/2009 17:34

Here are some Allmusic 5 star albums released in the 2000s:

Eminem-The Marshall Mathers LP
Jay-Z-The Blueprint
OutKast-Stankonia
The Strokes-Is This It
The White Stripes-Elephant

Re: Rating Albums

RFNAPLES — Sun, 1 Nov 2009 09:59:35 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 11/01/2009 14:59

Still is!

Re: Rating Albums

SamTheMan — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:37:46 GMT

Author: SamTheMan

Posted: 11/01/2009 00:37

is this it by the strokes was 5 stars last time i checked...

Re: Rating Albums

Norman Bates — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:35:04 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 09/15/2009 15:35

Quote:

What you are saying is that basically my method is better than yours

.
.
Exactly 😄

Re: Rating Albums

Richie Hunt — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:48:46 GMT

Author: Richie Hunt

Posted: 09/15/2009 13:48

Oh, oops, ok now i see what you are saying Norman. I dont know what i was thinking before, silly me. What you are saying is that basically my method is better than yours. I totally agree with you.

Re: Rating Albums

Norman Bates — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:07:08 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 09/14/2009 14:07

Quote:

But the latter gives you twice as many great songs, twice as much to enjoy.

I got as much. But does that imply that a "perfect" 14-songs album is better than a "perfect" 10-songs one ? Not to me. They're both "perfect".

Re: Rating Albums

joannajewsom — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:23:47 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 09/14/2009 11:23

Norman Bates wrote:

Quote:

averages do not take into account that one album which has 8 great songs in a list of 10 gets the same score as an album with 16 great songs out of 20. Surely the album with 16 great songs is superior?

I don't see why.

I think I see what he's saying. By your proportional system, they are equal, right? But the latter gives you twice as many great songs, twice as much to enjoy. Unless I misunderstand your system.

Re: Rating Albums

Norman Bates — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:37:37 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 09/14/2009 08:37

Quote:

I don't see why.

Re: Rating Albums

maxperenchio — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:15:45 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 09/13/2009 23:15

Right- allmusic doesnt rate too many 2000 albums as 5 star, but keep in mind that will probably change as time goes on. They always reevaluate older albums. "Siamese Dream" for instance was a 4.5 for a long time, and was recently bumped up to a 5. I'm sure it will do the same for 2000 albums if they remain relevant. [/quote]

Re: Rating Albums

CellarDoor — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:59:43 GMT

Author: CellarDoor

Posted: 09/13/2009 12:59

1) I rate the albums in their genre.

2) I will more likely deliver the "perfect-100/100-album" to a well-crafted concept album.
"Electro-Shock Blues" isn't "Revolver", but it's a perfect album in it's conception. Same for "69 Love Songs". If I rated each song individually, I don't think I would get to 100, but the overall album is a song-writing tour de force.

3) Allmusic have been harsh with 2000s albums, but I understand that giving the 5/5 is difficult. As good as many of the albums are, none have contributed in anyway to a radical change in music style, like some albums of the 90s did.

Re: Rating Albums

Richie Hunt — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:56:44 GMT

Author: Richie Hunt

Posted: 09/13/2009 03:56

Norman Bates wrote:

Quote:

I compare the number of great songs in an album to the total number of songs. Any album featuring only great songs will get a 5 I guess (say Portishead's "Dummy" for example), which doesn't happen so often. And from there, it's downhill starwise as the proportion of songs I don't particularly enjoy goes up.

I dont agree with that method, because averages do not take into account that one album which has 8 great songs in a list of 10 gets the same score as an album with 16 great songs out of 20. Surely the album with 16 great songs is superior?

I dont think an album should be punished for having a few filler tracks as long as there is plenty of good stuff on that album - thats where averages fall down.

theharrisonfords wrote:

Quote:

In response to Hunt's input, I couldn't rate an album using that criteria. When I think of good songs in relation to the entire album, I think of the dilemma with the White Album. I think it would be safe to say that some of the tracks on the White Album are among some of the Beatles finest work, but there are some tracks that ruin it for me (glass onion, the 'pie' songs...), and it just cannot be justified to appoint it a top album. There are some exceptions, but if you are skipping through seven tracks just to listen to ten great ones, something is wrong there. Essential album? Sure. Greatest of all time? Hardly. But convincing you is not my objective, and I digress.

Yea my method of rating isnt perfect, but i'm pretty happy with the outcome. And its strange that the average of my ratings differ by only ~1.5/100 to RYM ratings - not that that rating is the be all and end all but its a pretty good benchmark (RYM is out of 5 but if you times that by 20 you get a comparable score out of 100).

With the White Album, if you consider bad tracks to devalue the album you could deduct some sort of score from the rating for each poor track - i'd chose not to because i think only good tracks should impact a rating, filler is irrelevant, the band didnt have to put the tracks on there in the first place.

Re: Rating Albums

maxxy — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:52:10 GMT

Author: maxxy

Posted: 09/13/2009 01:52

joannanewsom wrote:

I have seen a few cases where allmusic underrates some really great stuff, but I think they are far more guilty of overrating things (Paris Hilton got 4.5). They give out five stars like nobody's business to a lot of older stuff-- haven't seen any 2000s albums get 5 stars

You're right...I saw they gave fall out boy a 4.5. Allmusic's pretty reliable, though, and its also good for finding other stuff similar to stuff you like.
Is this it and Marshall Mathers LP got 5 stars, and I think there were a few electronic albums that did in the 2000s, but you have a good point. Everything good this decade gets 4.5
And I beg to differ that Funeral is nowhere near as good as Exile on Main St., IMO its better.

In by book there are a lot of albums that deserve 5 stars, but less than 20 that I consider near "perfect" in terms of musical composition, enjoyability, etc.

Re: Rating Albums

Anonymous — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:58:22 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/13/2009 00:58

joannajewsom wrote:

They give out five stars like nobody's business to a lot of older stuff-- haven't seen any 2000s albums get 5 stars.

Well, there's nothing to be given 5-stars in the 2000s, in my opinion. There are contradictions in the ratings, however.

Re: Rating Albums

Norman Bates — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:27:34 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 09/10/2009 14:27

I'm not sure this is going to help in any way, it's pretty straightforward. I don't rate all the songs from each album I listen to - too long really. I compare the number of great songs in an album to the total number of songs. Any album featuring only great songs will get a 5 I guess (say Portishead's "Dummy" for example), which doesn't happen so often. And from there, it's downhill starwise as the proportion of songs I don't particularly enjoy goes up. Which means I try not to pay attention to who wrote the record (some weaker Dylan lps might very well be worth a 1 or 2 on my account, say "Under the red sky" for instance), but it might unconsciously influence my judgment (although I'm not quite sure in which way. Do I underrate an average Lou Reed on the grounds that it's really weak for Lou Reed, or do I overestimate it because it's still Lou Reed?.. complicated).

Re: Rating Albums

joannajewsom — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:31:51 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 09/10/2009 05:31

All interesting stuff here from everyone. I like the distinction you make, max, between the beautiful and the sublime. I judge an album as a whole rather than by individual tracks, because I think an album should be a cohesive unit with some kind of slope or progression. There are a lot of songs that work perfectly only in the context of the album, but wouldn't really stand up on their own-- how do you rate something like "On the Run" from Dark Side of the Moon, for example? I reserve my 5 star ratings for those albums that I think are perfect and sublime. On my RYM, I have about 90 albums with 5 star ratings out of 700+ ratings. I don't think that's too generous.

Haha. I don't think you're insane for giving a 4.5 to a perfect album. I gave Madonna's debut 4 stars because I think it's a perfect dance-pop album, but it's just dance-pop, severely lacking in emotional resonance and depth, and far from sublime. But it's perfect, I think, for what it's supposed to be.

I have seen a few cases where allmusic underrates some really great stuff, but I think they are far more guilty of overrating things (Paris Hilton got 4.5). They give out five stars like nobody's business to a lot of older stuff-- haven't seen any 2000s albums get 5 stars.

I've read George Starostin's website and it gave me a headache. His whole "class" system is a little too out there for me.

Re: Rating Albums

Elston — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:25:53 GMT

Author: Elston

Posted: 09/10/2009 05:25

I don't get why Sarostin awards points to an album simply because of who made it. So that even if Bob Dylan makes a horrible record, it still gets a decent rating because i mean come on, it's Bob Dylan.

As the for the beautiful and the sublime, which is a cool concept btw, I guess the miracles of art are the one's that accomplish both. Art that is very beautiful in an aesthetic sense doesn't necessarily stimulate deep thoughts or emotions in the viewer. Beauty vs. sublime is like a distinction between technique vs. expansion of form. In other words, how gifted is the artist and do they have something interesting to express? I'd say something like Hieronymus Bosch does a fine job of straddling that line.

Re: Rating Albums

maxperenchio — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:25:28 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 09/10/2009 04:25

I guess I have some unexplainable mental distinction between "perfect" albums and "five star" albums. I give out the title of "five star" fairly frequently, not all of which are "perfect" - and I think there might even be an example of a perfect album that I wouldn't even call "five star"

Not to get philosophical, but it reminds me of the classical aesthetic distinction between the beautiful and the sublime. The beautiful is something that is more or less perfect, symmetrical, sensible, and consistently whole. (Pet Sounds?) The sublime is a majestic force that may seem fragmented or even seemingly imperfect , but has a spiritual quality that exceeds human comprehension. (The White Album??)

I think an album like Arcade Fire's Funeral is more or less a perfect album in terms of cinematic sequencing, tastefulness, length, but is nowhere near as good as Exile on Mainstreet which has a few songs that could have been left off. So I'd probably give Funeral 4.5 stars, but still call it perfect? I am literally insane though keep in mind.

Either way I tend to overrate more so than underrate (like allmusic!) and even occasionally take into mind historical importance over strictly the music on an album (like allmusic!). At the end of the day though I don't like to be rigidly taxonomic with my tastes, probably because I can never totally agree on a consistent system to judge.

Which brings me to my last point, anyone ever read George Starostin's music page Only Solitare? I don't agree with 100% of it, but he has quite the sturdy numeric system - and its hella comprehensive to boot. Probably only superseded by Stephen Thomas Erlewine on Allmusic.com. Check it out, let me know what you think.

Re: Rating Albums

maxxy — Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:10:16 GMT

Author: maxxy

Posted: 09/10/2009 01:10

Velvet Underground and Nico and Wish You Were Here are perfect albums, IMO. London Calling Comes close, but its a little too long

Re: Rating Albums

telefunker — Wed, 9 Sep 2009 05:01:46 GMT

Author: telefunker

Posted: 09/09/2009 09:01

i've given about 10 perfect ratings on this site.. although i don't believe any of them are perfect..

pet sounds is the closest thing to perfection in my estimation.. but it tshould have included 'good vibrations' as the loved up centre peice.. probably just before "let's go away for a while"

thriller is pretty much perfect except that it doesn't contain my favourite mj songs

nevermind doesn't contain 12 "smells like teen spirits" ..i mean, it's awesome.. but "lounge act" and "stay away" are, for me, not up to scratch with the rest of the record

..and now hopefully you'll see how my seemingly harsh criticism of other albums is actually relative 😜