My Criteria For Art

[AfterHours]

@Seth

If you read and understand what I mean in this previous reply:

"The numerical rating is simply an expression of to what degree and consistency the above formula has been accomplished in the work. It is an assigned value of the sum of its parts, in relation to the sum value of a 10/10. It is very meticulously worked out, completely aligned from top to bottom. In this regard it is mathematical. In regards to the combinations described (such as 7.7 followed by 7.8 equaling the experience of an 8.8, and so on) it is also mathematical in that the numbers are representative of "consistency and degrees of quality across time/space" and that a combination of this on the level of a 7.7, followed by this on the level of a 7.8 will amount to the experience of an 8.8 (and so on for the rest of the equations). It is not describing averages. It is describing accumulations or sums of parts arriving at a given total when combined, which is actually commensurate to how art works on a qualitative level (paintings are accumulations of brush strokes, figures and so forth across space; music pieces/compositions are accumulations of notes, vocalizations and so forth across time... films are accumulations of actions/dialogue/visuals by scenes that are shot and sequenced, which compiled, amount to a movie ... and so on)."

...followed by my most recent post on the matter (re: The Doors), it should all make sense, either answering your queries or rendering them obselete.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

[boyd94]

Perhaps being on the outside I see the simplicity of the logic in a fresh way, or maybe I'm just mistaken, but if you simply work back from the Sistine Chapel as the benchmark it falls into place.

If the Sistine Chapel adds up to 18.0, then 18.0 is good as it gets. 18.0 = The Pinnacle, or Perfection (in a manner of speaking). Converted to a score out of 10, Perfection must surely be 10/10, and so proceed in descending order.

[AfterHours]

[AfterHours]

RE: Criteria -- numerical values and combinations that one can combine to calculate the ratings "by halves" (see ratings description section of my criteria page) ... This is to anyone interested: during my most recent revisits of albums throughout my Rock/Jazz list, it is looking increasingly likely that my currently listed numbers are slightly off. I will make another note in this log if and when I decide to revise them (or if I change my mind, and don't), but right now I'd say it looks likely that they are off by 0.2 (too high). So, if it says "14.5", it should probably be "14.3" ... and so on throughout.

@ seth ... I haven't forgot about going more in-depth about the merits of The Doors/VU & Nico ... I am mid re-eval'ing Rock selections across all echelons of my list -- though I've been extra busy with all-other-things-life recently -- but will sooner or later find some time to sit down and produce some explanation that may satisfy your curiosity (if you're still curious)
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

[RoundTheBend]

[DelBocaVista]

Here's an alternative way to do it, inspired by Scaruffi....

Scaruffi rates artists' album careers exponentially. A 7 is worth 1 "point", an 8 is worth 10 points, and a 9 is worth 100 points. So it's 10^(Score - 7). Let's assume album components are a microcosm of this. *I don't think he thinks that way, but I think it would be a good way to do it...

Suppose you had an album whose two halves were both good enough to be worth a 7-scoring full album just on their own. That would mean the album contains two "7's" or two "1-point albums" in it. It's worth 2 points, exactly the same as some theoretical "unbreakable" whole album that gets a 7.3: 10^(7.3-7) = 2 too. That means that 7.0+7.0=7.3, outside of considerations of cumulative effect.

With the two sides of the Doors being 7.9, they both get a 7.94 (10^(7.9-7)), meaning 15.88 points, which backs out to an 8.2 (10^(8.2-7)=15.88 too), plus extra for stuff like conceptual unity between halves or whatever.


*Consider what Scaruffi said about Ummagumma making 7.5 from a 7+8

[AfterHours]

That's an interesting way to think with it. I think we've discussed this before, but I definitely don't think he means those to be taken literally, as mathematical, qualitative formulas for individual albums. It just doesn't work out in practice very well, if at all (imo, when figuring out his ratings/rankings and/or my own).

I think it's just a general way to give one the gist of the artists' accomplishments. A 9 is approximately 10 times more rare than an 8, and an 8 approximately 10 times more rare than a 7 ... something like that. So when ranking an artist's career it is a pretty good guide to go by (though I bet he would admit it is probably overly simple and just hasn't bothered putting anything else together).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

[DelBocaVista]

Yeah maybe it's just simplified or symbolic, but I like the idea anyway. #Geigercounter

[DelBocaVista]

Here's where he seems to take the idea more seriously: https://www.scaruffi.com/ratings/all.html

[AfterHours]