How do you quantify good?

[RoundTheBend]

My lists are kinda a mess... most of them really aren't in order. I know I like an album, but having a really hard time quantifying if I like an album better than another. I've thought of point systems etc., but do you also find it really hard to quantify "good" or if you like something, how much do you like something?

I usually have a rating of I hate, It's ok, and I love. Something like this works for songs for me: 85-100 if I love it, 60 to 85 if it's ok and if I dislike, but seem some merit anywhere between 10 and 60. If it's absolutely terrible I'll give it a zero.

For the album, it's fair, I think, to then average those and give the average as overall score, give or take what my warm and fuzzies are.

What do you use to quantify the subjective? What ranges do you use?

[mickilennial]

At one point I tried to balance subjective (how much I like something, how interesting it was, etc.) and objective (innovation, impact, influence, etc.) — but I found balancing such things very meticulous and excessive. Currently I use an “absolute” subjective system where I gauge on levels of like and dislike. Sometimes I like something tired and generic, and other times I dislike something cutting edge (though I try to see what the appeal of a record is) and “fresh”. Satie has been with me through a majority of my rating systems and I imagine his favorite was probably when I was more nuanced but perhaps I’ve found a good balance instead of a like/dislike system (only 2 ratings) that I had half-a-decade ago where it was in my opinion probably the most infantile ones I’ve tried to go for.

[Applerill]

FIRST COMMANDMENT
There’s no such thing as "good" and "bad" art, only "good" and "bad" interpretations of art. Almost every work of art has its own layer of beauty hidden inside, even if I don't recognize it at the time.

Even if you don't believe in my "neoliberal feel-goodery", though, it's hard to deny that, apart from suggesting the popular reception, "good" and "bad" don't even mean anything when describing art. They're quantitative descriptors instead of qualitative ones, and therefore using them assumes that all art should be evaluated by the same metric.

Of course, one similar way you could look at art is like a car, determining how well it gets to the creator's destination. And in that regard you can often measure polish in how smoothly it succeeds. But what if you discover that a car going one place poorly works great driving somewhere else? This is where that wonderful term "intentional fallacy" comes in, and explains why I could consider I'm Not a Fan But the Kids Like It! and The Room as masterpieces of outsider art even as they fail so horribly in entertainment.

Anyway, if the reason you want to define "good" so bad is so you can put stuff on your chart, then just post the stuff that has moved you the most. If a "flaw" doesn't stop you from adoring an album, then it doesn't matter period (unless it involves something morally problematic, but it takes your own heart to judge that for yourself).

[Satie]

I grade on a "true" ten-point system where 6/10 is still marginally positive and 5/10 is only marginally negative (there's no 0) as far as my quantitative metrics go. As far as what goes into these ratings, I weigh music overwhelmingly on just how it sounds to my ears. My ears have heard a lot of music and are "naturally" fatigued by things they've heard before (in the rhetorical sense of "been there done that," not being tin-eared to releases I've tried before). This tends to create the illusion that I have some kind of exaggerated weight that I give to so-called "objective" factors, though the only one I would fess up to directly incorporating into my weighing approach, and accidentally at that, is innovation. Being chronologically the first to do something doesn't really impress me just because, but I take music history seriously, so I tend to be wowed by pioneers when I try new genres and have found that pioneers in genres where I've heard derivatives first to hook me have tended to overtake those who accepted their influence. I think this is more a trend than a criterion of excellence that I actively participate in, but we're all bad at self-evaluation, so what do I know?

So, in short, I grade almost fully "subjectively," though I do think that interesting elements for musical criticism as far as my longer-form writing on these subjective opinions include music history, innovations either within music in general or within a particular genre or scene, and a small degree of zeitgeist assessment. I see my scale as non-scientific and non-transferable to others' ears but very internally consistent.

[Tap]

i usually just take an intimate measurement while listening, if you know what I mean. "what's he doing taking that ruler into the bathroom?" grading music.

[RoundTheBend]

And for chart ranking? I mean is it a numbers thing or equally subjective? Do you think you'd possibly surprise yourself if you did a numbers system?

Part of why I'm writing this is because I'm attempting to order my charts a little better and each time I visit them I think, well actually I like this album more than this album... why is this album even in my top 10? Then I look at it again 3 months later and think, what the hell was I thinking.

I mean I realize we are dealing with the subjective, and we will grow/change whatever it may be and our "self" is never constant... it's super frustrating to me. There's a part of me that wants to spend the time to really find out what I really value and quantify that, and there's a part of me that says, eh, what's the point because six months from now it'll change anyways.

Maybe I shouldn't even look at the charts as anything that ever is finalized, not even in the moment you think it is and should look at it as 1) an experience and 2) a general idea of where my tastes are at (for example I could see myself at any given moment move any album in my top 10 to my top 20, but pretty rare I'd move it to my bottom 90).

I realize it is obvious things will change over time and I shouldn't expect any chart to stay the same as new music is released or obscure finds may knock a few "oldie but goodies" down a notch or two.

But I do find it frustrating that sometimes I think Elvis' debut is amazing and therefore deserves a spot in the top 5 of my 50s list and then other times I think well, actually this this and this album are much better, maybe it doesn't even make the top 5.

[Pentagonal]

To be honest, I pretty much hate ranking/rating records. In that Bowie thread, there are probably 10+ of his records that I could convince myself are his best depending on setting or mood.

The chart I have now is just a hodgepodge of stuff I've been really into lately. I don't think you should feel obligated to have a definite order to your chart unless you really feel that there is one.

[meccalecca]

[Decurso]

I rank albums in relation to each other and I exclusively go on my gut feeling. So for example, Album A and Album B are both albums I enjoy a lot and I want to include them both on a chart. I just kind of instinctively know which one I would put over the other. Then on to album C and so on.

It's not exactly scientific, but the end result is that my charts provide a very accurate reflection of my tastes. So...it works for me.
_________________
100 Punk Favourites

Live Albums

Death Metal

[CA Dreamin]

Seth, you could use a simple number system where you give every song on an album on rating of 1 to 10, then add up all the song ratings, then divide that number by the number of songs. Do that with every album, and rank them accordingly (time-consuming, right?). There are issues with this. It favors albums with fewer tracks because albums with more tracks are more likely to have filler. You can do more math to account for that. But honestly, I don't believe you can 'quantify good' when it comes to art. I believe you can use math to 'approximate good.' But beyond that, you should consider what numbers can't solve...such as album consistency, how well it flows, how often you listen, whether or not it's innovative, creativity/versatility of tracks, etc. It's not an exact science which is why I hate ranking albums in a specific order. It's the one thing about this site I dislike. I wish we had the options with our lists to either make every album worth the same, or organize them in groups of 10 where 1-10 are all worth the same, 11-20 all worth the same, and so on. Wouldn't that be nice?