My Criteria For Art - Music Diaries - Forums : Best Ever Albums

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

Rhyner wrote:

To answer that question, go back to your initial motivation for making the list in the first place. The purpose of the challenge ratings, per my understanding, is to provide others a more streamlined/efficient route into the great works of a given medium. Which option aids that purpose best? (assuming that is in fact the purpose)

I don't know what's best, but here's a thought to chew on. What if you have multiple entries for works with multiple ratings? For instance, in the section for works rated 2, you might have this entry:

Sistine Chapel (Ceiling & The Last Judgment) - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1512; 1541) [first introduction]

And then, further down the list in the 10s:

Sistine Chapel (Ceiling & The Last Judgment) - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1512; 1541) [full appreciation]

Or something like that?

Thank you for spotting this. You're right. This might seem odd at first, but thinking back over this you've reminded me too, despite the solution presented, why I always decide to not do it that way. And its s
because the second "depth" rating would simply end up a repeat (or close) of my "Greatest of All Time" lists whether music, movies or paintings. For this reason I used to (different site) have a note with the challenge ratings list that said something on the order of: "how these are ratings based on how easy or challenging the work will be for most to get well acclimated to. Or, in other words: a close estimate of how foreign this work is to most listeners expressively and structurally/compositionally. For how profound or how much depth a work is with its respective expressive language, one can closely predict this by qualitative rating."
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

homelessking

Didn't realize you updated the challenge ratings and added the jazz ones until just now. I find the old ratings to be a lot more agreeable tho :^) Btw I think you mistakenly replaced the depth ratings with your 7.3-7.7 ratings

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

homelessking wrote:

Didn't realize you updated the challenge ratings and added the jazz ones until just now. I find the old ratings to be a lot more agreeable tho :^) Btw I think you mistakenly replaced the depth ratings with your 7.3-7.7 ratings

Yes, Ive been chipping away at it recently. Still tweaking the ratings/placements. Havent mentioned it because its still very much a rough draft and subject to plenty of change. What remains of the "7.3-7.7" list copied below it is intentional and simply showing what still needs to be added to the "challenge" list.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

homelessking

I see

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

AfterHours wrote:

RATINGS

The differences in rating and ranking are determined by a carefully observed attempt at evaluating the degree and consistency of expressed emotional or conceptual engagement and the creativity thereof while listening to or viewing the work. During this process, I observe and consider in real-time the various emotions and concepts expressed, to what degree and consistency of engagement they are being expressed, plus how creative and singular these expressions are. The effect and impact the work has is a direct result of this and is represented by its rating. The stability or permanence of the effect or impact the work has directly correlates to (a) how well those factors have been observed and assimilated; (b) to what distinction the work has expressed those factors relative to the works of its medium or the whole of Art, potentially modified by how well one is able to recognize that relative distinction. This is probably axiomatic or close (for anyone, whether aware of it or not) but I'll stop short of declaring it as such.

Note to self ---------->>>>> "Objective/Subjective" point here??? <<<<<----------

As I am progressing through the work I am tracking this and actively determining its rating upon arriving at distinct junctures (such as at the halfway point through the album, film, painting, etc) and then a full rating when finished. Making determinations at distinct junctures as one goes can help one track the rating by parts and can help arrive at an overall conclusion more easily than trying to account for all of its content at once. In determining the rating, I tend to compare the work to others of a similar genre or expressive type and also a similar emotional arc or of similar consistency or momentum of quality (where among the whole its quality is sustained, where it maintains qualitative "peaks and valleys"). In doing so I will usually try and find two or more works to compare it to, one (or more) lower than it, and one (or more) higher than it and then place it between these, before working it into a precise placement by comparing it (by qualitative consistency/degree) to the other works immediately surrounding it. This sort of meticulous method can be very helpful in getting the rating and ranking precise as it lines it up to works that are already familiar and with enough similarities to draw a qualitative comparison.

Experiences do tend to differentiate -- even if slightly -- from one to the next, so a resulting evaluation marks an attempt to determine as precisely as possible the highest rating that the work very consistently sustains. Therefore, I will tend to revisit a work several times (particularly in the higher ratings) before I really settle in to a more permanent rating and ranking for it. Of course, even after that, these are subject to change, but usually I can sooner or later come to terms with a very close estimation of its sustained value within my criteria and in relation to other works of art. After that, there may still be variances with that work, from one experience to the next, but in most cases they are so minute that the rating usually doesn't change much, if at all.

As each rating can be seen to represent an accumulation in quality, one will find that smaller portions of the work will tend to have a lesser accumulation of quality (thus lower ratings) than the whole. This is easy to prove to oneself if for some reason you doubt its veracity. Just play your favorite song and stop it mid-way through. You will invariably find, unless the song is very unevenly 'front-loaded' or 'back-loaded', that your own experience of its overall quality, will certainly be less by the half-way point than as a whole. The same applies to whole albums, films, paintings, etc. Quality here basically means the same as what I've stated above: ACCUMULATION OF THE DEGREE AND CONSISTENCY OF EXPRESSED EMOTIONAL ENGAGEMENT, EXPRESSED CONCEPTUAL ENGAGEMENT, AND EXPRESSED CREATIVITY, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR SPACE OF THE WORK OF ART.

Below this section, you will find my Ratings Scale laid out from the bottom to the top, including basic formulas at all points that can assist one in working out the ratings and comparing them to all others. A rating and ranking is rather meaningless to the degree it is not comparable to an established ideal and an accompanying scale of lowest, intermediate and highest quality. The better such a scale is defined and worked out, the more defined and meaningful the accompanying ratings and rankings are likely to be. 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. These very minor inconsistencies will only be important to those looking for extreme exactitude, but otherwise are hardly worth addressing here.

What I've provided here is a method that might be called "rating by halves" or "rating by combined halves". These are not the only formulas or even the best or most exacting possible formulas. They are simply, for most, not too difficult to think with and apply, and will also serve to familiarize oneself simultaneously with the whole scale and the differences between the various lower, intermediate and higher ratings. This method does seem to fall short on rare occasions when a work is disparate enough from one part or half to the next to mitigate its emotional, conceptual and creative development. This can cause the combination of parts or halves for that particular work to not add up to the expected combined overall rating, and will instead add up to something "lesser than its individual parts" (because the parts are not aligned enough to accumulate at the same rate as in the expected combinations). But these are few and far between. The vast majority of albums feature content that is aligned enough to where this won't be an issue. At some point I will likely introduce another side to the scale which is rating entirely "by qualitative pace, per unit of time", such as per song/track (for an album) and averaging them out to determine the overall score. And this will give another angle to the ratings that one can use (and still arrive at the same overall scores), but I still need to carve out the time to work this out in full. This may shore up many or all of the inconsistencies that occasionally arise from ratings by halves. That said, ratings by halves will prove accurate (and simpler to apply) with probably over 95% of all works.

As an example of how this method works, let's take a work that I rate very highly and that is also very well known, such as The Doors' debut album.

I rate this album 9.2/10 as a whole. It is essential to know that this 9.2/10 represents an accumulation of quality, meaning that all the songs on the Doors' debut combine by the end to produce that level of quality. If you took one of the songs away, the rating would drop. If you added a 12th song to the album, the rating might rise if the song continued a high enough qualitative pace to maintain or increase its emotional, conceptual and creative momentum and development.

If you look at the Ratings Scale where 9.2/10 is listed, you will see:

9.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.6 or 15.7. Examples: 7.8/10 + 7.8/10; 8.3/10 + 7.4/10

Those totals for combined halves only serve to illustrate what the ratings of each half of the work would need to amount to in order to produce the requisite accumulation needed for a 9.2/10. So, "15.6" or "15.7" can be used to see the variety of combinations that would amount to this. So long as it adds up to "15.6" or 15.7" it will work for any such combination. It could be where the first half of the album is a 9.0 and the second half is a 6.6 (9 + 6.6 = 15.6). It could be the first half is 7.5 and 2nd half is 8.1 or 8.2 (7.5 + 8.1 = 15.6; 7.5 + 8.2 = 15.7). Any two-valued combination that amounts to 15.6 or 15.7 will amount to the accumulation of quality needed for an overall rating of 9.2/10.

In the case of The Doors, both halves equal "15.6" and each rate 7.8/10 on their own. This means that The Doors' first half: Break on Through (To The Other Side) + Soul Kitchen + The Crystal Ship + Twentieth Century Fox + Alabama Song + Light My Fire -- all accumulated, combined -- totals a 7.8/10 and should by itself, match the qualitative experience of any other 7.8/10.

Similarly, The Doors' second half: Back Door Man + I Looked at You + End of the Night + Take It as It Comes + The End -- all accumulated, combined -- totals a 7.8/10 and should, by itself, match the qualitative experience of any other 7.8/10.

When one combines all of this accumulated quality into a single whole -- both sides together -- one has the experience of a 9.2/10, which is double that of a 7.8 (or in the case of the higher 9.2's, as represented by "15.7", it would require slightly more than that, such as 7.8 + 7.9).

These 'formulas' or 'equations' have been worked out for two-halved combinations at every echelon of the Ratings Scale. This is why they can be so helpful in verifying the ratings, because they illustrate how each overall rating can be broken down to smaller ratings and what it takes to accomplish them. Thus, this also means that all ratings are very logically aligned to each of the others; the differential between them being very precisely worked out to align at each rating. And one can use these in a myriad of other judgments along the entire scale, thus assessing these can greatly increase one's familiarity with the ratings and incremental differences at every point so that one's own determinations become very reliable in relation to all the others. This is particularly useful in assisting one in verifying the often minute differences in ratings that are very close qualitatively (like an 8.8 compared to an 8.9, etc) which can be more difficult to assess the differential mentally without breaking it down into halves or distinct junctures to help one work it out.

This can be further verified by testing lower-rated works in relation to the halves that match them in rating, and vice versa. You will likely find (on those you agree with at least) that the accumulation of quality will be the same or very close in those parallel examples. By this I mean that you can take any rating and one will find that the halves match up qualitatively to their respective lesser ratings with the works that share those lower ratings.

(...)

5.0 - HISTORICALLY MEDIOCRE / CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED BUT SOMEWHAT SUPERFICIAL, UNREMARKABLE EXPRESSIVE CONTENT AND/OR A CONFUSED OR UNDER-DEVELOPED ARTISTIC PURPOSE

4.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.1. Example: 3.6/10 + 3.5/10
4.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.2. Example: 3.6/10 + 3.6/10
5.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.3. Example: 3.7/10 + 3.6/10
5.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.4 or 7.5. Examples: 3.7/10 + 3.7/10; 4.0/10 + 3.5/10
5.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.6 or 7.7. Examples: 3.8/10 + 3.8/10; 4.0/10 + 3.7/10

5.5 - ABOVE AVERAGE HISTORICALLY / CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED WITH A MILD AND PALPABLE TRANSCENDENCE (OF A LOW ORDER HISTORICALLY), BUT SOMEWHAT SUPERFICIAL, GENERALLY UNREMARKABLE EXPRESSIVE CONTENT AND/OR A CONFUSED OR UNDER-DEVELOPED ARTISTIC PURPOSE

5.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 7.8 or 7.9. Examples: 3.9/10 + 3.9/10; 4.3/10 + 3.6/10
5.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 8.0 or 8.1. Examples: 4.0/10 + 4.0/10; 4.3/10 + 3.8/10
5.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 8.2 or 8.3. Examples: 4.1/10 + 4.1/10; 4.5/10 + 3.8/10
5.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 8.4 or 8.5. Examples: 4.2/10 + 4.2/10; 4.5/10 + 4.0/10
5.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 8.6 or 8.7. Examples: 4.3/10 + 4.3/10; 4.8/10 + 3.9/10

6.0 - GOOD OR BORDERLINE EXCELLENT / CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED WITH A PALPABLE, IF INCONSISTENT, TRANSCENDENCE (OF A LOW ORDER HISTORICALLY) WITH CONTENT THAT IS MIXED BETWEEN COMPELLING AND UNREMARKABLE ...

5.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 8.8 or 8.9. Examples: 4.4/10 + 4.4/10; 4.8/10 + 4.1/10
5.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 9.0 or 9.1. Examples: 4.5/10 + 4.5/10; 5.0/10 + 4.1/10
6.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 9.2 or 9.3. Examples: 4.6/10 + 4.6/10; 5.3/10 + 4.0/10
6.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 9.4 or 9.5. Examples: 4.7/10 + 4.7/10; 5.3/10 + 4.2/10
6.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 9.6 or 9.7. Examples: 4.8/10 + 4.8/10; 5.3/10 + 4.4/10

6.5 - EXCELLENT OR BORDERLINE SUPERB / CONSISTENLY ENGAGED AND ITS EXPRESSIVE CONTENT WILL ACHIEVE A PALPABLE TRANSCENDENCE, THOUGH IT WILL TEND TO ALLUDE TO TRULY REMARKABLE EXAMPLES AS OPPOSED TO WHOLLY OR ACTUALLY BEING ONE OF THEM

6.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 9.8 or 9.9. Examples: 4.9/10 + 4.9/10; 5.5/10 + 4.4/10
6.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 10.0 or 10.1. Examples: 5.0/10 + 5.0/10; 5.5/10 + 4.6/10
6.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 10.2 or 10.3. Examples: 5.1/10 + 5.1/10; 5.5/10 + 4.8/10
6.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 10.4 or 10.5. Examples: 5.2/10 + 5.2/10; 5.8/10 + 4.7/10
6.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 10.6 or 10.7. Examples: 5.3/10 + 5.3/10; 5.8/10 + 4.9/10

7.0 – SUPERB OR BORDERLINE EXTRAORDINARY / CONSISTENTLY ENGAGED AND RATHER TRANSCENDENT, BUT FALLS SHORT OF A TRULY VISIONARY, SPECIAL OR AUDACIOUS WORK OVERALL

6.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 10.8 or 10.9. Examples: 5.4/10 + 5.4/10; 5.8/10 + 5.1/10
6.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 11.0 or 11.1. Examples: 5.5/10 + 5.5/10; 6.0/10 + 5.1/10
7.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 11.2 or 11.3. Examples: 5.6/10 + 5.6/10; 6.3/10 + 5.0/10
7.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 11.4 or 11.5. Examples: 5.7/10 + 5.7/10; 6.3/10 + 5.2/10
7.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 11.6 or 11.7. Examples: 5.8/10 + 5.8/10; 6.3/10 + 5.4/10

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

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

7.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 11.8 or 11.9. Examples: 5.9/10 + 5.9/10; 6.8/10 + 5.1/10
7.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 12.0 or 12.1. Examples: 6.0/10 + 6.0/10; 7.0/10 + 5.1/10
7.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 12.2 or 12.3. Examples: 6.1/10 + 6.1/10; 7.0/10 + 5.3/10
7.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 12.4 or 12.5. Examples: 6.2/10 + 6.2/10; 7.0/10 + 5.5/10
7.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 12.6 or 12.7. Examples: 6.3/10 + 6.3/10; 7.0/10 + 5.7/10

etc.

Well, the first half of my record is out, so..... Razz

_________________
My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1

My music:
- www.hyperfollow.com/dommedamian
Spotify: ----------------------------------------------------↓

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

DommeDamian wrote:

Well, the first half of my record is out, so..... Razz

Nice! What genre? Is there anything you would compare it to?

Warning: Don't ask me to rate it unless you are truly fearless and are prepared to not hold it against me personally if I rate it lower than you want/expect Shame on you

_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

AfterHours wrote:

DommeDamian wrote:

Well, the first half of my record is out, so..... Razz

Nice! What genre? Is there anything you would compare it to?

Warning: Don't ask me to rate it unless you are truly fearless and are prepared to not hold it against me personally if I rate it lower than you want/expect Shame on you

I try to be a little varied, but it's mostly different subgenres of rap.
I would not compare it to anything yet, 'cause I'm not on that level.

And thirdly, I consider your opinion and viewpoints insightful, and if I want to create an album that gets a pretty high score from you (or Scaruffi for that matter) one day, Imma have to push my fear away for getting a low score. Only in hopes to improve artistically with each project and become a great one. If anything, I would be very surprised if you rated it high Anxious

. Though I'm confident that it's better than that Mark Wahlberg album Laughing

Here is a link:

https://soundcloud.com/18114/sets/haze-side-a
_________________
My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1

My music:
- www.hyperfollow.com/dommedamian
Spotify: ----------------------------------------------------↓

AfterHours

Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

DommeDamian wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

DommeDamian wrote:

Well, the first half of my record is out, so..... Razz

Nice! What genre? Is there anything you would compare it to?

Warning: Don't ask me to rate it unless you are truly fearless and are prepared to not hold it against me personally if I rate it lower than you want/expect Shame on you

I try to be a little varied, but it's mostly different subgenres of rap.
I would not compare it to anything yet, 'cause I'm not on that level.

And thirdly, I consider your opinion and viewpoints as insightful, and if I want to create an album that gets a pretty high score from you (or Scaruffi for that matter) one day, Imma have to push away my fear for getting a low score. Only in hopes to get improve artistically with each project and become a great one. If anything, I would be very surprised if you rated it high Anxious

. Though I'm confident that it's better than that Mark Wahlberg album Laughing

Here is a link:

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

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 Laughing

_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction

Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.

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 Laughing

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

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

_________________
My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1

My music:
- www.hyperfollow.com/dommedamian
Spotify: ----------------------------------------------------↓

DelBocaVista

AfterHours wrote:

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 Laughing

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

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 Smile