Interested in how people translate ratings. Partly to get my own rating-style in order.
for me:
100: Absolutely perfect from start to finish
95: outstanding
90: awesome/groundbreaking
85: great
80: very good
75: good (or 'I understand why people love it' )
70: 'meh'
65: mediocre/not consistent
60: boring/bland/a chore to listen
50: not good/irritating
40: bad
30: awful
20: will never like
10: don't like a single thing about it
0: unlistenable heap of crap from start to finish
-I haven't rated a single 100 or 0. Have yet to discover the perfect album
-Most of my ratings are 70 or more, just because I won't listen through an album if I don't like it, and it seems wrong to rate an album when I didn't listen to it till the end.
Love to hear your take on this!
Last edited by wooolf on 11/18/2017 14:03; edited 1 time in total
The main concept I use for my ratings is that anything 70 or above are albums I have in my collection, and everything else that I don't like enough to listen to regularly gets below a 70. I try to use 50 as a divider for albums I like and albums I don't like, but it doesn't always work. My ratings are pretty off the cuff and just what I'm feeling in the moment; I know some users base them off of the average track rating but I don't do that.
0-50: Albums I don't like. I don't have a breakdown for each rating, it's mostly just by feel. I also use what I've given other albums under 50 to inform my rating
55-60: Albums I like a little but aren't consistent enough or don't have enough good songs
65: Has a few songs I really like but overall doesn't hold my attention. I would still recommend this to someone else
70-75: Albums I like and listen to regularly but which I don't think will ever become a true favorite
80-90: Albums I really like
95: Should probably be 100 but one track or something holds me back from giving it 100
100: My favorite albums
I also don't necessarily order albums by rating on my chart - there are a few things I've rated 95 over things I've rated 100. It doesn't make sense but the ratings feel right to me for some reason. _________________ And it's hard to be a human being. And it's harder as anything else.
I'm normally very upbeat and upbright with my ratings, My rating curve on RYM is mostly positive and I see no problem with it at all, I quite like to find interesting music and how it affects me impacts my perception on an album a lot. the problem a lot of records and singles have a huge impact in my young heart, and I feel kind of bad If I leave them with a different rating from some that have a same effect on my soul
0 - 30: Can't listen
30 - 40: Awful
40 - 50: Really Bad
50 - 60: Bad
65: mediocre
70: regular
75: good
80: really Good!
85: Great!
90: Fantastic
95: Stellar and jubillar (can't live without)
100: Can't live without (Oxygen for my ears)
i just dish the good ratings out lol, like for me to give below a 50 i have to actively hate the album. like, i get that itd be more useful maybe to have an even curve of scores, but like, most albums i listen to have had a lot of effort put into them blah blah blah, usually a more mainstream group w a lot of followers, so chances are its not a 20/100, you know?
everything on my overall i give 100, bc the idea that there are less than 100 rly perf albums depresses me _________________ My top songs of the 2010s
and
Spotify link
I tend to give high ratings, probably because I won't rate an album that I haven't listened to enough times, and I won't listen to an album several times if I don't like it. I rarely make an exception to this rule, but for some albums that I think are awful or overrated I can give a rating right away.
0-50 please no.
55 really bad
60 bad
65, 70 mediocre
75 good but not completely my thing
80 good
85 pretty good
90 brilliant
95 close to perfect
100 my absolutely favourite albums (I think I have about 15-20 100s) _________________ Finally updated the overall chart
Loud City Song - Julia Holter
Eureka - Jim O' Rourke
Souvlaki - Slowdive
Lesser Matters - The Radio Dept.
Long Season - Fishmans
Thanks, of those I only know Souvlaki, and I've listened to some Julia Holter..
Listening to Jim O'Rourke right now and liking it!
Curious about Fishmans. They seem to get very high ratings while hanging low in the all-times lists, probably because they're not really well known. I've listened on youtube once, but didn't immediately get it (think it was a live performance) But then, the best music is 'grower' music imo.. _________________ My charts page
A reliable formula for my ratings and rankings is as follows:
ACCUMULATION OF THE DEGREE AND CONSISTENCY OF ITS EMOTIONAL CONTENT, CONCEPTUAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND ITS INGENUITY, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OR SPACE OF THE WORK OF ART.
With “time frame”, I am referring to art such as cinema and music that are produced and assimilated within finite running times. With “space”, I am referring to visual arts such as paintings that are produced and assimilated within finite spatial parameters.
The differences in rating and ranking are determined by a precise attempt at measuring the degree of amazement or awe inspired from the experience of the whole work while it is being assimilated. Both its peaks and consistency are carefully considered into the overall rating. During the process of assimilation, I observe and consider in real-time the various emotions and concepts expressed, to what degree and consistency they are being expressed, how creative and singular these expressions are, and their impression upon me. This is compared to other works and ratings, taking into account as much from the history of art as needed, to help isolate and determine an exact rating. In such a determination, the overall significance of the experience (its qualitative peaks and consistency and sum impact) is what is being compared to other works, not necessarily a direct comparison in content, especially if the content is dissimilar. 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 consistently sustains. Therefore, I will tend to assimilate 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 then, 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 are still 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.
My 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/EXTRAORDINARY … At 6.8+ the experience will be superb and bordering on extraordinary. However, with enough evaluation or scrutiny, these will prove short on depth in relation to a 7.3+ rated work. Still, in relation to lower rated works, it will be an outstanding experience, and will often strike a qualitative balance between the extraordinary and the well-executed, but perhaps overly derivative. These are often the most 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.
Note: Due to time and efficiency considerations, I generally only devote a lot of time anymore to works rated 7.3+. However, works in this range are quite worthy of attention and I wholeheartedly recommend them.
Various Examples Classical: Allegretto - Ludwig van Beethoven - Symphony No. 7 in A Major - 2nd Movement (1812); Andante - Johannes Brahms - Symphony No. 3 in F Major - 2nd Movement (1884); Allegro giocoso - Johannes Brahms - Symphony No. 4 in E minor - 3rd Movement (1885)
(Please note that for this rating I am listing only single Classical movements, not the whole work, which would garner a higher rating altogether. I chose single movements because I have yet to make any attempt at rating whole Classical works below 7.8/10 at this point in time.) Rock: Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - The Beatles (1967); Nevermind - Nirvana (1991); OK Computer - Radiohead (1997)
Jazz: Round About Midnight - Miles Davis (1956); Time Out - Dave Brubeck (1959); Crescent - John Coltrane (1964)
Film: Gone With The Wind - Victor Fleming (1939); Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - Peter Jackson (2000); The Dark Knight - Christopher Nolan (2008)
Painting: Fall of the Damned - Peter Paul Rubens (1620); Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I - Gustav Klimt (1907); Death and the Maiden - Egon Schiele (1915)
7.5 – HISTORICALLY EXTRAORDINARY/AMAZING ... At 7.3+ the experience will begin to really stand out historically as 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
Various Examples Classical: Allegro ma non troppo - Presto - Ludwig van Beethoven - Piano Sonata No. 23 in F minor "Appassionata" - 3rd Movement (1806); Allegro con brio - Johannes Brahms - Symphony No. 3 in F Major - 1st Movement (1884); Finale: Adagio lamentoso – Andante - Peter Ilyitch Tchaikovsky - Symphony No. 6 in B minor - 4th Movement (1893)
(Please note that for this rating I am listing only single Classical movements, not the whole work, which would garner a higher rating altogether. I chose single movements because I have yet to make any attempt at rating whole Classical works below 7.8/10 at this point in time.) Rock: I - Led Zeppelin (1969); Agaetis Byrjun - Sigur Ros (1999); Funeral - Arcade Fire (2004)
Jazz: Giant Steps - John Coltrane (1959); Mingus Ah Um - Charles Mingus (1959); My Favorite Things - John Coltrane (1961)
Film: Star Wars - George Lucas (1977); Blade Runner - Ridley Scott (1982); Schindler's List - Steven Spielberg (1993)
Painting: Mona Lisa - Leonardo Da Vinci (1505); The Scream - Edvard Munch (1893); Guernica - Pablo Picasso (1937)
8.0 – AWE-INSPIRING ... At 7.8+, the work will start becoming a truly awe-inspiring experience. These works are often masterpieces by most (less strict) 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
A mathematical assessment for a work of this stature (7.8/10 - 8.2/10) can be broken down and calculated by halves as follows, provided one ensures to balance each half at equal running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). Also, it is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 7.3's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of a 7.9/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 7.3's.
7.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.5. Examples: 7.2/10 + 7.3/10
7.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.6. Examples: 7.3/10 + 7.3/10
8.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.7. Examples: 7.3/10 + 7.4/10
8.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.8. Examples: 7.4/10 + 7.4/10
8.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.9. Examples: 7.4/10 + 7.5/10
In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination.
Various Examples Classical: Toccata and Fugue in D Minor - Johann Sebastian Bach (circa 1704); Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp Minor "Quasi una fantasia" (aka, "Moonlight") - Ludwig van Beethoven (1801); Piano Concerto No. 1 in B-flat Minor - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1875)
Rock: Highway 61 Revisited - Bob Dylan (1965); Are You Experienced? - Jimi Hendrix (1967); Exile On Main Street - The Rolling Stones (1972)
Jazz: Impressions - John Coltrane (1961); In a Silent Way - Miles Davis (1969); The Inner Mounting Flame - Mahavishnu Orchestra (1971)
Film: The Godfather - Francis Ford Coppola (1972); Taxi Driver - Martin Scorsese (1976); Pulp Fiction - Quentin Tarantino (1994)
Painting: The Last Supper - Leonardo Da Vinci (1497); The Kiss - Gustav Klimt (1908); Metamorphose de Narcisse - Salvador Dali (1937)
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 main characteristics of an all-time masterpiece (9/10) but just not to as great a degree/extent and/or not as consistently.
A mathematical assessment for a work of this stature (8.3/10 - 8.7/10) can be broken down and calculated by halves as follows, provided one ensures to balance each half at equal running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). Also, it is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 7.5's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of an 8.3/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 7.5's.
8.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.0. Examples: 7.5/10 + 7.5/10
8.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.1. Examples: 7.5/10 + 7.6/10
8.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.2. Examples: 7.6/10 + 7.6/10
8.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.3. Examples: 7.6/10 + 7.7/10
8.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.4. Examples: 7.7/10 + 7.7/10
In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination.
Various Examples Classical: Piano Concerto No. 20 in D Minor - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1785); Piano Sonata No. 23 in F Minor "Appassionata" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1805); The Rite of Spring - Igor Stravinsky (1913)
Rock: The Piper at the Gates of Dawn - Pink Floyd (1967); In the Court of the Crimson King - King Crimson (1969); Daydream Nation - Sonic Youth (1988)
Jazz: Kind of Blue - Miles Davis (1959); Out to Lunch - Eric Dolphy (1964); The Koln Concert - Keith Jarrett (1975)
Film: The Passion of Joan of Arc - Carl Theodor Dreyer (1928); The Wild Bunch - Sam Peckinpah (1969); Chinatown - Roman Polanski (1974)
Painting: The Beethoven Frieze - Gustav Klimt (1902); Philosophy, Medicine & Jurisprudence - Gustav Klimt (1907) [University of Vienna Ceiling Paintings; Destroyed in 1945]; Europe After The Rain II - Max Ernst (1942);
9.0 - ALL TIME MASTERPIECE ... At 8.8+, the experience will be quite astonishing and will increasingly represent a towering masterpiece and historical achievement that may never be replicated or surpassed. These works will tend to be the most historically singular, powerful and compelling expressions of their particular genre or confluence of genres.
A mathematical assessment for a work of this stature (8.8/10 - 9.2/10) can be broken down and calculated by halves as follows, provided one ensures to balance each half at equal running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). Also, it is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 7.8's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of an 8.9/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 7.8's.
8.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.5. Examples: 7.7/10 + 7.8/10; 7.3/10 + 8.2/10
8.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.6. Examples: 7.8/10 + 7.8/10; 7.3/10 + 8.3/10
9.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.7. Examples: 7.8/10 + 7.9/10; 7.3/10 + 8.4/10
9.1/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.8. Examples: 7.9/10 + 7.9/10; 7.3/10 + 8.5/10
9.2/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.9. Examples: 7.9/10 + 8.0/10; 7.3/10 + 8.6/10
In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination.
Various Examples Classical: Messiah - George Frideric Handel (1741); Symphonie Fantastique - Hector Berlioz (1830); Symphony No. 9 in E Minor "From the New World" - Antonin Dvorak (1893)
Rock: Blonde On Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966); The Velvet Underground & Nico - The Velvet Underground (1967); Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968)
Jazz: Ascension - John Coltrane (1965); Unit Structures - Cecil Taylor (1966); Bitches Brew - Miles Davis (1969)
Film: Metropolis - Fritz Lang (1927) ["The Complete Metropolis", 147 minutes]; Vertigo - Alfred Hitchcock (1958); Brazil - Terry Gilliam (1985) [The Final Cut, 142 minutes]
Painting: The Garden of Earthly Delights - Hieronymus Bosch (circa 1500)
9.5 - SUPREME MASTERPIECE ... At 9.3+, the experience seems like an impossible achievement. An achievement so astonishing that, regardless of the type of emotional and conceptual content, it inspires awe comparable to a life-changing religious experience, and does so 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.
A mathematical assessment for a work of this stature (9.3/10 - 9.7/10) can be broken down and calculated by halves as follows, provided one ensures to balance each half at equal running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). Also, it is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 8.0's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of a 9.3/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 8.0's.
9.3/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.0 or 16.1. Examples: 8.0/10 + 8.0 or 8.1/10; 7.5/10 + 8.5 or 8.6/10
9.4/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.2 or 16.3. Examples: 8.0/10 + 8.2 or 8.3/10; 7.5/10 + 8.7 or 8.8/10
9.5/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.4 or 16.5. Examples: 8.0/10 + 8.4 or 8.5/10; 7.5/10 + 8.9 or 9.0/10
9.6/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.6, 16.7 or 16.8. Examples: 8.0/10 + 8.6, 8.7 or 8.8/10; 7.5/10 + 9.1, 9.2 or 9.3/10
9.7/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 16.9, 17.0 or 17.1. Examples: 8.0/10 + 8.9, 9.0 or 9.1/10
In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination.
Various Examples Classical: Mass in B Minor - Johann Sebastian Bach (1749); Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1824); Requiem - Guisseppe Verdi (1874)
Rock: Trout Mask Replica - Captain Beefheart & His Magic Band (1969); Faust - Faust (1971); Rock Bottom - Robert Wyatt (1974)
Jazz: The Black Saint & The Sinner Lady - Charles Mingus (1963); A Love Supreme - John Coltrane (1964)
Film: Citizen Kane - Orson Welles (1941)
Painting: Peasants' War Panorama - Werner Tubke (1987)
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 awestruck and speechless throughout the entirety of the experience towards its 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, layered and dynamic, that perceiving it only seems to extend the possible interpretations into what seems like an infinite, ultimately indefinable depth of greatness that is never completely in grasp but always there to continually assimilate. No matter the scrutiny, it will seem above criticism and evaluation, as if artistically “priceless”.
A mathematical assessment for a work of this stature (9.8/10 - 10/10) can be broken down and calculated by halves as follows, provided one ensures to balance each half at equal running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). Also, it is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 9.0's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of a 10/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 9.0's.
9.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 17.2, 17.3, 17.4 or 17.5. Examples: 8.3/10 + 8.9, 9.0, 9.1 or 9.2/10
9.9/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 17.6, 17.7, 17.8 or 17.9. Examples: 8.8/10 + 8.8, 8.9, 9.0 or 9.1/10
10/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 18.0. Examples: 9.0/10 + 9.0/10; 8.5/10 + 9.5/10
In instances where it is very difficult to balance the work by two equal halves one would apply greater ratings' weight to the larger of the two, the degree of which would vary depending on how substantial the differential between them. With these, it is perhaps more challenging to conclude an exact rating and ranking, but if one is able to draw a close estimate one can then compare it with other similarly ranked works to get a more accurate determination.
Various Examples Classical: None
Rock: None
Jazz: None
Film: None
Painting: Sistine Chapel (Ceiling & The Last Judgement) - Michelangelo Buonarroti (1512; 1541) _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
0: 100% Certified trash.
1: Pretty much trash, just not a 0.
2: Maybe one or a half track I dig. Otherwise it’s trash.
3: Not trash, but pretty bad nonetheless.
4: Under avarage/bad.
5: Avarage.
6: Over avarage/good.
7: Great, but has it’s flaws.
8: Deserving of classic status.
9: Fantastic.
10. Damn masterpiece.
I also use [number].5 if I’m a little inbetween.
I mostly have positive ratings, but that’s because I don’t really bother wasting my time checking out albums I know are gonna suck, unless I’m completing an artist’s discography, which I usually only do if I really love something else the artist has made anyway. My avarage sists at 79.
Last edited by DJTommy on 11/19/2017 02:48; edited 4 times in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
)
