My ratings are mostly arbitrary, i.e. I have my list of albums ranked in order of preference, and at certain points I'll decide that anything below this album is an 8, 7, 6 and so on based on what feels right, roughly aligning so that a mediocre/average album will rate a 5-5.5/10 and 8+ are varying degrees of masterpiece. People rating average albums 6-7 are overrating them in my view, it's a positive rating that suggests a good album.
I've tried applying formulas and so on but they're a waste of time, I've found no way of doing it that satisfies me so I'm just going on instinct, notes, and comparison with other works. Just looking at AfterHours formula and even that has enough caveats to make me feel uneasy about using it.
My ratings are mostly arbitrary, i.e. I have my list of albums ranked in order of preference, and at certain points I'll decide that anything below this album is an 8, 7, 6 and so on based on what feels right, roughly aligning so that a mediocre/average album will rate a 5-5.5/10 and 8+ are varying degrees of masterpiece. People rating average albums 6-7 are overrating them in my view, it's a positive rating that suggests a good album.
I've tried applying formulas and so on but they're a waste of time, I've found no way of doing it that satisfies me so I'm just going on instinct, notes, and comparison with other works. Just looking at AfterHours formula and even that has enough caveats to make me feel uneasy about using it.
As a note, while my ratings probably do make some sense to various people that give them a cursory look, they are only likely to make a lot of sense if one has experienced most/all of the same albums/works of art as I have (and even then I doubt anyone -- even Scaruffi!! -- would completely agree with them). Why, say, Astral Weeks is a 9.0/10 (and not a 10/10 when it is, for all intents and purposes and by any reasonable definition, virtually flawless and possibly the best ever at what it is doing) only makes sense in relation to just how overwhelmingly incredible a 10 is (The Sistine Chapel) or those around that rating (Beethoven's 9th, Mahler's 9th, and so forth). And those will only fully make sense if actually assimilated thoroughly. If I didn't know about and had not ever assimilated any of the art I now rate above Astral Weeks, it would probably be listed as my 10/10. So my ratings have very carefully and gradually been changed by me over time, in relation to my increase in knowledge and experience and assimilation of the works I list, with and in relation to others and the histories of the forms I've delved most deeply into (Classical, Rock, Jazz, Film, Paintings). For instance, about 11-12 years ago, Astral Weeks was rated a 9.8/10, along with others like A Love Supreme, and so on: the scale of much of my lists and selections' ratings was almost uniformly higher than it is now. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
I think it's a shame if people who are massive music fans haven't heard any album they think worthy of a 100. I mean, it's music after all, not sure what an album has to do to qualify? Bring about world peace and being everyone in the worlds favourite, being albe to make them weep instantly from the first note. A music made using newly invented instruments in completely new genre unrelated to anything ever imagined in the past.
I also don't understand the few who go around giving very low ratings to tons of stuff.
I give a very small number of albums a 100. I also rate everything I hear. This is a record for me but also a reference for other users along with the other ratings. I only rate an album I hear in full so I therefore give few very low ratings. There may be one or two things rated low that I couldn't finish. I rate most 70-85. If I'm not enjoying an album I'll probably turn it off and not rate. 65-70 is an ok average album to my taste. Still decent. A very middling album that I'm not feeling but has merit would rarely get a rating as I won't finish it.
I don't agree that an album you enjoy but is quite average based on what you like and listen to is deserving of a 50. An average album to me is still a decent album and probably more enjoyable to me than the vast majority of music in the world.
I think it's a shame if people who are massive music fans haven't heard any album they think worthy of a 100. I mean, it's music after all, not sure what an album has to do to qualify? Bring about world peace and being everyone in the worlds favourite, being albe to make them weep instantly from the first note. A music made using newly invented instruments in completely new genre unrelated to anything ever imagined in the past.
I also don't understand the few who go around giving very low ratings to tons of stuff.
I give a very small number of albums a 100. I also rate everything I hear. This is a record for me but also a reference for other users along with the other ratings. I only rate an album I hear in full so I therefore give few very low ratings. There may be one or two things rated low that I couldn't finish. I rate most 70-85. If I'm not enjoying an album I'll probably turn it off and not rate. 65-70 is an ok average album to my taste. Still decent. A very middling album that I'm not feeling but has merit would rarely get a rating as I won't finish it.
I don't agree that an album you enjoy but is quite average based on what you like and listen to is deserving of a 50. An average album to me is still a decent album and probably more enjoyable to me than the vast majority of music in the world.
Re: Not giving perfect 10s/100s. The number, in my case, is RELATIVE TO the greatest work of art one can experience in the whole world (IMO, The Sistine Chapel). Just because I give an album a 7 or an 8 or a 9 (or otherwise) does not mean I think any less of it than you do when you give it a perfect 10. I am just conceiving of its merits (as defined in my criteria page) in relation to my body of knowledge and experience across the history of art, which of course changes and grows as this expands (thus, my ratings may change as well), and recognizing there is a work or works that are more extraordinary (when, in almost all cases, there is). I think a far greater shame is to go through one's artistic experiences and life having never discovered how many way more astonishing works there are across the history of art just because one thinks he/she has already discovered "the best" (with all the easy 10s they have given) -- which does not include everybody but is an extremely common predicament. I suppose it comes down to what one's goals/ambitions are in experiencing art. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
I think it's a shame if people who are massive music fans haven't heard any album they think worthy of a 100. I mean, it's music after all, not sure what an album has to do to qualify? Bring about world peace and being everyone in the worlds favourite, being able to make them weep instantly from the first note. A music made using newly invented instruments in completely new genre unrelated to anything ever imagined in the past.
Haha! I gave my all-time favorite albums a 10. Have to admit my rating system's influenced by AllMusic, which gives artists internal grades to some degree; for example, giving Aerosmith's Rocks 5 stars. I don't go nearly as far, but it has inclined me to give out more high ratings than I would've otherwise. That there are 1/2 stars does tempt me into being a little more generous, giving albums a 1/2 star more than I would in a 5-star rating system, when they might actually deserve a clean 8, 7 or 6.
Ultimately, art can't be scientifically graded, and a lot of the time I'm rating partly with my gut, my emotional response to the music. I suppose you can judge a jazz instrumentalist by his technique and originality to some extent -- though how good the tunes/compositions and the group interaction are is still partly subjective -- but there's no way to judge rock purely by a scientific system, especially punk and alternative rock. Similiarly to punk, free jazz solos can't be quantified the way mainstream jazz ones can.
If someone doesn't want to give any album in the world a 10 it's their right, but not giving out 10s because of one work in a completely distinct art form with its own completely distinct criteria, like the Sistine Chapel (I hope you've at least seen the Sistine Chapel in person!) is doing music (and film and literature/fiction) a great injustice.
Haha! I gave my all-time favorite albums a 10. Have to admit my rating system's influenced by AllMusic, which gives artists internal grades to some degree; for example, giving Aerosmith's Rocks 5 stars. I don't go nearly as far, but it has inclined me to give out more high ratings than I would've otherwise. That there are 1/2 stars does tempt me into being a little more generous, giving albums a 1/2 star more than I would in a 5-star rating system, when they might actually deserve a clean 8, 7 or 6.
Ultimately, art can't be scientifically graded, and a lot of the time I'm rating partly with my gut, my emotional response to the music. I suppose you can judge a jazz instrumentalist by his technique and originality to some extent -- though how good the tunes/compositions and the group interaction are is still partly subjective -- but there's no way to judge rock purely by a scientific system, especially punk and alternative rock. Similiarly to punk, free jazz solos can't be quantified the way mainstream jazz ones can.
If someone doesn't want to give any album in the world a 10 it's their right, but not giving out 10s because of one work in a completely distinct art form with its own completely distinct criteria, like the Sistine Chapel (I hope you've at least seen the Sistine Chapel in person!) is doing music (and film and literature/fiction) a great injustice.
If you're interested in my perspective, I'd just read my criteria page. Might make more sense after that. However, if you haven't assimilated a good degree of Paintings history, Film history, Classical history, Rock history and Jazz history, then the perspective, which applies at its foundation the common denominators of all art, still might not gel for you -- though would probably make sense in theory, regardless. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
100 - Perfect (Only 3 albums have a 100 from me)
95 - Phenomenal (Top 10 or so All-Time)
90 - Superb (Top 25 All-Time)
85 - Excellent (Top 50 All-Time)
80 - Great (Top 100 All-Time)
75 - Really Good (An album I could conceivably see being in my top 100, but isn't)
70 - Good
65 - Decent
60 - Mediocre
55 - Weak
50 - Bad
45 & Below - Varying Degrees of Terrible
Median - 65
Mode - 65
Average - 69
My ratings are subjective, and albums are rated relative to other albums which have been given a rating. Most of my rating are bunched around 60-65. I usually don't give a rating until I've given an album a couple listens, and the ratings are by no means permanent, but they tend to be relatively stable. Unless I have a complete change of heart about an album (such as Funeral, Blonde on Blonde, The Stone Roses, Remain in Light, etc.), the rating rarely changes by more than 10. Some albums are unique, and don't easily lend themselves to comparison with other albums, which makes rating much more difficult. In those instances, I just go by what my instincts say. The ratings for those albums tend to be more volatile, because they don't have the stability offered by points of reference in other albums, but these albums are pretty rare.
If you're interested in my perspective, I'd just read my criteria page. Might make more sense after that. However, if you haven't assimilated a good degree of Paintings history, Film history, Classical history, Rock history and Jazz history, then the perspective, which applies at its foundation the common denominators of all art, still might not gel for you -- though would probably make sense in theory, regardless.
I've read your criteria and I have assimilated film, jazz and rock history. Familiar with the visual arts and classical music too, though not to the same degree. I've also assimilated literary history which is very much on par with the other arts. And I still believe that there are not comprehensive criteria that can be applied fully from classical art and classical music to jazz, popular music, film and all modern art.
Also I think your rating scale is basically what I try to do.
It's often really hard to be that granular and grade well...often I feel like I am grading on a curve, then I'm like damn... whose curve am I grading on... and it gets all messed up.
But it's a pretty good gut check.
100: Nothing wrong with it and timeless (doesn't bore me)
95: like 5% potentially boring if I'm in the wrong mood
90: great, but not the best ever
85: What you'd call a hit, but not best ever
80: Pretty good - song probably plays a good role on the album
75: Ok, not bad or 'I understand why people like it'
70: 'meh'
65: mediocre/not consistent
60: boring/bland/a chore to listen
Anything below this is basically garbage and pending on how much I hate it i rate it as such.
Problem is 3 stars is average, yet I rate crap 3 stars (if doing the star system)... so it's not perfect, but like I said earlier, the ratings help me find a gut check at the time and then helps me average out an album/artist and their work.
Right, you need the time to track down Beatles Covers.
One thing is clear, rating music is very childish. Nearly as childish as compiling lists of "best albums".
To answer the question. The rating is never about the music. It is always about me. 100 means, this is the kind of music that I want people to think I like.
You're beautiful. _________________ May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...
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
