What do your ratings mean?

[dihansse]

Like many other people, my score of an album is the average of the scores of the individual tracks by lack of a better system. I know I don't give enough credit to the quality of an album as a whole but in general the scores represent what I feel about an album.
My scoring system is also about the same as for other people except that in the past it was mainly based on score I used to give on Itunes (ie a 5 star system) that I then converted into scores, so many of my tracks and albums are scored 80 just because I generally like them (nothing more nothing less). Recently I try to also use scores like 75 and 85 which means that I now have more diversity in my average album scores. I also tend to give slightly higher scores than I used to (ex many tracks I scored 70 now are scored 75 and 80 is in many instances translated to 85) which means that new listens have an advantage over albums I haven't listened to recently.
This especially because these last years (and I thank BEA for that) I listened to far too many new albums (or recent or albums I hadn't heard before) so I desperately need to relisten to my older albums so I can re-evaluate them based on my new scoring system.
Conclusion: I feel that I need to score tracks and albums to get a bit of order in the now about 2400 albums I like but finally it all comes down to my gut feeling whether I like a track or an album which also includes factors like originality and so on but it certainly is no exact science.
Finally: I got all this on a fairly large excel file. Without wanting to come across as a geek (aren't we all here) maybe it could be interesting to compare these files to see how other users are doing their thing.

[craola]

i have an excel spreadsheet that represents my ratings sans the 0-100 scale, where every album starts at 0 and goes up or down from there. i have certain checkboxes that are typically on a binary scale, though certain qualities allow for negatives (so like -1 to +1). my favorite albums can have a score of 13 or 27 or 5. the scale really only evaluates them relative to the artist's own output. it's a pretty nerdy and useless system, to be honest, but i like it. a lot of the time, the intent of the artist defines which qualities are even measured, so i suppose i could determine the relative maximum for something and divide the given score by that for some sort of academic evaluation, but that spoils the fun. i like the messiness of it as it is. it brings into question some age old questions about relative length, superiority of genre, etc. that gives me pause. and because it's time-consuming and nerdy, i generally only use this scale for albums i super love.

i always feel torn about ratings around here, and i have reset mine at least twice in the last 2 years. i don't like capped scales because the scores tend to change too much relative to each other, and it's rather absurd in my mind to rank MINGUS / BARTOK / TALK TALK / DANIEL JOHNSTON on the same scale. i inevitably come across two albums that i've rated 70 a piece, and i get upset with myself because the half-decent jazz quartet are certainly more capable than the half-decent post punk band, and then i go slightly mad. i digress. around here, i suppose a 50 equates to nothing at all. the zero score. the hello status quo. i didn't love it. i didn't hate it. apathy. not even exciting enough to be boring, which i save for like a 60 or something. anything less than a 50 is mildy annoying to disdainful on some level, i suppose. anything above a 50 is pleasantly charming to outright fanatically stimulating. i'm pretty inconsistent with my scores though. it's slightly maddening.
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.

[AfterHours]

Concise version...

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/BORDERLINE EXTRAORDINARY … At 6.8+ the work will prove quite competent expressively, providing a very effective rendition of its emotional/conceptual content. These will often strike a qualitative balance between very well-executed and (as we get closer to 7.3+), borderline extraordinary. Upon evaluation and scrutiny, these works will usually prove short on depth (even if marginally), to be a bit too derivative or not quite creative enough to truly belong among more singular, remarkable or stunning examples (7.3 and above). These are often the most immediately 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.

7.5 – HISTORICALLY EXTRAORDINARY/AMAZING ... At 7.3+ the work will begin to really stand out historically as creatively and 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

8.0 – AWE-INSPIRING ... At 7.8+, the work will start becoming a truly awe-inspiring experience. These are often masterpieces by most 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

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 characteristics of an all-time masterpiece (9/10).

9.0 - ALL TIME MASTERPIECE ... At 8.8+, the experience will be very astonishing and will reach degrees of emotional/conceptual impact or significance to such an extent that it will stand out as an especially intense, thorough or deep exploration, development and culmination of its expressiveness and creativity. A work that has reached this echelon will stand out to history as an achievement in its genre or confluence of genres that may never be equalled or surpassed.

9.5 - SUPREME MASTERPIECE ... At 9.3+, the experience seems like an utterly impossible achievement. An achievement so astonishing that, regardless of the type of emotional and conceptual content, it inspires awe comparable to a life-changing, miraculous religious experience or as if discovering and unraveling some very profound mysteries of existence and the universe. It will produce such effects thoroughly and 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.

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 astounded, moved and struck by waves of epiphany throughout the experience towards a 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 and dynamic, that perceiving it only seems to extend the possible meaning or interpretations into what seems like an infinite, ultimately indefinable depth of significance that feels like it can both be grasped and yet endlessly open to further assimilation. No matter the scrutiny, it will seem above criticism and evaluation, as if artistically “priceless”.

It is also a work that will prove to be a culmination of the development of its art form, brought to a previously unimaginable creative epoch, causing a paradigm shift that will resonate for all time. It will prove to be axiomatic that the artist has now achieved an emotional and conceptual conviction in his art on the order of a profound religious devotion. His own understanding of his art will be so refined and rarefied that it will seem informed by divine guidance. His technical rendering and emotional conveyance will have assumed the quality of a profound spiritual revelation, seeming sacred and impossible to behold. In this will be found an ultimate and revelatory unveiling of self through the whole of his art and an idealization of the purpose of art itself, a development formally complete but so fundamentally true and of such depth and allusion that it is infinitely reflective and suggestive, transfigured to immortality.

A 10/10 does not necessarily mean "100% flawless", though probably approaches this in many regards. One could probably conceive of flaws in anything being qualitatively judged, so this is not the claim. "Flawless" can also be quite relative to the task or ambition undertaken. One could view a flawless painting of a bowl of fruit, and there are many of these. Alongside this, one could view Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and yet perhaps conceive of some minor flaws in the work. So is the bowl of fruit the greater work of art because it's more "flawless"? Or should we take much stronger consideration of the creativity, expressive impact and significance of each work when comparing them? A 10/10 represents a seemingly unsurpassable combination and accumulation of creativity, expressed emotional conviction and conceptual significance, relative to all forms and genres of art throughout the history of mankind. It is the ideal from which all others are judged.

________________________


For thorough explanation, see my criteria page, here: https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=15503
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

[AfterHours]

^^^ Oh, didnt realize this was an old conversation I'd already posted on

In any case, my page has been revised since then so...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

[manurock]

As many people here, my rating tends to be the average of track ratings, and I try to give more important to longer tracks if the album has them by "rounding up" or down towards the longest track(s). Also the general feeling the album gives me can give it an extra or loss of 5 points.

I am not happy with the rating. In fact, I don't know why, maybe because I value music as an art itself or because I don't consider myself an expert, but albums hardly ever go under 70. I am also quite perfectionist, so I don't have that many 85+ either. So yeah, not very useful ratings, you should kick me from this website

What ratings are for me esentially is a guide in order to order my chart the best possible and to know whether I should include the lastest album I have listened to it or not.

[Boltzmann]

This is how I rate albums. My chart however is based on my own enjoyment of the music, so that doesn’t reflect these criteria.

10/10: At least one aspect of the sound that this album introduced can only be derived to another piece of music in that it is also music, and it has caused an avalanche of pieces of music influenced by it that have enjoyed immense mainstream appeal if the album itself hasn't already. (Clear example: Pet Sounds)
9/10: At least one aspect of the sound this album clearly introduced new musical ideas that may be considered to be a new genre, but it is clearly influenced by another piece of music and it has created at least a small trend in music. (Clear example: Black Sabbath (clearly influenced by Jimi Hendrix, but also clearly sparked up something you could call a new genre))
8/10: Every part of this album clearly exists within a genre, but at least one aspect of the sound clearly didn't copy a style of another piece of music by adding small stylistic differences to the genre or mixing other genres with it. (Clear example: The Hurting by Tears For Fears (clearly new wave, but clearly different than any other act))
7/10: Every part of this album is clearly derivative to another piece of music, but it still sounds like the artist(s) understand the genre and do it justice. (Clear example: I Am Not A Doctor by Moloko (it never really mixes genres, but merely switches between genres in a fast pace, and they're clearly not the best actor in none of those genres))
6/10: Every part of this album is clearly derivative to another piece of music, and it sounds like the artist(s) didn't even try to do something original. (Clear example: Stadium Arcadium by rhcp (has nice songs, but is clearly a part 2 to Californication))
5/10: Every part of this album is clearly derivative to another piece of music, and it sounds like the artist(s) didn't make this with the goal to make music (art you can hear), but clearly put emphasis on other art forms like story-telling, poetry, comedy, or even something completely unrelated to art like expressing one's opinion, or pushing a political agenda. (Clear example: We're Only In It For the Money by Frank Zappa (the genre of the album is clearly psychedelic rock/baroque pop, but it sounds awful because they don't even try to make it good, because their only goal with that album is ridiculing psychedelic rock and voicing their opinions))
Lower ratings are 5/10 albums on which it is clear that the skills lack to make the music that was envisioned, or there is clearly something wrong with recording or mixing, etc. I don't often encounter such albums.

I completely ignore aspects to the album that have nothing to do with music like the message, visuals, consistency, skills (in another way than described above, namely like this: "I could've made this too", because these are people that clearly don't understand the difference between music and sport), and other bad reasons to claim music is 'good'. The overall piece of art can still improve by these aspects, but things like the message and visuals are completely different art forms. So what I'm saying is that a piece of music with a message and visuals is in fact three pieces of art that exist next to each other, because these art forms can simply not mix. For example: music cannot be enhanced by visuals, merely be clarified by it (like through dance). You might - because of the dance - look at the music differently, but for a music critic that shouldn't be necessary. You can however rate these parts seperately, but you shouldn’t take the mean out of them, ‘cause the resulting number will have no meaning whatsoever. Examples: a great song with an awful music video would end up with a 6/10 rating; a great song with simple and superficial message would too.
Consistency is one that I find hard to deal with myself, since it goes against my gut; this is why I think that rating songs makes more sense than rating albums.

[RoundTheBend]

[Boltzmann]

[AfterHours]

[AfterHours]