Is comparing the "quality" of music a myth or a fallacy?

>>70285476
A good rating system should lend itself to being comparable without being quantifiable. A potential solve is assigning ratings of several orders of magnitude i.e. this gary wilson album scores 6.4-6400 but this other one scores 4.6-4600

i have synesthesia so I rate albums by color hexcodes

I just rate music based on how I liked it. I don't see why people over think ratings so god damn much.

>>70285554
I feel like if I rated music, the problem would be half the stuff I listened to would get the highest rating, unless I split up the rating based on something extramusical and arbitrary like how much the album had become canon to me over the years. I guess I expressed myself badly in the OP now that I think of it; the problem's that music presents itself so inordinately good to me /and/ that there's not much variation in how good, assuming its good. Like music maxes out for me

I see you with that Gary Wilson score too

>>70285642
Because if they mean nothing they're pointless?

>>70285668
They are pointless to anyone but yourself, what's wrong with that? Since when is giving imaginary ratings to albums not pointless?

>>70285689
Of course, but they /should/ have a point to yourself, and if the ratings aren't taken seriously, do they have a point to yourself?

>>70285476
damn jeff gerstmann lost some weight

>>70285711
I use ratings to categorize what I think of an album, as I listen to many. They are not even close to objective and I don't even try to pretend they are. Basically higher rating means I liked it more.

>>70285476
>I don't think it makes any sense to assign anything a value to represent its quality
Anon, who's point the gun to your head and making you?

>>70285554
Damn. I should do that.