how do you rate music? what makes an album a 9 rather than an 8?

well it depends what people on /mu/ say about it first and foremost

File: 1476981493530.jpg (69KB, 672x1024px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 672x1024px

>>70530337

3 to 5 for various ammounts of enjoyment
2.5 to 0.5 for various ammounts of dislike

>>70530337
Mewsic is unratable

don't you people realize you are skewing the ratings with your arbitrary bullshit scales

a 2.5 is not really good, no matter how much you want it to be. it's average. if everyone followed your example the ratings would be (even more than they already are) useless

>>70530436
well thats just like public opinion man

>>70530337
I don't, I listen to it

>>70530458
maybe i'm preaching to the choir
but it just makes me salty to see a 3 star review praising an album to the skies

>>70530436
but some users have 2000 albums they consider a 10/10

>>70530468
damn...

any rating rating system more granular than 4 levels is pointless. I don't have an rym btw, this is just in general

1 - irredeemable
2 - some minor value
3 - good
4 - classic

I don't use some kind of numeric scale nor do I EVER read music reviews or watch videos about music (seems like the dumbest thing in the world to me).

>>70530477
that's not any better, and doesn't justify doing the opposite (e.g. the many users with thousands of albums rated 0.5 on rym)

Rating by numbers is sort of stupid. A good album for me is an album that can be just as good and listenable months after it came out. A LOT of BNM stuff doesn't have that much of a shelf life beyond the first few listens.
I really wish it was more common to rereview albums a month or so after it came out to see how well it holds up.

>>70530547
it doesn't need any justification because it's not actually something anyone should care about

>>70530589
you don't have to care about something to think hmm that's kinda dumb i guess

>>70530337
rating with numbers is kind of pointless. If you cant verbally explain in detail why you like or dislike an album you shouldn't review music at all.

>>70530641
but writing about music is like dancing about architecture, or however that went
the feeling of "i like this" naturally precedes any attempt to explain it to yourself or others, and ratings capture that more succinctly

>>70530672
I guess that makes sense. But why do you want to explain yourself to others at all if all you can tell them is a number

>>70530687
if you have something to say that hasnt been said by anyone else (on rym) or an unpopular opinion, of course

>>70530641
but dancing about architecture sounds wild and dope

3 stars is my default rating.
it goes up or down according to the good songs/total songs ratio.

10 - Perfect
9 - Great
8 - Good
7 - Decent
6 - Shit
5 - Shit
4 - Shit
3 - Shit
2 - Shit
1 - Shit
0 - Shit

For me:

5: Personal favourite, practically perfect to me
4.5: (Sometimes super important and formative albums go here for reference) Nearly 5, just not quite on the same level as my favourites
4: Really really good, tied to a lot of memories or whatever nostalgia shit
3.5: Great, potentially won't listen again for a while, but know it's a solid album if I fancy something different.
3: Good, would listen to it more if there wasn't so much I already prefer
2.5: Decent, wouldn't complain for it being on but wouldn't dedicate my time to it
2: ok.
1.5: Pretty bad
1: Little to no redeeming qualities
0.5: Brokencyde (just kidding senpai they a 5)

>>70532571
what's the difference between decent and ok

>>70532605
Decent I wouldn't mind it being on as background music if I was cooking or chilling with friends or whatever.

ok is more of a "meh", so I guess ok was the wrong word, I just like the word ok, ok? Not quite really bad, but probably tipping into bad.

>>70530337
0 ZERO enjoyment
0.5 not much going
1 perhaps a sprinkling of interesting sounds
1.5 effort was made, but with feeble results
2 a few compelling moments, but outweighed by everythings else
2.5 not bad: a lot of room for improvement
3 promising, but falls short
3.5 a decent effort with a handful of weak moments
4 a successful release that shows great promise for the future
4.5 a fantastic album with but a few minor details to nag about
5 a near perfect album. stellar.

>>70530436
agreed, you should be within a half star of the norm's views on what number means

>>70530337
10 - absolutely perfect
9 - one or two bad tracks but still fantastic otherwise.
8 - a few more weak tracks but the strong tracks help lift the album a lot
7 - Some good stuff but nothing spectacular
5/6 - mixed bags or generally unimpressive albums.
4 - mediocre. Mostly weak songs but has a good track or two.
3 - one good song while the rest of the album is not that great
2 - Boring or uninteresting albums but not to the point it's excruciating
1 - all terrible songs. Nothing worth listening to.
0 - Cannibal Corpse.

5 : No flaws, perfect in every way, could listen to it nonstop for years & never get tired of it, has genuinely touched me emotionally in some way. Very, very rare rating for me.

4.5 : The same as five, but didn't touch me in the same way if that makes sense. Another rare rating for me, but I definitely come across it more.

4 : Very well done, splendid effort highly recommended. Could always be slightly better though.

3.5 : Great effort though still disliked some things, but would still probably recommend.

3 : Pretty good, a lot of more work could make this better, but still love it.

2.5 : Decent, could be wayyy better. Probably won't listen to very much.

2 : Mediocre, boring, not much enjoyment generally.

1.5 & below : I hate it.

>>70531956
this seems pointless why even bother with 1-5 in this system?

My system is very simple: eject or play.
If after listening to an album I want to press play to listen it again, It means that the album is at least good. The more replays, the better the album. The record was over 50 replays, I guess. Pressing eject - album is meh, pressing eject before the end of the album - unlistenable.

0 -> Worst albums of all time
1 -> Unlistenable
2 -> Shit
3 -> Really bad.
4 -> Bad
5 -> Meh
6 -> Decent, maybe not my taste
7 -> Good
8 -> Great
9 -> Near perfect
10 -> God tier

>>70530641
/thread

I rate each song on a scale of 1 to 10, add them up, divide it by the number of songs and that's it.

10/10=an album I find some combination of the following: extraordinarily emotionally powerful, exciting, challenging, strange, unique, original, boundary-pushing.
9-9.5/10=a masterpiece, plain and simple.
8-8.5=a great album worthy of returning to many times.
7-7.5=very good.
6-6.5=good but not really outstanding in any particular way.
5-5.5=decent/average, probably not worth returning to.
4-4.5=bad, but not so bad that it’s unbearable.
3-3.5=just plain bad.
2-2.5=offensively bad.
1-1.5=terrible.
0-0.5=one of the worst albums I’ve ever heard.

>>70530337
Usually an album rated 9 is better than an album rated 8. This is because 9 is a larger number than 8.

My scale is 2/5 is an album that is perfectly neutral to me, no better or worse than silence. Then again, the most common rating on my RYM page is 4.5 since I usually only rate stuff I actually like, so perhaps I'm not the greatest authority on music rating scales.

>>70530337
0-absolutely no redeeming qualities. Couldn't make it through the whole album.
0.5-absolutely no redeeming qualities, though there might have been a tiny shimmer of hope somewhere, but even that was pathetic. Couldn't make it through the whole album.
1-Managed to survive the entire album, barely. Cannot find anything that would make me want to listen to it again, but there was at least one tiny moment where something was convincing.
1.5-Managed to survive the entire album, I won't listen to it again, but there was a couple of moments of promise. Probably an extremely boring listen.
2-Incredibly mediocre, boring, and poorly executed. Had it been done with some conviction, or more effort put in, it might have been decent, but it's just wallowing in its own mediocrity.
2.5-Nothing that made me thing "that's pretty good!" but also nothing that made me say "that kinda sucked," or perhaps the two in equal proportions. Nothing that makes it stand out for good reasons or bad.
3-Very average throughout the duration of the album, with glimpses of promise i.e. good songwriting, composition, execution that occur once in a while. May listen to again, or listen to a couple of the songs I liked again.
3.5-Moments occur pretty regularly where I enjoy what I'm listening to. A lack of consistency is generally the damaging factor. Will definitely listen to again.
4.0-Consistently, throughout the entire album, I enjoy what I'm listening to. No moments where I'm not enjoying the music. May be close to a 4.5 in musical quality, but I don't feel engaged in the music consistently.
4.5-Thoroughly enjoyed every aspect of the album. Not a moment where I don't feel actively engaged in what I'm listening to.
5.0-Captivating. Not a moment where I don't feel immersed in what might be one of the greatest things I have ever listened to. The execution is perfect. The production is impeccable. I will listen to it again, again, and again and always find something new that I love about it.

0: hated

.5: disliked a very large amount but didn't hate

1: disliked a large amount but not a very large amount

1.5: disliked but not as much as one that i disliked a large amount

2: not great but not as bad as an album i disliked

2.5: ok but not as bad as an album that's not great

3: fine, idk

3.5 better than fine but worse than good

4: good

4.5: great

5: really great

>>70532909
well he could go into depth on what differs a 2/10 album and a 4/10 one but really at the end of the day, both numbers on their own give you a good idea on the reviewer´s thoughts

>>70534488
thanks

>tfw all music is a 5 or 6 to me

From my RYM profile:
>5.0
Perfect.
>4.5
Near perfect.
>4.0
Great.
>3.5
Pretty good
>3.0
Good.
>2.5
Meh.
>2.0
Bad.
>1.5
Really
>1.0
Garbage.
>0.5
Why?

this is soul destroyingly autistic. absolutely hopeless.