If you were a music critic, what scoring system would you use?

>>72449169
Probably p4k's desu. Anything but Christgau's though; what a disaster that is.

>>72449169
Idk I can't form my own opinions

5 Stars (10.000) - GOAT (Classic)
4.5 Stars (9.999 - 9.000) - Great (Classic)
4 Stars (8.999 - 8.000) - Good
3.5 Stars (7.999 - 7.000) - Decent
3 Stars (6.999 - 6.000) - Ok
2.5 Stars (5.999 - 5.000) - Mediocre
2 Stars (4.999 - 4.000) - Poor
1.5 Stars (3.999 - 3.000) - Bad
1 Star (2.999 - 2.000) - Awful
0.5 Stars (1.999 - 1.000) - WOAT

>>72449169
0-10. 5 being the good is about equal to the bad. using scoring systems as a scale never works out well, so the "unattainable 0 or 10 "is stupid and the "5 = average" is stupid

"it is good" and "it is not good"

No scores, just analysis. So probably never be read.

I'd use Pitchfork's I think, but I think the best way is to not give a finite score since it can discourage people more from checking out new things they may like.

Fuck scoring systems, I would rather analyze the musical content itself, and from there the person can figure out whether they like it or not. Ratings are why I wish it was Christgau instead of Bangs. Yeah Bangs used to have star ratings when he was at Rolling Stone, but the content of his articles was far more important.

I wouldn't use a numerical or alphabetical rating. It's a cancer on art.

wouldn't multiple ratings be better than one?
>the general enjoyability
>sound quality
>potential significance or influence
>rated against artists other work

I don't think singular 5 star or 10/10 says enough about something. Even someone who rate MBDTF a 10/10 would probably admit its not the same as rating something like The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady a 10/10.

None.
None of my favorite music blogs assign albums a numerical value when they post a review.

Scaruffi's is the best

>>72449255
This is the only good answer, or something like
>love
>like
>indifferent
>don't like

Grading music with numbers is stupid and arbitrary

>>72449169

I would use a "mu" scale, meaning an album that is not from Swans, Animal Collective, Death Grips, The Beach Boys and Neutral Milk Hotel is a 0.

The rest is a 10.

File: 1442699633434.png (209KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 480x480px

>>72449169
something even more retarded than christgau's just so i could come here and laugh when /mu/ starts crying about how i gave the new meme album three spools of thread and an engine block

File: TooManyKeks.png (604KB, 600x753px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 600x753px

>>72449513
>three spools of thread and an engine block

Ideally a multiscore system with each score rating different aspects of the music and other significances would be ideal, too much work for me though desu

>>72449169
I would cease to masturbate for 24 hours before listening and then rate from 1 to 10 based on how hard my dick got.

And the only song that's ever moved my dick is this one by Beth from the walking dead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS7hcivUCJU

So that gets a 10 and everything else gets a 0

>>72449169
wingdings scissors and bombs obviously

File: a0991634815_16.jpg (125KB, 662x539px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 662x539px

Rated out of 5

1. Production Quality
2. Musicianship Quality
3. Soulfulness
4. General Effect

1 is the highest possible score, but nothing released has made it past .006228 and the highest score this century is .000485

>>72449404
multiple ratings make it worse
like if an album's lofi production gives it a lower rating, but you still enjoy it more than a well produced bad album?
Wouldn't you just use general enjoyability as a guide? It's literally the only thing that "really" matters. Adding more ratings into adds nothing
Trout mask replica might be influential, but I can't stand it

>>72449688
>1. Production Quality
>2. Musicianship Quality
>3. Soulfulness
Aren't these all factors for
>4. General Effect

>>72449169
Rym's one.

>liked it
>no particular feelings about it
>didn't like it

additionally, I would compare it to something I liked more and something I liked less, along with what about the three works made me feel that way.

File: LoiNd.jpg (71KB, 932x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 932x720px

>>72449920
yes, but sometimes the first three things don't work well when combined together. using good ingredients does not guarantee a good cake.

>>72449169
PF's is way to specific. Like what make and album .1 better than another? Its ridiculous. Christgau's is at least not that bad. The symbols are confusing but if you read his descriptions, they make sense.

For me personally, I think I would go with a 0-4 system. Not too much range and its not based off of five so you don't get comparison to common rating systems.

2 log 10

>>72449997
Fucking dale needs to get off his ass

File: LWK1Z.png (674KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 600x800px

>>72450163
make me