What's your personal rating system like?

5.0
Masterpiece
4.5
Amazing
4.0
Great
3.5
Good
3.0
Ok
2.5
Mediocre
2.0
Weak
1.5
Bad
1.0
Awful
0.5
Unlistenable

I don't rate music I just listen to it

5.0: Completely unlistenable
4.5: Shit
4.0: no
3.5: why
3.0: mediocre
2.5: bretty gud
2.0: Not too shabby
1.5: Great
1.0: Approaching Perfection
0.5: Masterpiece

>>72570595
This is the only correct system. Anything else is pretentious rubbish.

Now the real question is what is your curve like?

File: tumblr_nq11u2Uyhk1qh64nlo1_250.gif (476KB, 250x141px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 250x141px

5.0
Replay all day
4.5
Replay any day
4.0
Favorites
3.5
Revisited
3.0
Enjoyed
2.5
Meh
2.0
I'll pass
1.5 (I don't use lower ratings)
Nooooo

File: rym curve.jpg (83KB, 1213x523px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1213x523px

>>72570634
Slightly inflated

File: 1478740367180.png (204KB, 800x750px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 800x750px

What garbage. Who wants to talk about autistic shit like scales? All heads report to the real RYM thread ----->> >72570751
^
^
^

File: tyler-the-creator.png (248KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1024x683px

>>72570595
herp derp just make your scale 1 to 10 if you're going to include 1/2 points.

If someone asks me for a number
1
Nigger what are you doing
2
Poor album, but I see what you were trying for and see some redemptive qualities in that
3
Average/run of the mill/ nothing special, but not a poorly put together album
4
Good album but doesn't suit me personally
5
Good album and suits me personally

The best song on a 2 album may make it into my rotation every few months. I may put all the singles from a 3 into rotation every few months, and recommend the full album to someone who I know particularly likes the genre. A 4 gets a full dedicated listen every year or so, and I may pull out my favorite tracks for regular play, AND I may listen to the full album as background music for other activities. A 5 has multiple tracks on my regular playlists, Anthony Fantano told me it was good, and will often get full dedicated listens multiple times a month.

>>72570634
rate my curve
https://rateyourmusic.com/~Priestbob

>>72570794
I think being slightly inflated towards positive scores is how a curve should be. Most things I listen to are either decent or good, but that's because I don't go out of my way to listen to music I know I won't like such as certain RYM autists who rate everything they come across. Also if an album doesn't interest me I'm less likely to listen to the whole thing through, which is essential before I can give a rating to anything.

>>72570873
agree with this completely
if an album starts to bore me i never finish it - and never feel comfortable rating it
everything i finish is bound to be a 7 or above unless i really force myself through it

>>72571007
Yep, the exception is an album of an artist I already like that fails to meet expectations. I'll listen through it a couple of times because I'll want to "get it", but when I don't it's going to get a poor rating. Most of my negative scores come from these sort of examples

>>72571671
You're a faggot

Why do people rate things badly if it isn't to their taste, people give Everything Everything - Get to heaven a bad score because they don't like falsetto's,
its those same autists that rate anything electronic that isn't ambient as bad because it somehow is """copying daft punk""""

>>72571784
k

>>72571671
I'll bite- what's the one 5.0 rating belong to?

>>72570601
This

>>72570595
This. I have in other words of course, and Masterpiece is kinda of lame word (and saying unlistenable is lame as well), but this.

>>72572730
Faust's self titled

>>72572926
Eh, not bad of a pick.

>>72572926
aqam?

>>72572730
op here

it's radio amor

>>72574183
im transmitting tonight

>>72574206
indeed

5.0
masterpiece/near masterpiece
4.0
amazing
3.5
great
3.0
good/decent
2.0
average/mediocre
1.0
bad/terrible

i don't really feel like taking time to distinguish from a 1.5/1.0/0.5 or from 4.5/5.0 so i skip some intermediate scores.

4.5 I like it
3.0 It's ok
1.5 I'ts not ok

>>72574276
the first non-positive faggot tier one itt