Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
New to /mu/, RYM, and Last.fm 2017-08-13 10:48:57 Post No. 74535362
[Report] Image search: [Google]
New to /mu/, RYM, and Last.fm 2017-08-13 10:48:57 Post No. 74535362
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: fd6f88d5270ac08b426f86361d20c273b9cd723a466d0f562e54c136b158c293.png (155KB, 240x312px) Image search:
[Google]
155KB, 240x312px
Hey, I'm rather new to /mu/ in general. I'm trying to get into cataloging my music like the sticky post recommends.
Beyond making sure I set Last.fm to scrobble most anything I listen to, should I be doing anything else on there, or just keep at it for a while? Is there a way to tell it that I've listened to other stuff before so it doesn't try to recommend something I've already heard, but just isn't logged on Last.fm?
For RYM, do you guys generally do track ratings? Also, I'm new to rating my thoughts on music in general. What sort of rating systems do you guys use, and how should I try to approach rating music?
>>
>>74535362
don't use last.fm or rym. it's for trannies and people who use music as a fashion statement. you might become one of them (each of em is a possibility)
>>
>>74535362
also
>rating art
PLEASE don't do this
>>
>>74535362
just look for aspects of the music that you liked and disliked and build a case off of that
I agree that you shouldn't try to rate music, at least at this stage because you have no idea what's """good""" and what's """bad""" due to a lack of experience, so just use RYM for cataloguing and reviewing, if you're inclined to.
>>
>>74535362
If you're looking for more music, don't rely on Last.fm. Check out charts, use sites like RYM and Discogs to dig into genres you want to pick up, etc. I only like Last.fm cause I beat my dick to statistics and want to be able to share charts.
I'd say RYM is good to sort YOUR ratings, but less so for judging discographies because of the circlejerk community there. It's somehow worse than /mu/. I keep a yearly Best Of list on my Google Drive in a document file, but that's clearly just what I love. I use a stupid track-by-track rating system for my Best Of list (each song rated 1-4), but elsewhere I just throw a number based on my whole listening experience. You'll be able to feel the 1-5 or 1-10 scale when you get used to judging art.
>>
>>74535597
OP here. Thanks. I should have said a bit more, but I didn't want to write a wall of text for the start of the thread. I'm digging into some of the charts that I've seen on the stickied wiki.
I just wanted to use RYM for my own personal ratings, but I was curious for some perspective on what people classify as a 1, 2, 3, etc. As in, clearly a "favorite album of all time" or something very close is a 5 probably, but what sort of thoughts lead a person to writing a 3 versus a 3.5 or something?
>>
>>74535716
I like to treat a 3 (or 6/10) as a record that I liked overall, but found lacking as a whole. There's improvements that could be made to its formula. It's not bad, just not worth visiting very often. It's good.
A 3.5 (or 7/10), on the other hand, clearly reflects more enjoyment. There are still things I wanted more out of a record like this, but I'll come back to it every now and then and have a good time. It's not a 4 (or 8/10) or more, so it's not GREAT. It's real good.
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1