ITT: Post albums that you consider to be 5/10

File: 5.png (169KB, 561x1541px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 561x1541px

>>74674937
Reminder that 5's are not a bad rating.

>>74675042
They are to me. Anything I give less than 3/5 is shit.

>>74675042
>>74675057
>10/10 is perfect, no flaws
>9/10 is near perfect
>8/10 is excellent
>7/10 is great
>6/10 is good

>5/10 is average

>4/10 is bad
>3/10 is very bad
>2/10 is horrible
>1/10 is nearly entirely flawed
>0/10 is no redeeming qualities at all

>>74675057
Do you just think average is shit or what?

>>74675120
I prefer

5.0 - The best
4.5 - Incredible
4.0 - Great
3.5 - Remarkable
3.0 - Enjoyable
2.5 - Fair
2.0 - Poor

and then just

1.0 - Bad

I don't like wasting a bunch of space trying to figure out how bad something is, if it's poor you can at least see some redeeming qualities to it

File: 2080445.jpg (34KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x500px

it undeniably stinks and pop culture just elevated it to a meme

>>74675120
>>74675340
5 - Favorite
4.5 - Classics
4 - Excellent
3.5 - Very Enjoyable/Good
3 - Mostly Positive
2.5 - Indifference/Neutrality
2.0 - Slight Dislike
1.5 - Dislike
1.0 - Hate
0.5 - Worst I've ever heard

>>74674937

you are gayer than Enola Gay.

>>74675120

>10 - only the greatest works of classical music and a few jazz albums deserve this
>9 - all time masterpiece
>8 - great
>7 - good
>6 - decent
>5 - mediocre, bland
>4 - bad
>3 - really bad
>2 - offensively bad, one of the worst albums ever made
>1 - no use
>0 - no use

>>74678028
>one of Mastodon's worst albums
You're right about that. But it's not a bad album, its just not particularly good either. In other words it's roughly a 5/10.

>>74677959
>using 10 for shit to keep up for appearances rather then your actual favorite albums of all time

>>74675059
This is 2/10