GUYS I'VE FOUND NEW WAY TO RANK ALBUM!

wat? is that a porcelain boot?

hows about we do away completely with arbitrary numerical ratings, forcing the reader to critically analyze what has been said in the review by matching the album's content to the review content - eventually exposing hack critics

I rate albums with complex numbers according to their Fourier transform, get on my level pleb

this changes everything

A 3 tier system is stupid. 1 is bad, 2 is good and 3 is perfect? There is no room for the in-betweens. There is a big difference between an album you would rate a 6 and an 8, even though they both fall under "good"

Numbers are kinda dumb for music. The only exception is RYM because it takes an average of such a large user base (although even then, popular artists are at an advantage).

Shitholes like Pitchfork should focus on making accurate reviews first and foremost, and thinking about the score or whatever second. Something simple like
>Must listen
>Listen if you are a fan
>Don't listen
is fine. I really don't care if some random writer thinks an album is a 7.2 instead of a 6.4, as long as they can describe the album accurately without focusing entirely on its audience and "cultural meaning" and making sure the audience knows how smart and funny they are. It's why The Quietus is easily the best online publication going.

Also, another reason I like RYM is because of the variety. You get reviews from fans, from people who hate everything, from people who actually know what they're talking about etc. It's easier to get a sense for the album that way than reading one review by a writer with their own taste and/or agenda.

It's me

you're the porcelain boot?

it's OP, here is my new ranking system, I'll post a blog post explaining what each rank is later.

Regarding the question of "how do i know if the album is God tier or perfect?" Well, it's actually not a three-tier system but there is a hidden rank which is reserved for perfect or god tier albums. These rank is rarely given out and will be equivalent to a 10/10

The system you propose is as flawed as the one you criticize. The reason behind this is because you assume ratings should be porcentual (8 out of 10, 1 out of 7, etc), when in reality music rating is more accurately rated with the sum of whole numbers without a determined maximum.
Example 1: Album A has 4 songs. Each one of them is a great pop recording, so you award 1 point to the album for each song and the final rating is 4.
Example 2: Album A has 8 songs, 6 of them are good, 2 are great, and 1 is amazing. You award 0 points for the 6 good songs, 1 point for each great song, and 3 points for the amazing song. Final rating of the album would be 5.

In my own experience, my favorite album has around 40 points, while all my albums rated as 10/10 have 12 points or more.

This system is simply superior by any means possible, it even makes rating albums easier!
Also, your system sucks, and it's not even new. Shake my head to be honest.

This fucking guy knows what's up.

top kek

rating albums in general is fucking stupid

congrats OP you've wasted your time

music should be reviewed, not rated.

kys

Your system is flawed, you still do not understand my system yet. Your system is flawed because you forgot the fundamental of music, which is the music itself. Your system si too numerical which si the complete opposite of what music is; feeling. An album that only has 5 songs would be rated far lower than a bad album with 15 songs because of your point system. My system put my feeling of the music at the forefront, and it takes into account the album as whole and the presentation. Does it have a theme? is the album flow good? are the aesthetics of all the songs in the album the same? your system is no different than the 1-10 scale, its ilke rating the song and breaking it down to multiple components like lyrics, melody, vocals and ect. It's stupid since not all songs will have all these components.

Also my system is new, unless you can link me a current music publication website that uses this same system.

The only flaw you mention is not even a flaw of the system, as longer songs are more likely to have greater movements and therefore more points. A song with two equally great moments is worth 2 points and not just one. Should have mentioned that in my previous post that it's not songs but moments that add the points (or artistic elements if you rate artistic value instead of enjoyment).
Your "music is about feeling" theory doesn't make sense, especially considering both of our methods are implicitly mathematical and that my own system does measure feeling but in a more quantified way.
It does take into account all the elements you mention as long as they are relevant towards increasing your enjoyment of the recording if you measure by pleasure, or if you measure by artistic value then it considers those specific elements by adding points for them.
Besides, my own method uses 5 ranks just like yours use 4, which in order for me it's amazing, half great half amazing, great, good, and neutral, each one of them awarding 3, 2, 1, 0, and 0 points respectively.

The main objective of my rank as is to give a quick summary of how good an album is. It's not meant to go into detail or dissect the album part by part to give a score.

Lest we forget music is ultimately subjective, therefore making the music as intangible in numerical criticism as possible is the way to go

I see the point of your system but mine ranks the album as a whole and gives a much clearer picture to the reader at a glance as to how good the album is.

You can test out my system but ranking any recent albums you've heard from bronze to platinum, you'll find it far easier to do so than from a 1-10 hence why I am very confident my system will work for the readers.

Anyway, I appreciate your honest feedback on this new system.

This is how ti will look

- make me want to suck your penis
- make me want to suck your daddy's penis
- make me want to suck my own penis

You don't even need to be so detailed. This method of rating is even quicker than the porcentual kind, and I know this because I have used both.
Music is not subjective, musical appreciation is.
My method gives a better reflection of the whole, especially if you give an indication of how many moments there are of each kind.
My system has nothing to do with the 10 point one, it's an alternative to it, so I don't know why you are bringing that up.
Your system isn't really anything new. If you want something actually new, try with something that's not unidimensional, for example (they usually suck though, unless it's my kind of rating system that is both multi dimensional and unidimensional).

That's awful, m8
It's the same as an A-F rating, seriously. You might say it's not, but it is. It just goes from A to D instead and ignores the rest.

>Againts

Can u show me how you would rate Againts Me new album?

Music to me is still subjective, you may disagree with me on this but I do not consider power electronics as music.

I get that you use moments as an indicator of how good the music is but your system is no different than mine if at the end of it boils down to 5 ranks for you meaning A - E

Your system is only more meticulous than mine as I have said before but all of our systems are still stuck in the tier system

What I am attempting is to present the rating system in a different light since I can easily just use the 1-5 star but that is flawed as well since ppl already have some expectation of 1 - 5 means, so I used a new presentation system that has never been used before in music criticism.

I haven't listened to it, and from what I have heard, they don't seem like a worthwhile band in the first place.
A well known example could be Sgt Peppers with a 5 rating, because of one 3 point song, and two 1 point songs.
Trout Mask Replica has five 3 point songs and five 1 point songs, total of 20.

Music is still objective, regardless of your opinion. Music can be measured in a way that's as objective as physics can be.
My system is way different, like I said, it's not porcentual on the first place, there is no maximum rating, and is way more quantified for greater accuracy by measuring easy to remember moments. Like I said before, I have used both system and this one is definitely better. It even let's you rate accurately some albums you haven't listened to in years.
Every rating system is literally a tier system...
I'm pretty sure people have used the Bronze to Platinum method for musical ratings, it's a very basic method, or if they don't it's not any different than the AF system. How is bronze different to D, or A different to diamond? Same stuff.

>are the aesthetics of all the songs in the album the same?
why do plebs think stylistic consistency is something special?

the best way to judge something is still by talking about it. the quietus and dla don't rate either

As i have stated before, my system is still a tier system and I never claim mine to be any different from A to F and so is urs.

I am actually not criticizing ur system. Its a nice way of counting moments though. however, I can argue that moments in music changes depending on ur mood, place and the amount of time you've heard the album, hence why music is a very hard thing to judge.

Music is so tied to our emotions that it can easily get tangled up, and just like falling in love, we may not know why some songs have great moments and evoke fierce emotions while others seem to just wither away like noise in the background.

What about 0-4 ?
0 is shit tier (you can't even listen to it)
1 is bad or I don't like
2 is meh (you'll probably give it 1 more chance)
3 is good or you like it
4 is perfect or god tier

ones impression might change every time you listen to something, that's something every subjectively-oriented system has to face. you could keep the highest or lowest you would go or the median of a handful listens

I second this. There's a videogame review site called ElderGeek that does this and it works wonderfully. It rates games as onle "Buy", "Rent" or "Don't Buy". It completely removes the numerical system and only tells the audience wether they should spend their time on a game or not, which is much more logical than an arbitrary number.

>The 1 -10 scale is really shit since most people would just rank it at around 6 - 9 in reality
Because most people only listen to albums that interest them, therefore most of them will be 6-9. Critics by contrast listen to almost everything.

0-10 is the best scale. Anyone who disagrees is an autist.

percentual rating is fucking retarded though, if you'd just gave it the least bit of thought. to justify using it you'd have to either make something like a pie chart and count the minutes of an album that worked for you vs that didnt, which would obviously be overly complicated. when do you ever need to talk about music in scores (unless sheet music heh) anyways? maybe if you were unable to form a plain old coherent sentence of how good you thought it was, which would probably be autistic.
adjectives > scales

U see that the problem with this numerical scale, its ingrained in everyone that anything below a 5 has to be absolute shit that is why i have to introduce a new element so that ppl can stop discriminating and stereotyping numbers

That three tier system is great for products like videos game or even movies but not for music since its so accessible that saying dont borther is pretty pretentious and music appreciation is subjective. My system will even at the lowest, bronze; will not give ppl an impression that the music is 0

Ur reason is only half right, yes as critics we get tend to review good music and stay away from generic shit but the truth is that the stereotyping of the score system utterly destroyed the validity of anything below a 7

Anthony is the only one who defy this and has the guts to rate album a 4 or 3 but its actially not as terrible as most ppl think.

Who says it has to be an objective rating of "well 90% of the album worked for me so it's a 9"?

It's a gut feeling like all ratings. People get that if you put a 5, you didn't like it or hate it- middle of the road, as they say. Anything higher than that leans towards like, anything lower leans towards hate. It's that simple.

The best part is that I don't have to have a chart next to me to explain why it is that way. People see a 7/10 and they know what that means.

It's also worth noting that, just because 1-5 don't get used as much as 6-9, doesn't mean the system is broken. There's a good chance that most music will be at least a little bit more enjoyable to the listener than it is grating, warranting something more than 5.

>Stereotyping of the score system
what did you mean by this?

>saying dont borther is pretty pretentious and music appreciation is subjective. My system will even at the lowest, bronze; will not give ppl an impression that the music is 0
Not necessary if you have a "listen if you like this artist or genre" between Must Listen and Don't Bother, as most albums will go into the top two anyway

Lol the irony, u are steotyping the score system, you're another one.

"Anything higher than that (5) leans towards like, anything lower leans towards hate. It's that simple.

Its not ur fault but , us critic thats why I am changing it. What ppl may not realize is that 1 -5 is basically one score . Its that retarded

If u dun believe me look at any review and score of pitchfork vs anthony, their scores may be the same but they are inherently different. A 7 from anthony is not the same as a 7 from pitchfork.

I feel the way it should work is that people who don't really feel that they grasp how to use the numbers in a more meaningful way should start with a simple 5 point rating system. Then, over time, they can add .5s to that, and then their ultimate goal should be to listen to enough music that they can really get into the nooks and crannies of it and start rating things out of 10 with a .5 decimal system.

I, personally, use a 10 with .5s for gaming only, but when it comes to music and film, I use a 5 point scale with .5s. I hope someday to be able to reasonably review both with 10/.5, but I don't feel responsible enough yet.

>its ingrained in everyone that anything below a 5 has to be absolute shit
Then the problem is with you/everyone, not the scale.

I thought of this last year.

I know that that's why I created an easier new way of representing this scale,

It's not perfect but it's a far better rating scale than the clusterfuck of 1 -10

>What ppl may not realize is that 1 -5 is basically one score
Not really. It's literally five separate scores.

>It's not perfect but it's a far better rating scale than the clusterfuck of 1 -10
What's wrong with it? It's pretty cut and dry, only ten choices with 1 being worst and ten being best.

What if I think an album is in between a silver and a bronze, or in between a silver and gold? Or maybe it is less than bronze?

If I didn't drop his shitty self promotion for his website, that typo just sealed the deal.

Fuck off OP. You get a Bronze from me for your shitty rating testing

Good question, the answer is that my system forces you to make a decision between the ranks, meaning you have to spend more time deciding which rank it really belongs. It prevents the rating system from being convoluted. E.g If you only had two choices of either being dumb or deaf, which would you rather choose and if so why?

This system gives a brief overview of wat I think of the album if I think it's shit then you can find that out by reading my actual review. This scoring system is not the ultimate end all of score system.

Anyway, this scoring system will only be used by me on Sound Over Mind, but if u find this system useful then you can use it to help you decide on your feeling of an album.

>It prevents the rating system from being convoluted
But forcing a rank the album doesn't deserve is convoluted.
>If you only had two choices of either being dumb or deaf, which would you rather choose and if so why?
Is art black and white? Or is it open to interpretation?
>This system gives a brief overview of wat I think of the album if I think it's shit then you can find that out by reading my actual review.
Will they all be as poorly written as your replies?

>A 7 from anthony is not the same as a 7 from pitchfork.
Because they have different opinions? They still meant the same thing, but they don't have to agree on one record being a 7.

>1-5 is basically 1 score
But it's 5 scores. That's like saying 6-10 is basically one score because it means "at least like."

>Easier
no?

No one is going to understand or like your shitty system. Rating things out of 10 is universally understandable- anyone can pick up that rating system and use it without having to explain themselves.

cool system