Your rating system

Dayvenkirq wrote: 2) It just seemed like you were having a problem with the system considering "factors such as quality and importance" that "[leave] no room for other combinations".

I think you're misunderstanding me. The PA rating system is based both on quality and importance as determining factors. So far, so good. The problem then is that it accepts only certain combinations of quality and importance. For example, there is no valid rating for an essential album that is not a masterpiece, because the rating system implies that every masterpiece is essential and every essential album is a masterpiece. When rating an album like In the Court of the Crimson King, I'm faced with a dilemma: Do I give it 5 stars because I think it's essential, or do I give it 4 stars because I think it's not a masterpiece? For that reason, I ignore the "importance" factor completely and assign my ratings as if quality (i.e. my personal enjoyment) were the only deciding factor. Generally that lines up pretty well with the PA rating system.

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ You are missing the point. An artist works so hard, puts so much love and care into a work that cannot be understood by everyone on this globe, and he gets a f$%king star or two for the work? Who are we to say that we are at the liberty to judge someone's music based on what we like? Discrimination is what it is, and the rating system is a means to do that.

Okay, let's only say positive things about music.

In all seriousness, don't take ratings for something they are not. They're merely an indicator of how much we enjoy an album. When I give Atom Heart Mother (an album that certainly had a lot of work put into it) one star, that doesn't mean I'm criticizing Pink Floyd for making it or that I think they shouldn't have made it. I'm grateful that they made it, just like I'm grateful that any piece of music was made. It just means that I wouldn't care to hear it again.

Tom Ozric wrote: We should ditch ratings altogether and keep it to reviews...

That wouldn't solve anything. I've read many, many reviews that are more arrogant, presumptuous and judgmental than a simple number could ever be.

Yeah, with all their limitations rankings are still useful, but surely you must read reviews before blindly trusting numerical rankings. That's why PA is great because it allows everybody to write reviews and not just rate so you get to read more varied points of view and opinions.

Edited by Gerinski - November 30 2012 at 12:04

I would have to say that the written part is the easier part of this rating process - choosing the 'score' is always difficult (especially between 4 and 5) - click 5 and that little warning window appears and then I question myself.........sometimes it's "nah, f**k it, 5 it is, others it's with great pondering.... "O.K. I'll tick 4 and call it 4 and a half".  But most people probably won't agree.  What happens when an album, say the new one from 'Echolyn' (which is quite superb) is given a 1 or 2 stars by some random folk but the written part says (now this is NOT a quote) 'it's complex, nicely played and arranged but I don't think what they're doing is anything special' ??   And what of those (whom we'll never know) who listen to an album once or twice and pull an instant rating from thin air ??  Hat's off to them coz I couldn't do it.

I can fit my mind into any rating system.

Alitare wrote: I can fit my mind into any rating system. Some use a five point system (Progarchives: 1-5 stars) There's a nine point system (All Music Guide: 1-5 stars with halves) There's a ten point system (Mark Prindle: 1-10) There's a fifteen point system (Starostin's site: 1-15 even though he never used anything below a 3 I think) There's a 41 point system (Game Informer: 0.00 - 10.0 with 0.25 intervals) There's a percentile/100 point system (0 - 100% or 0.0 - 10.0, several) There's the 'school' point system. That's basically a thirteen point system (F - A+, excepting the potential for F- and F+ as an option - Guys like Christgau use this one) There's a sixteen point system, or hexadecimal. John McFerrin, a member of this website, uses that on his own album reviews site. There's even a two point system 'Good or bad', 'thumbs up or thumbs down', 'yes or no' (0-1). This is the only system I don't like using.  No matter if you use hexadecimal, letters, numbers one to ten, percentages, or some other goofball rating, you got a number of 'points' or 'potential ratings' to dish out. If you wanted to have a whacked out system that only utilized prime numerals that involved a fifty-six point system, that's as plausible as anything else. I use what I use in my head for myself alone. When I write reviews (personal, journal-entry type things I use mostly for my own reference and practice) I jump from a 15 point system because it makes more sense to me, to a letter system which is easier on my head. If I am writing about albums, I use a 15 point system. If I'm writing about single songs (like with Hank William's 40 greatest or the Duke Ellington centennial boxset or The Bear Family Shadow of Clinch Mountain Carter Family boxset or whatever) I like using the letters 13 point system. The ratings are only useful to me in relating how I feel about an album to myself. I'd never pretend that saying 'I'd give blah blah an eleven point nine out of fourteen' means anything specific to anyone but myself.  It takes a special kind of record or collection of songs for me to give this rating (or higher): A-(11/13), 13/15 (13/15), D/10 (hex - 13/16), 4.5/5 (8/9), 9/10 (9/10), 5/5 (5/5), 8.75/10 (36/41) 90%/100% - 9.0/10.0 (90/100), etc. So far, out of the two and a half thousand albums I've heard, about 140 of them fall in that 'golden' category of major works that have heavily influenced me emotionally. This ranges from Peter Gabriel's "Melt" to Jesus Christ Superstar, from Wish You Were Here to Portishead's Dummy, from Ziggy Stardust to Abbey Road, from Gunfighter Ballads and Trail songs to Songs of Love and Hate. The only way a rating would be viable to someone is if they included a detailed explanation of what each number meant to them.

You left out the personal and completely arbitrary system I designed for a movie review blog I used to run.
It was called "Llamatinees" and I awarded a scores based on llamas. The score would range from negative infinity to infinity llamas. Here is the review I did for The Illusionist, so you can see how it works.

 

Llamatinee: The Illusionist

WARNING: This Llamareview may or may not contain spoilers. The only way to find out is to read it.

 

Huzzah for magic! Who doesn't love a good magic show? If the answer is you, then you should probably leave now.

Plus two llamas for Edward Norton's smashing performance, with just a hint of an Austrian accent. Norton is one of my favorite actors and I feel he gets far to little recognition. Hopefully, that will change soon.

Plus a llama for Eastern Europe, the best part of Europe (sorry, Scandinavia.)

Plus three llamas for exquisitely wonderful facial hair all around. It's going to come back into style, mark my words.

Minus a llama for never getting to see Budapest. I was so looking forward to that.

Plus two more llamas for the illusions themselves, perhaps the most elegant and charming that I've seen, which is surprising since Hollywood special effects should have made such things unimpressive by now.

Plus a llama for Rufus Sewell's drunk acting. Lots of actors have a hard time making drunk look realistic. This is unacceptable, given the amount of real life practice they've had. Well done, Rufus. Also, I like your name. Rufus.

Finally, plus 4 llamas for an ending which I don't think anyone expected. I won't spoil it for you, but it's great.

 

Grand Total: 12 llamas! Even with David Bowie, the Prestige is going to have to work really hard to top this one.

No, I didn't have that kind of technical sophistication back in those days.

5- Nearly flawless, mindblowing, perfect
4.5- Nearly flawless, superb
4.0-Some minor flaws but excellent
3.5-Substantial flaws, but still great
3.0- Substantial flaws, but still quite enjoyable
2.5- Deeply flawed, has some enjoyable elements while many elements are either poor or mediocre. Mediocre
2.0- Listenable, with a few enjoyable elements, but very flawed.
1.5- Barely listenable, but listenable nonetheless. Poor.
1.0- Terrible, and unlistenable.

smartpatrol wrote: What does each star rating mean when you give it? 5.0: Masterpiece; perfect or just about perfect 4.5: Amazing; almost a masterpiece but not quite 4.0: Great; no major flaws 3.5: Got some bad songs, but mostly awesome 3.0: Mixed; a lot of ups and downs 2.5: Forgettable and 2.0 to 0.5 are varying degrees of bad

Green Shield Stamp wrote: 5.  Great - the best 4.  Not as good as 5 but better than 3 3.  Not as good as 4 but better than 2 2. Not as good as 3 but better than 1 1. Crap - the worst

Yep. 

Dayvenkirq wrote: ^ You are missing the point. An artist works so hard, puts so much love and care into a work that cannot be understood by everyone on this globe, and he gets a f$%king star or two for the work? Who are we to say that we are at the liberty to judge someone's music based on what we like? Discrimination is what it is, and the rating system is a means to do that.* * Sorry for sounding a bit like a radical. Just trying to sell a point.