If Music Could Talk

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:I thought the same exact thing as Kory; how can one of your favorite albums of all-time only be a 7 [out of 10?]

From what I just said:

matedog wrote:If you asked me off the top of my head, i'd say an 8 or a 9. But assessing each track, with a serious attempt to eschew nostalgia, I rate it a little lower than that. 7 is really good in my book.

I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

eumaas wrote:I tend to think of albums as having two ratings. One is vis-a-vis music in general or its genre (which would be the absolute scale), and the other is vis-a-vis the total artist output. The latter is what I mean by a relative scale. For example, GEER rates as 10 on the relative scale, but would not rate a 10 on the absolute scale as there are albums I think are superior.

I guess Hoy is rating it on the absolute scale.

How about vis-a-vis the albums in one's collection?

The albums of any music or the albums of that artist? If it's the former, I don't think that's really an issue--we can only rate things based on our knowledge, so I'm not sure how one could have a separate scale for what you know and what is knowable because the latter is measured in the former. I guess you could talk about a platonic absolute (the perfection that your knowledge does not encompass but I guess is still conceivable though not perceivable) and an empirical absolute. If you're doing that, though, you might as well start speculating on how many angels can fit in the grooves of GEER (the answer is n + awesome).

We should be rating things on the Tasty Scale. For example, Starship is / .

If it's the latter it's subject to the limit of knowledge too. I wouldn't be overly concerned about it though as any rating is usually subject to change, no? I guess rock critics have to put a line in the sand, but I've seen opinions shift on here.

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:I thought the same exact thing as Kory; how can one of your favorite albums of all-time only be a 7 [out of 10?]

From what I just said:

matedog wrote:If you asked me off the top of my head, i'd say an 8 or a 9. But assessing each track, with a serious attempt to eschew nostalgia, I rate it a little lower than that. 7 is really good in my book.

I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:I thought the same exact thing as Kory; how can one of your favorite albums of all-time only be a 7 [out of 10?]

From what I just said:

matedog wrote:If you asked me off the top of my head, i'd say an 8 or a 9. But assessing each track, with a serious attempt to eschew nostalgia, I rate it a little lower than that. 7 is really good in my book.

I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

eumaas wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

eumaas wrote:I tend to think of albums as having two ratings. One is vis-a-vis music in general or its genre (which would be the absolute scale), and the other is vis-a-vis the total artist output. The latter is what I mean by a relative scale. For example, GEER rates as 10 on the relative scale, but would not rate a 10 on the absolute scale as there are albums I think are superior.

I guess Hoy is rating it on the absolute scale.

How about vis-a-vis the albums in one's collection?

The albums of any music or the albums of that artist? If it's the former, I don't think that's really an issue--we can only rate things based on our knowledge, so I'm not sure how one could have a separate scale for what you know and what is knowable because the latter is measured in the former.

That was, however hidden, my point. Our evaluations are always going to be limited by what we've heard. Even if, say, you only own CR and CtC, it'd be odd to declare CR a 10 within the scope of all your Clash albums. Your expectations of the other albums in your collection are always going to bleed into the evaluation.

We should be rating things on the Tasty Scale. For example, Starship is / .

You underrate it and limit your use of math: /

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:I thought the same exact thing as Kory; how can one of your favorite albums of all-time only be a 7 [out of 10?]

From what I just said:

matedog wrote:If you asked me off the top of my head, i'd say an 8 or a 9. But assessing each track, with a serious attempt to eschew nostalgia, I rate it a little lower than that. 7 is really good in my book.

I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

Except his scale also impacts your relative evaluation measured against those instructors who do give A's. It's unfair because it falsely skews your achievement down relative to others.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:

matedog wrote: From what I just said:

I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

Except his scale also impacts your relative evaluation measured against those instructors who do give A's. It's unfair because it falsely skews your achievement down relative to others.

Oh yes. It fucks with your GPA and has no benefit other than appeasing his platonism.

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:I thought the same exact thing as Kory; how can one of your favorite albums of all-time only be a 7 [out of 10?]

From what I just said:

matedog wrote:If you asked me off the top of my head, i'd say an 8 or a 9. But assessing each track, with a serious attempt to eschew nostalgia, I rate it a little lower than that. 7 is really good in my book.

I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

Except I do. Just very rarely as I only consider very very few songs to be "perfect." I gave VU's "Heroin" a 10. Same for Outkast's "B.O.B." and "Billie Jean." On the other hand, I have yet to give a song a one rating, although the next album will have it. For a song to be released by a mainstream band to fail so miserably is really rare. I'd consider "Boogie With Your Children" a one because it is so absolutely ineptly written and performed.

Hoy's rating system doesn't seem too different from Prindle's, although Hoy, I guess you use the same criteria to rate individual songs and albums?

eumaas wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

eumaas wrote:If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

Except his scale also impacts your relative evaluation measured against those instructors who do give A's. It's unfair because it falsely skews your achievement down relative to others.

Oh yes. It fucks with your GPA and has no benefit other than appeasing his platonism.

That's one thing I dislike about the humanities compared to the sciences when it comes to grading—science student averages will always be higher because there is a firm right or wrong, whereas humanities courses are graded subjectively and with a sense that no one writes a perfect essay or exam. So humanities students tend to have lower averages, which does impact who gets money. (Tenure is another area that is biased towards the sciences. You can have a dozen "co-authors" on a single science paper but each get full credit for publications. Very rare that more than two humanities scholars will co-author a paper, and it's usually just one.)

matedog wrote:

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:

matedog wrote: From what I just said:

I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

Except I do. Just very rarely as I only consider very very few songs to be "perfect." I gave VU's "Heroin" a 10. Same for Outkast's "B.O.B." and "Billie Jean." On the other hand, I have yet to give a song a one rating, although the next album will have it. For a song to be released by a mainstream band to fail so miserably is really rare. I'd consider "Boogie With Your Children" a one because it is so absolutely ineptly written and performed.

Those are song ratings, though. What album would rate a 10?

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote: I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

Except I do. Just very rarely as I only consider very very few songs to be "perfect." I gave VU's "Heroin" a 10. Same for Outkast's "B.O.B." and "Billie Jean." On the other hand, I have yet to give a song a one rating, although the next album will have it. For a song to be released by a mainstream band to fail so miserably is really rare. I'd consider "Boogie With Your Children" a one because it is so absolutely ineptly written and performed.

Those are song ratings, though. What album would rate a 10?

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote: I still find that weird to have some of your favorite albums of all-time be rated personally as a 7. Mine would be either 9 or 10, almost never an 8.

Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

Except I do. Just very rarely as I only consider very very few songs to be "perfect." I gave VU's "Heroin" a 10. Same for Outkast's "B.O.B." and "Billie Jean." On the other hand, I have yet to give a song a one rating, although the next album will have it. For a song to be released by a mainstream band to fail so miserably is really rare. I'd consider "Boogie With Your Children" a one because it is so absolutely ineptly written and performed.

Those are song ratings, though. What album would rate a 10?

Using an overall album rating system, it's a little more cloudy (although not necessarily inaccurate as a sense of how I really feel about listening to the album). Although I'd rate London Calling way up there on my list of favorite albums of all time, I can't say it is a 10.

ImSoBoredWithTheUSA wrote:

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote:

eumaas wrote:

matedog wrote: Another issue with this rating system is that it weighs each song equally. But seriously, I give almost no 10's, very few 9's, and so on, so a 9 or 10 rated album is pretty much impossible under this system, so a 7 rating is actually very good.

If you don't really give 10s, you've just shifted the scale by one. I remember hearing of a very dumb professor who claimed never to give an A. Well, then A- takes the place of A, and B the place of A- and so on.

Except I do. Just very rarely as I only consider very very few songs to be "perfect." I gave VU's "Heroin" a 10. Same for Outkast's "B.O.B." and "Billie Jean." On the other hand, I have yet to give a song a one rating, although the next album will have it. For a song to be released by a mainstream band to fail so miserably is really rare. I'd consider "Boogie With Your Children" a one because it is so absolutely ineptly written and performed.

Those are song ratings, though. What album would rate a 10?

n +