Your SCORE/RATING System (for albums)

[Jon Cocco]

Most of you do something like this I presume

 

10 ... Amazing, groundbreaking, classic, perfect

9 ... Excellent

8 ... Great

7 ... Good

6 ... Above average

5 ... Average

4 ... Below average

3 ... Pretty bad but I've heard worse

2 ... Bad

1 ... OMG this is one of the worst pieces of shit...how can anyone like this??!

0 ... Where is the gun so I can kill myself!! (hopefully it never gets to this)

 

Sure we've all seen stuff like this before. I used to rate albums similar to this growing up. The 1-10 scale.

 

I notice many people who don't like an album often give it around a 6 (rarely do they go far below) ... which to me says you find it "above average" but we don't know how everyone uses their rating system on here. If many people like or love an album, they often casually drop a 9 or 10. You can say we're all bias (and we are) and you can say it's subjective Vs. objective (and everyone is different...no point opening that topic up if possible) but focusing on the rating thing...

 

I'm probably the only one here that starts his scale at 10 and ends it at 6.

 

How do I have 5 numbers you ask? I don't, I have 50 thanks to decimals. It gets tough when you're scoring the best of the best. You'll likely find yourself looking for less superb tracks and any imperfections. So if you've noticed my recent INFECTED MUSHROOM reviews (2005, 2004, 2003) I rate every song and take the average (or close to) at the end.

 

My rating system works in GRADES to compensate for the 10 numbers that can CONFUSE people with whether my 6/10 means "just above average" or "bad". I do this so my scores STAND OUT from all the numbers thing on here. It gets confusing sometimes when people see 6.5, 7.6, etc... so I stick to A-F with the round outs (estimates) below.

 

MY SCORING SYSTEM (all decimals in between are self-explanatory.

 

10 - A+: Groundbreaking and/or a masterpiece, all tracks cannot be anything less than great, often times superb.

 

9.9 ... A ... (virtually groundbreaking, a masterpiece or a classic, maybe one track isn't superb)

9.5 ... A ... (Superb)

9.0 ... A- ... (the beginning of excellence...There are different levels of excellence for an album overall)

 

8.9 ... B+ ... (Great)

8.5 ... B .... (Good)

8.0 ... B- ... (Fairly/pretty good...just not as solid as it could have been, still good)

 

7.9 ... C+ ... (Above average)

7.5 ... C ... (Average)

7.0 ... C- ... (Fairly or barely average)

 

6.9

6.5 ... (D - F ... At this point I won't have and therefore won't review)

6.0

 

If you do NOT use the scale above (which MOST people seem to use, or if you have any comments) than WHAT DO YOUR SCORES MEAN TO US???

 

PS: Check Infected Mushroom 2003, 2004, 2005 review threads (I just posted fresh reviews in all three) for examples. And Pleiadians - F.O.L.

[Anoebis]

Interesting topic... I was thinking the same not long ago when I saw discogs, many scores are way too high there imo...

I started to give point myself not long ago, and I do it like this:

 

A release can get 3 possible ratings;

/ = a not good track, not good enough

* = a good track, I am satisfied with it

** = superb track

 

So what does that mean? When I listen to cd I get for instance this result:

 

1./

2.*

3.*

4./

5./

6.**

7.*

8./

9./

 

So this cd gets: 5 stars out of 9... So 5/9 = 0,55

 

Depending on that score I give following points:

 

>1 = 5/5

0,65-1 = 4/5

0,40 - 0,65 = 3/5

0,20 - 0,40 = 2/5

<0,20 = 1/5

 

This is how my discogs ratings are made... And that means my average after 200 cds is around 3.22/5, not so much, but fair imo because I give mathematical points to my cds which is 100% objective! But I still have 700 cds to go to listen to EVERY track... So maybe that average score will change a little, but not much...

 

a 5/5 is not SO common, and that's what bothers me sometimes on discogs, 5/5 is given too much...

 

About your point Jon Cocco, I agree, you also don't give an A easy at all, I like that!

[Basilisk]

That scale looks mighty familiar

[Jon Cocco]

That scale looks mighty familiar

616388[/snapback]

Naturally. I was inspired to do a thread on this.

[seraph]

10 - CULT, CLASSIC, SPEECHLESS

 

9 - ORIGINAL, INNOVATIVE, CONCRETE

 

8 - VERY GOOD, DIVERSE, PROMISING

 

7 - GOOD, COOL, REGULAR

 

6 - AVERAGE, NICE, RANDOM

 

5 - 'OK', UNINNOVATIVE, MAINSTREAM

 

4,3,2,1 - LOUSY, MONOTONOUS, PRETENTIOUS, NON EXISTANT

[Deranger]

What seraph said.

[seraph]

9.9 ... A ... (virtually groundbreaking, a masterpiece or a classic, maybe one track isn't great or something, I.e: Pleiadians I.F.O.)

 

616376[/snapback]

Euhm, sorry, there are all tracks that are good...

 

I wouldn't give 9.9 if 1 track is not as good, I give usually 9/10 then... you are way too nitpicky Jon...

[RTP]

The point that for most people the scale starts at 6 is a good one. It's true.

An album that would get 1 or 2 or 3 out of 10 on my scale I could never be arsed to write a review about anyway!

 

And a 10 on my scale is impossible to get. Not even S-Range - Space gets it ... and do you know why? Because I have to leave out some room for something even better to come!

[RAH]

i don't grade stuff cause for me it feels like i'm involved in some test-grading exercise & that just dosen't seem fun. Personally, music is too ethereal to attach those judgements... especially cause opinions change... and the performance in itself of the track changes all the time depending on what you are playing... Sure some might find the use of it and thats good for them, but i hate numbers and try to dissociate myself from them as much as i can, so it's either... great... good... ehh... bad...

 

maybe i should start using those

Edited October 8, 2006 by RAH

[traveller]

10 Posford

9 Great

8 Good stuff (at least 5-6 awesome tracks)

..anything less and it isn't worth my time

[supergroover]

the scale starting at 6 doesnt make much sense to me.. why start at 6? and end at 10? 1-10 makes more sense imho. or 1-5..

so i guess people should mention their scale as well now in the reviews.. or should we adopt just one scale for psynews? that would be the easy option.. i that case i vote for the 1-10

[Guest antic]

I came up with the following system:

 

5 - Classic, top, one of the best ever, a must have for any goa/psytrance fan, regardless the sub-genre he likes most (ie. early Pleiadians, Hallucinogen, Cosmosis, X-Dream, Koxbox releases etc.),

 

4 - Very good, you should definitely get it if you like that particular subgenre (ie. Freq & latest Jaia for progressive, Deviant Species and GoW & Metaloids for dark-psy, first 1200 Mics for full-on), but also might be interesting for those that want to try something different,

 

3 - Average, typical for it's sub-genre, you might want to get it if you like the particular sub-genre, but for others it might just sound bad (examples: all the generic full-on, progressive & dark-psy),

 

2 - Bad, do not buy it unless you're a collector & get everything that's released,

 

1 - Skazi & co, avoid at all cost

 

 

Please mind the examples - that's just the stuff off the top of my head. I don't mean that "5" is only for old-school goa/psy. "5" is for stuff everybody (most) like, "4" is for the best in sub-genre, "3" is for average, "2" is for bad and "1" is for crap that should never be released...

 

[Charlie]

What traveller said.

[Krell]

My scores has do to with my reaction to the music, since thats what matters.

 

13 - Going berserk, eating furniture and random items, forgetting logic, sense everything.

11 - Cannot be still, have to dance, getting shivers down my spine, crying.

10 - Cannot be still, have to dance, very joyfull experience.

9,75 - Cannot sit still, joyfull experience.

9½ - Moving along with the music, enjoying myself.

9 - Able to draw positive experiences out of the music, dancing is possible, but a bit heavy.

8½ - Dancing doesnt come easy, too many things annoy me.

8 - Dancing would be fake, frustration takes hold, mediocre music.

7 - I would prefer silence at this point.

6 - This is getting embarrasing.

5 - Is this made by a 3 year old ?

3 - Random noise.

0 - Noise sounding random, but actually getting even more to my nerves than true chaos.

 

I dont rate tracks under 9 - its a waste of time. Only 5% of all music is rated above 9½ for me. The reason for all the grades are that I used a normal danish grading system for it. I have yet to encounter a track to rate 13.

 

- Krell

[Charlie]

Never heard of rating tracks out of 13 before but, hey, yeah, why not.

[abasio]

I would use a usual scale as John illustrated above but I generally wouldn't give an album 10/10 because I have yet to here the perfect album which I think 10/10 (100%) denotes. Many have come close so I might give 9/10 but most of the best albums for me only get 7/10 or 8/10 as this denotes very good or great. Most of the music I like I would only give 5/10 or 6/10 as this is average for me! On my scale most things need to be average as that what average means. Of course some albums I would rate higher, they are good, great or sublime but most music I hear (not buy or purposely listen to) gets between 0 and 3 (utter dog shit in the eye to god damn turn this crap off right now)

[Charlie]

I would use a usual scale as John illustrated above but I generally wouldn't give an album 10/10 because I have yet to here the perfect album which I think 10/10 (100%) denotes. Many have come close so I might give 9/10 but most of the best albums for me only get 7/10 or 8/10 as this denotes very good or great. Most of the music I like I would only give 5/10 or 6/10 as this is average for me! On my scale most things need to be average as that what average means. Of course some albums I would rate higher, they are good, great or sublime but most music I hear (not buy or purposely listen to) gets between 0 and 3 (utter dog shit in the eye to god damn turn this crap off right now)

616847[/snapback]

Are you familiar with the work of Simon Posford?

[abasio]

Are you familiar with the work of Simon Posford?

617003[/snapback]

Yeah but I don't give any of his a 10/10. Maybe a 9!

Twisted starts of soooo good & could have been perfect but the last few tracks tail off In My Opinion as so I would not give it a perfect mark.

The 1st Shpongle album for me is not perfect seeing as the 1st track starts off annoying (rubbish vocal sample) In My Opinion so also doesn't get a perfect score.

[Jon Cocco]

Yeah but I don't give any of his a 10/10. Maybe a 9!

Twisted starts of soooo good & could have been perfect but the last few tracks tail off In My Opinion as so I would not give it a perfect mark.

The 1st Shpongle album for me is not perfect seeing as the 1st track starts off annoying (rubbish vocal sample) In My Opinion so also doesn't get a perfect score.

617008[/snapback]

I agree with abasio. For example, Twisted is an amazing album for it's time and will always be a classic. It's one of the best albums ever...but not every track is superb or amazing IMHO. Some may disagree of course... but when you hear few songs compared to others, towards the end, they are GOOD, (maybe GREAT for their time and still are) but not this masterpiece/spectacular song. Certain songs like L.S.D. and several others...they're on a level of their own. I believe the entire Twisted album (every song) could have been at this "other level" in theory, but not every song is IMHO. The fact that so much of it is awesome makes it seem perfect for many to this day, but I'm talking about each indivudual song. Most people don't want to focus on less cool parts when you love something so spectacular overall.

 

When I first heard several songs on Pleiadians I.F.O.... (another example) I considered them superb (meaning 5/5) but then I heard Elektra and Asterope which made me believe something I don't believe anymore... (I once believed that these two tracks broke through my highest score scale top, making new ground, new numbers like 6 and 7 on a 1-5 scale!!) ... but later I realized other songs exist that I also find "stunning" ... so realistically, the now less stunning songs notched down from 10 to 9 or from 5 to 4 (for example) to compensate for the better tracks I later became aware of. It's a way of distinguishing to ourselves and others how "X" (good or more) something really is as opposed to giving the entire album a 10/10 even if several tracks aren't 10/10.

 

I'm selective because I think it's important to leave room for when something better comes along with all amazing tracks. If you start at the top with something that isn't track-for-track perfect... you have no where left to go. That's how things get overrated because for example, there were other awesome albums around and when Twisted came out...it seemed to have really raised standards.

 

That's why I do 9.1, 9.2, etc...so such things of greatness can be compared next to the best things out there. It leaves room and slack.. and if an album comes out where every song is superb and amazing, why not?, it's a 10.

 

There will be some people who embrace anything and everything Postford has done because overall, he's insanely creative...but that doesn't mean all his work is perfect. Even Hallucinogen has it's songs that are only... good.

[Oopie]

There will be some people who embrace anything and everything Postford has done because overall, he's insanely creative...but that doesn't mean all his work is perfect. Even Hallucinogen has it's songs that are only... good.  

618569[/snapback]

what was that karahana rmx about?

 

back to the drawing board misto posfo.

[seraph]

I agree with abasio. For example, Twisted is an amazing album for it's time and will always be a classic. It's one of the best albums ever...but not every track is superb or amazing IMHO. Some may disagree of course... but when you hear few songs compared to others, towards the end, they are GOOD, (maybe GREAT for their time and still are) but not this masterpiece/spectacular song. Certain songs like L.S.D. and several others...they're on a level of their own. I believe the entire Twisted album (every song) could have been at this "other level" in theory, but not every song is IMHO. The fact that so much of it is awesome makes it seem perfect for many to this day, but I'm talking about each indivudual song. Most people don't want to focus on less cool parts when you love something so spectacular overall.

 

When I first heard several songs on Pleiadians I.F.O.... (another example) I considered them superb (meaning 5/5) but then I heard Elektra and Asterope which made me believe something I don't believe anymore... (I once believed that these two tracks broke through my highest score scale top, making new ground, new numbers like 6 and 7 on a 1-5 scale!!) ... but later I realized other songs exist that I also find "stunning" ... so realistically, the now less stunning songs notched down from 10 to 9 or from 5 to 4 (for example) to compensate for the better tracks I later became aware of. It's a way of distinguishing to ourselves and others how "X" (good or more) something really is as opposed to giving the entire album a 10/10 even if several tracks aren't 10/10.

 

I'm selective because I think it's important to leave room for when something better comes along with all amazing tracks. If you start at the top with something that isn't track-for-track perfect... you have no where left to go. That's how things get overrated because for example, there were other awesome albums around and when Twisted came out...it seemed to have really raised standards.

 

That's why I do 9.1, 9.2, etc...so such things of greatness can be compared next to the best things out there. It leaves room and slack.. and if an album comes out where every song is superb and amazing, why not?, it's a 10.

 

There will be some people who embrace anything and everything Postford has done because overall, he's insanely creative...but that doesn't mean all his work is perfect. Even Hallucinogen has it's songs that are only... good.  

618569[/snapback]

Urgh ! You are complicating too much Jon...

 

ART is not complication, it is complicated to make it, but to grade it so thoroughly it is not valid.

[abasio]

Urgh ! You are complicating too much Jon...

 

ART is not complication, it is complicated to make it, but to grade it so thoroughly it is not valid.

619020[/snapback]

He may have made it complicated but I think what he said was quite valid! 10/10 or 100% is the best you can possibly get so if you give anything a perfect score you aren't leaving any room for whatever you'll hear later which might be better. Well some people start giving 11/10 & higher but for me a score like that is invalid. 10/10 should be a perfect album where every track is a masterpiece, stands out & doesn't get any less amazing with time. No album for me can achieve this. Some come close but no album would I call 100% perfect!

[seraph]

He may have made it complicated but I think what he said was quite valid! 10/10 or 100% is the best you can possibly get so if you give anything a perfect score you aren't leaving any room for whatever you'll hear later which might be better. Well some people start giving 11/10 & higher but for me a score like that is invalid. 10/10 should be a perfect album where every track is a masterpiece, stands out & doesn't get any less amazing with time. No album for me can achieve this. Some come close but no album would I call 100% perfect!

619330[/snapback]

Hey, I gave few times 11/10 but as a joke, as to show how much I appreciate the album.

[abasio]

Hey, I gave few times 11/10 but as a joke, as to show how much I appreciate the album.

619493[/snapback]

 

I see the sentiment & of course understand how much someone must love an album to give 11/10 but what happens if next month you hear an album that's even better? Give it 12/10?

This I think is the synopsis of Jon's post you need to leave space for albums that come later that might be even better.

[seraph]

I see the sentiment & of course understand how much someone must love an album to give 11/10 but what happens if next month you hear an album that's even better? Give it 12/10? 

 

619498[/snapback]

 

 

Then I give it the same funny rating.