|
|
Post by funkle on Oct 12, 2019 14:36:53 GMT -6
How do you guys apply ratings? Using the 0-5 system, there is a tendency for things to get logarithmic, to where you're really only leveraging the top 2 positions for things that are worth listening time. The 0-3 are mostly ranking the things that I don't even listen to. My system has been:
5. only the top albums, maybe 10-20
4. above average music that I'm compelled to listen to
3 has been sort of middle ground, generally listenable, but not too exciting.
2 below average, but still not worth of deletion
1 unlistenable
After many years of rating, I've ended up with a catalog where anything 3 or below I don't really listen to much. I really only gravitate towards the 4-5 star albums. maybe we start using fractions. In an effort to try to better use all 5 stars, I'm going through and redistributing my ratings, subtracting a star across most of the range:
0 unlistenable
1 below average
2 average, generally listenable and warrants inclusion in my collections
Then, what was 4-5 is getting redistributed from 3-5, so that the scale is more linear, and better suited to the things I actually listen to.
3. above average
4. maybe top 20-30
5. best of the best. top 5-10
|
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Oct 12, 2019 15:34:17 GMT -6
My problem with your system is that my tastes change both in the short and long term so I make no attempt to rate my albums in the way that you do funkle. However if it works for you that's fine with me.
|
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Oct 12, 2019 16:49:56 GMT -6
Here is how I have it on my RYM:
Ratings: 2,772
5.0
Masterpiece 96
4.5
Very good to great release 358
4.0
Good record 1,138
3.5
Pretty good, but flawed 925
3.0
Average 205
2.5
A little less than mediocre 26
2.0
Not good 13
1.5
Poor 5
1.0
Horrible 3
0.5
I sold it
I tend to sell/delete titles that are 3 or below. Life is too short to listen to all my music as it is, to be holding onto stuff like that.
I see no problem with squaring ratings like this and changing tastes. Just change the rating. It's not like they're set in stone.
Example - I used to think this album was just so-so, but I've come to think it's very good, so I bumped it.
I set up my defining levels in the simplest of terms. I couldn't have tit the way you had/have it. If I asked you, "How's the new Stern?"
You're not likely to reply in terms like the ones you outlined. I wanted direct and to the point descriptors.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Oct 13, 2019 16:54:01 GMT -6
I tend to sell/delete titles that are 3 or below. Life is too short to listen to all my music as it is, to be holding onto stuff like that. I see no problem with squaring ratings like this and changing tastes. Just change the rating. It's not like they're set in stone. Example - I used to think this album was just so-so, but I've come to think it's very good, so I bumped it. I set up my defining levels in the simplest of terms. I couldn't have tit the way you had/have it. If I asked you, "How's the new Stern?" You're not likely to reply in terms like the ones you outlined. I wanted direct and to the point descriptors. Your values are pretty much what I was using. My point, and reason for trying the new system is that if anything below 3 is not worth listening to, the 5 star ranking system essentially becomes a 3 star system, and your using fully half of the spread (0-2) to denote levels of crappynes of unlistenable music. Probably makes sense if your ranking them for other people's benefit (like on RYM), but less for me personally. |
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Oct 13, 2019 16:55:27 GMT -6
My problem with your system is that my tastes change both in the short and long term so I make no attempt to rate my albums in the way that you do funkle. However if it works for you that's fine with me. How do you track or rate your albums, if at all? |
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Oct 13, 2019 17:50:38 GMT -6
I tend to sell/delete titles that are 3 or below. Life is too short to listen to all my music as it is, to be holding onto stuff like that. I see no problem with squaring ratings like this and changing tastes. Just change the rating. It's not like they're set in stone. Example - I used to think this album was just so-so, but I've come to think it's very good, so I bumped it. I set up my defining levels in the simplest of terms. I couldn't have tit the way you had/have it. If I asked you, "How's the new Stern?" You're not likely to reply in terms like the ones you outlined. I wanted direct and to the point descriptors. Your values are pretty much what I was using. My point, and reason for trying the new system is that if anything below 3 is not worth listening to, the 5 star ranking system essentially becomes a 3 star system, and your using fully half of the spread (0-2) to denote levels of crappynes of unlistenable music. Probably makes sense if your ranking them for other people's benefit (like on RYM), but less for me personally. I guess. But I don't hold onto music ranked that low anyway. I've rated some, to give contrast to the other ratings for that artist, or so I don't forget that I didn't care for something and accidentally re-acquire it. But do I actually own stuff that I think that little of? No. The way you're going to do it now, you're locking yourself into having only 25-40 albums qualify to be 4 or 5. What's the point of a numerical value then? Just say it make your top whatever list and be done. You are going to end up with a fuckton of 3's. And how are you going to decide the albums that make that list until you give them a numerical rate in the first place? The process doesn't seem very organic |
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Oct 13, 2019 18:17:09 GMT -6
The way you're going to do it now, you're locking yourself into having only 25-40 albums qualify to be 4 or 5. What's the point of a numerical value then? Just say it make your top whatever list and be done. You are going to end up with a fuckton of 3's. And how are you going to decide the albums that make that list until you give them a numerical rate in the first place? The process doesn't seem very organic I already have a fuckton of 4s. Now I'll have a fuckton of 3s. The only difference is I've shifted the scale allow the top to be more graduated. If it turns out I don't need it to be that specific, no damage done. It just gives more flexibility if I do end up leveraging it that way. Part of my motivation to do this is that Roon (which is otherwise fantastic in every way), only allows you to sort on whole stars. Otherwise I'd probably accomplish what I want with half stars as you're doing at RYM. |
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Oct 14, 2019 1:26:37 GMT -6
My problem with your system is that my tastes change both in the short and long term so I make no attempt to rate my albums in the way that you do funkle. However if it works for you that's fine with me. How do you track or rate your albums, if at all? A mixture of memory and playing ones I haven't listened to for a while. I have disposed of quite a few albums over the years as my tastes have changed. The reality is that there are simply too many for me to maintain any comprehensive scoring system. For example I have every Tribal Tech and Scott Henderson album and I would struggle to score even them. At the end of the day I am just not that bothered.
I have exactly the same approach to wine. I have a fairly large number of bottles (just under 200) and I drink (with my wife) about 3 or 4 bottles a week. I keep track of what I have and their drinking windows on Cellar Tracker but I don't score or review them. I am grateful that others do but don't feel the need to do so myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Oct 14, 2019 11:31:23 GMT -6
How do you track or rate your albums, if at all? A mixture of memory and playing ones I haven't listened to for a while. I have disposed of quite a few albums over the years as my tastes have changed. The reality is that there are simply too many for me to maintain any comprehensive scoring system. For example I have every Tribal Tech and Scott Henderson album and I would struggle to score even them. At the end of the day I am just not that bothered.
I have exactly the same approach to wine. I have a fairly large number of bottles (just under 200) and I drink (with my wife) about 3 or 4 bottles a week. I keep track of what I have and their drinking windows on Cellar Tracker but I don't score or review them. I am grateful that others do but don't feel the need to do so myself.
You guys probably think I'm some kind of categorization/organization freak. I'm more of a right-brain creative type, and I'm horrible at multitasking, or keeping mental track of multiple things. With over 2000 albums in my collection and all the constant new stuff to get through I need some kind of organization system. With a series of tags I can narrow things down in different way, like anything that was added in the last 2 years, is fusion, and has a 3 or greater rating. Also, I think the act of tagging and rating an album helps commit it to memory. I do the same thing for work, where I have 20+ projects going on, and my photography hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by xmiles on Oct 14, 2019 11:41:58 GMT -6
A mixture of memory and playing ones I haven't listened to for a while. I have disposed of quite a few albums over the years as my tastes have changed. The reality is that there are simply too many for me to maintain any comprehensive scoring system. For example I have every Tribal Tech and Scott Henderson album and I would struggle to score even them. At the end of the day I am just not that bothered.
I have exactly the same approach to wine. I have a fairly large number of bottles (just under 200) and I drink (with my wife) about 3 or 4 bottles a week. I keep track of what I have and their drinking windows on Cellar Tracker but I don't score or review them. I am grateful that others do but don't feel the need to do so myself.
You guys probably think I'm some kind of categorization/organization freak. I'm more of a right-brain creative type, and I'm horrible at multitasking, or keeping mental track of multiple things. With over 2000 albums in my collection and all the constant new stuff to get through I need some kind of organization system. With a series of tags I can narrow things down in different way, like anything that was added in the last 2 years, is fusion, and has a 3 or greater rating. Also, I think the act of tagging and rating an album helps commit it to memory. I do the same thing for work, where I have 20+ projects going on, and my photography hobby. I have about 2700 CDs files alphabetically and I have an updated list but I don't keep track of them in any other way. It works for me and your system works for you. |
|
|
|
Post by GeorgeX on Oct 14, 2019 13:47:54 GMT -6
Honestly, I have always been an organized/list oriented/catlog type personality myself. Back in the day, I
had 3 x 5 index cards for every album, with ratings and other info. So this is nothing new for me.
My RYM page was motivated though, in large part, for another purpose. I'm way more into music than
any of my friends, and I got tired of the, 'What's the best _____ album?' or, 'Recommend me some _____
stuff from the last couple years", or "What's ______ up to?" kind of questions from my lazy friends. I
needed somewhere to send them and their queries.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Oct 14, 2019 14:39:29 GMT -6
It works for me and your system works for you. Naturally. I would never try to push my system. I was just curious what others do. |
|
|
|
Post by JaySee on Oct 15, 2019 9:12:18 GMT -6
What do you think about Gnosis-scale (1-15)?
15: One of the best ever, perfect. We suggest to raters that, at most, the top 1% of all albums receive a 15. While any rating from 12 through 15 can accurately be described with the superlatives "masterpiece" or "classic," only the 15s should appeal to the rater in as profound a manner as possible.
14: A near perfect classic. In many ways, the difference between 15s and 14s are barely existent; 14s are fantastic albums that either have a very minor flaw or just dont take it to the next level. We suggest to raters that, at most, the top 5% of all albums receive either a 14 or 15.
13: A classic, but not one of the very best. 13s are exalted grades. They are used for albums that the raters consider a classic or a masterpiece, yet did not make the very peak of the hill. A 13 is still an extremely highly recommended item, one that has few flaws. This rating can also be considered an "in-between" grade between favorites and borderline classics.
12: A borderline classic. A 12 is an album that one might instantly apply the word "classic" to, but on deeper reflection, one might not be so sure. There may be slight flaws that would have one hesitate on an intensely specific and critical level, yet a 12 is still an album that would have one mesmerized.
11: Excellent. While not a classic, an album that is very enjoyable and an important part of ones collection. We recommend that raters not give grades higher than 11 on the very first listen.
10: Very good. An album that, while not great, is definitely worth keeping and is very enjoyable.
9: Pretty good. While an album better than most, one may or may not keep an album with a rating of 9.
8: Slightly above average. An album with noticeable flaws, although few permeate the album entirely. Perhaps half the album is superb but the other half is so-so. Or there's a sentimental connection and little else.
7: Completely mediocre. Neither good nor bad. In the greater scheme of things, an album rated as a 7 has been buried under a pile of much superior titles, and while one is not ready to pan it, the rating implies, that, ercan you put something else on?
6: Slightly below average. Just a tad worse than mediocre. Perhaps some parts are outright annoying or distasteful.
5: Below average. Maybe not outright "bad", but definitely a poor effort.
4: Pretty bad. A grade of 4 indicates a strong recommendation to avoid.
3: Bad. An album that contains a handful of decent moments in an otherwise atrocious outing.
2: Very bad, but there are worse. Although an incredibly poor effort, not one of the very worst. However, thats not to say that there are any redeeming values.
1: The worst thing ever. Intolerable. Godawful. A frisbee. A perfect example of something that one loves to hate.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkle on Oct 15, 2019 10:12:33 GMT -6
What do you think about Gnosis-scale (1-15)?
A couple thoughts: Again, half of the scale (1-7) is used up to rate levels of crappyness. Maybe this makes sense if we are rating music for other people's benefit, but for personal use, I don't see the point, other than from a process standpoint. And from a compatibility standpoint, most of the playback & cataloging programs (all the ones I use) use a 0-5 scale, a deal killer for me. And then 8 levels of good albums - maybe too much graduation? My tastes are fickle enough that that level of precision would be overkill. I think 3 levels of above average is perfect for my listening. |
|
