Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
is it the new 7/10?
do we need to look at 11 again?
is the highest number that i would look into an album i otherwise knew nothing about...
theres something about a 7 that says...you should have tried harder.
10 for things which are very very good, 11 for things which are perfect, and then 11.1 or 11.2 for things which are better than perfect. Obviously, nothing gets 11.3 - that would just be silly
i agree though, 8/10 on DiS has started to mean very little
0 to 9 scale
That's the way forward, every album desrves the 1st mark just for the effort made by the artist, no album is 0/10. So start at 1 and end with 10 makes more sense than 1 to 9.
it has to go up some, since 1-5 are completely ignored apart from with example setting reviews, and even then it's normally a 4. A 4 should mean "slightly worse than average" but in the mind of most music reviewers that's what 6 or 7 represents
Albums would pretty soon start getting 11.3s and 9/10 would become the new 8/10.
8 or higher if I know it's good.
I think 8 has probably been de-valued by being used more because 7's are so often ignored.
Before ignoring albums with low ratings you should check the rating of your favourite albums, some will be less than 8 for sure.
You get the 8.5 and the 7.5.
It sticks a quick bvalue on an album. For me 8/10 say the album is worth a listen and then I can form my own judgement an opinion.
But I agree with average stuff getting 7-8/10. I trawled throught a fair few reviews yesterday and at least 50% got 7 or 8. As has been mentioned, bad albums tended to get 4.
go for a system without scores, simply because it might take some of the ridiculous obsession away them that some folk have. Not to mention that they encourage lazy, unfocussed writing. Why write something concise and informative when most people are just going to look at a number?
Websites like Pitchfork giving .1 increments is freakin' grotesque. Cokemachineglow's score-average calculations and charts: unbelievable. Is that .1 really a meaningful indicator of quality, or is it maybejustyouthink something for internet mifflers to quibble over?
They're not even useful for things like end of year lists: they should be the product of discussion, not an excel formula.
We'll never get rid of scores; but man, it'd be nice to see less of them, particularly on/in the sites/mags that brand themselves as top of their field.
Nearly every other album gets 8/10.
It's like GCSEs, let them all have an A*
I like alot of the reviews, but 8/10 appears more on here than CSS do at festivals
Is a 82% album much better than a 78%
With something so subjective, I don't think you can put such an accurate value.
I think reviewers should start at 5/10 before they have heard the album and move up/down accordingly.
I think if so many records get 6-8 out of 10
then mebbe the decimals oughta be looked at
although I do realise that room does have an elephant in it
I know you don't review records on the whole if you think they are awful and undeserving, which is absolutely healthy
review sections that turn out endless bad reviews, I am thinking of Q here and then give amazing reviews to obviously awful records for advertising bungs, are just boring to read, ad pointless)
which explains the lack of < 6/10 reviews, apart from the 4s.
and you need to hold back the 10s and keep them for special, natch
but that means that 6,7, and 8 tend to account for so many of the reviews.
Those digits are overworked, they look tired; 8 needs a holiday, it's looking a bit flaccid. 8 gives you guys a lot, at least you could do something for it in return?
Pack it off to a health farm, toughen it up, it might come back as a 9
9 seems underused so perhaps 9 could be given something to do, at least while 8 is away
thus as a regular reader I must conclude
6 = good band disappointing record
7 = good bits and bad bits
8 = pretty good, you wont't be disappointed, records are expensive, we get that but y'know, get this, if you like that type of thing
9 = typo, you meant 8
10 = really pushing the envelope and succeeding
I think the album alone should be judged/reviewed on it's merits, who recorded it should be almost irrelevant.
If this was the case I'm sure many scores would have been very different.
Plenty of bad stuff gets reviewed and I think that is right. Plenty of stuff is hyped without substance (Foals).
There should be about one 10/10 a year. Maybe this should even be a retrospective mark because I'm not sure the true quality of an album is evident at the time of it's release. Do people still feel the same way 6 months/ 6 years down the line? These are the 10/10 albums.
8/10 needs to be very very good. On a 12 track album I'd say at least 10 songs need to be really high quality alone, as well as working in the album. Obviously there will be some exceptions to this.
That would free up 6 and 7 for all the albums that are above average that are curently scoring 8s, and would allow for some of the 9/10 (near perfect!?) to be dropped to an 8.
and here, like many other sites, it's 10, which no album should get because it implys perfection.
For me, this is how I would judge albums.
5 - Average
5.5 - Above average
6 - Good album, worth a listen.
7 - Very good album, not great, but worth adding to your collection.
8 - Great album, definite purchase.
9 - Excellent albums, one of the top ten of the year, must buy, constant listens.
10 - perfection, which is impossible.
That would be mine, but you see a lot of albums getting a 6/7, which compared to other sites might look a bit stingy, but I think it's better to mark lower, it gives the higher mark more impact.
...for rating bands and it is here:
I gave a Fountains of Wayne show a 4 (http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/2507099) which seemed to get a few people's backs up. Psychologically, anything less than a 7 is considered not worth the time of day. 8 sounds miles better than a 7; 9 and 10 are probably seen as great and perfect respectively. Or something.
shows up some interesting problems with the scoring system.
Let's say (for argument's sake) you have a post rock album that is coherent and well played and a good example of the genre. It is not however innovative in any way. If you enjoy the 'post rock sound' and don't put an overwhelming premium on innovation you would be quite happy to call it a 7 or an 8.
If you hate the post rock sound or for whatever reason believe that a post rock album has to be innovative (does this apply to all genres???) then you would give it a 3 or a 4.
I think ditch the numbers and make us read the reviews.
This goes back to my point about retrospective reviewing.
An album might score lowly becasue it comes out when people are bored of a style of music but when looked back on it might be seen as a good example of the style.
Having said that, I don't think any album should score more than 7 if only fans of that genre will like it. For me, the quality of an 8/10 or above should be so good that people who don't normally like the genre should be able to appreciate it.
There is no easy way around the difference of opinion thing, this is also a drawback of any review, unless 10 people review each album. However, reviews are supposed to be fairly unbiased and usually reviews are not carried out by people with a hatered of a genre. This may also be why so many albums seem to score well (7+).
.....and the obvious. Stars are the way forward. 'Out of tens' are for spelling tests and rating cooked English breakfasts...for something as creative as making music you want stars - 1-5, 'cause even then a 1 is still a star, and how nice would that look?.... and they could change from silver to gold the further along the scale yet went....
is worthless, end up with too many 3s.
Though I'll agree that stars look nice.
Mike_Diver like his post-rock so he's bound to review the better post-rock albums higher than someone who doesn't care much for the genre. It's almost impossible to review an album without being at all biased towards your own taste. If it's not your "cup of tea" and don't enjoy listening to an album then you may still appreciate it enough to award a 6 or 7/10 but are very unlikely to give it 8, 9 or 10.
It would probably be a fairer system if they did.
I know plenty of people who would not score stuff I like highly.
But I can draw a distinction between something I personally love and that I would score maybe 8-9/10, and something that should score 8-9/10 if reviewed by somebody who does not love the genre.
I actually think switches albums is pretty good, I'd score it highly 8/10 maybe, but I can see how it is not everybodies cup of tea, so if i was reviewing it "preofessionally", I'd score it lower.
Where as, I would challenge anybody not to rate funeral highly.