Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I think they're a bit silly.
i am pretty dumb and sometimes i can't actually tell if a review is good or bad, so numerical scores really help me.
...this isn't a joke
we all get lazy some times and want a quick score outa 10. I'm happy to see an opinion in numerical form.
that you don't want to see it represented as a score?
it gives you a little idea of what the reveiwer is thinking. But more wait goes to the main reveiw its self. In the end we all make up our own minds anyway
they're good for having a look at the score and then seeing why the album deserved that score. As long as its not to the decimal point or the review is written around the score (*cough Pitchfork).
I even like the Pitchfork decimal point style.
What I hate is marks out of 5.
as it's obviously not an exact science and I find it a bit anal & inaccurate to pretend it is.
But I think it's a useful shorthand and obviously potentially helpful for bands to say they got x/10 from Drowned in Sound as it proves they liked it whereas purely word reviews can be inadvertently or willfully misinterpreted.
But I've no mass issue for a marks out of 10 review anyway.
But my main point (bar that I find the Pitchfork system a bit pedantic and trying to present itself as more accurate than it can be) is that I'm in favour of numerical scores.
My preference of types of score probably does go
x/10 (including halves)
x/10 (not including halves)
and x/5 (including halves)
x/5 (not including halves)
and x/10 (including decimals)
x/randomly chosen number to appear different.
i.e. "A-", "B+", etc.
i think there are loads of great albums that need to be differentiated by decimal points - there are plenty of 9/10 albums, for instance, but some of them are definitely better than others. It might be pedantic, but i think that all obsessive music fans (and im guessing there might be a few of them on here) are very pedantic. I like having a score as well, so that you can have a quick glance at a review that you wouldnt usually read and perhaps that gets your interest.
i hate scores out of five, that tells you nothing really.
and you'll get a score out of ten!
i like numerical scores because a) people write some amount of shite about music b) i'm lazy. And like someone said up there, it's difficult to tell if people actually LIKED the record or not sometimes (hello, plan b)
I think there might be some other odd numbers missing too.
to presume everyone wants to read every single review is slightly egotistical, a lot of people look for a good score and then skim read or read properly if they like it. to stop doing numerical scores would be DiS cutting of its' nose to spite its face
What exactly are the criteria that you're marking it on? I mean, take the new Isobel Campbell / Mark Lanegan effort that I think got 5/10. Most of the reason that it rated quite badly was the fact that it wasn't a progression at all from the first album - they were just re-treading familiar ground. But if you don't have the first album, or you're not too fussed by musical innovation then surely it shouldn't be penalised for this.
Maybe records should have lots of marks out of 10?
Songwriting / 10
Variety / 10
Innovation / 10
stuff like that?
or would that be worse?
that'd be a disaster. Absolutepunk do something like that (see http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=320779 for an example) and it's just a mess.
What about erm... I don't know.... only using irrational numbers? erm.
as it breaks things down into aspects where for one album they are marked on criteria that is irrelevant to the quality of the album. its important to remember that basically all a review is, is someones opinion on how good the album is, in the context of what they know about the artist etc. it should be used as a guide, but isnt the be all and end all.
a separate mark for the lyrics, the vocals and the beats, which is then averaged. But it really wouldn't work on a broader musical scale
which has three criteria out of ten:
In Retrospect /10
i think it's a pretty good system on the whole.
why would I trust some randomers idea of what is good?
I'd prefer to read about it and see if it sounds like it might be something I might dig, but I rarely do that anyhow.
that was me just whingeing for fun. When I said "rarely" I meant never.
I think everything should be rated to three decimal places, so it's totally definite where it sits in the grand scheme of things.
it could be argued that the number thing gives reviewers licence to write a load of tosh. As in, they can give something a score and that's their bit of informing the readership what they think of the music done with, so they can then grab their thesaurus and go on and write some stupid non-review.
So taking away the point thing may make certain writers actually review the music instead of treating music criticism as their creative writing output (not to say reviews can't be creative and interesting, and I'm not talking about here in particular, but reviews are there to serve a purpose which is often forgotten) and then they can go and get on with their novel or whatever they are trying to squeeze into a MUSIC REVIEW.
Also, scores like 7 and 8 out of ten pretty much mean nothing.
like these - you'll like this
I have no idea though