Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I look forward to this a lot.
I'm doubly excited as I pre-ordered this yesterday in an act of careless abandon.
Much like Mike before him, I generally find I agree with most of Andrzej's verdicts and recommendations.
I think it's good that DiS doesn't give out 8s, 9s and 10s willy nilly myself. Heightens the glory of when something does get a perfect score. Personally, I find it very hard to give those scores out freely.
I had an internal debate with myself for a couple of days over whether the Four Tet record was an 8 or 9. It seems in this day and age (particularly in film and game reviews) that an 8 is merely a decent attempt, a 9 is damn good and a 10 is worth getting.
Whereas for me, half of my records would be 6s or 7s and wholly decent listens, but just a few hundred deserve any more than that.
Not everything can be great' otherwise nothing is.
...but a 7 is a score that can mean a few things, really. A pretty good record on the whole, a record with patches of greatness but lacking consistency, and a fine record which won't appeal to everyone...
then maybe 7s would get the love they deserve...?
either universally brilliant, inventive or soaring far and beyond. however, the scores are obviously given by the individual rather than the site.
9 should be an album of the year, rather than a top 10 of the decade.
8 means is really great, rather than good
7 is good but not life-changing, inspiring or a must buy for everyone
6 is good
5 is average (nearly everything is average, which is why i don't review very much, who cares about average?!)
it's the opinion of the writer.
2. I think the record is so successful (and unique) as a piece of art that it was a pretty easy decision to give it top marks - certainly easier than if I was assessing an album of pop songs (I dunno if I'd have given Silent Shout 10/10)
3. Marks are silly, etc.
There isn't another mark it could have gotten, I think.
Are what they give things so hipsters can skip to the number so that they can adequately gauge how much they should like something.
I like Mad Men =(
And the first episode of series two.
me and it, we just ain't gonna work out.
that's my life motto
It isn't about the ratings, but it's about the album:
If I have found myself unable to connect in any way with The Knife, and largely hated Silent Shout, would I appreciate Tomorrow, In A Year? The first song that was put up (something about pigeons?) was pretty neat, and I just wanted to know if I should give it a go, or just not waste my time on it?
so give it a whirl, it's streaming for free. But yeah, it's a pretty heavy going piece of music, Colouring of Pigeons comes from the late section when it lightens up a bit.
I definitely think there are 10/10 albums, even if only momentary.
Richard D James Album
Sorry, but you're wrong
the 1-10 scale isn't a scientific measurement or law of physics, of course something can be given a 10/10. As I said above, I gave it top marks because for me it works as a completely perfect piece of art - it would seem somewhat bathetic to give it 9/10.
is the first stage towards losing the internet.
Makes a lot of sense.
Brilliant! Wouldn't have argued if I'd know. Good to have the old grouch back.
I listened to it. Agreed it has artistic merit. But for me, 10/10 has to be something I'll want to listen to over and over and over and over again. So I'm gonna say Tomorrow doesn't meet that criteria.
I suppose it all boils down to what you think the 'point' of music is, and whether it should all be subject to the same criteria. Other performance artforms don't have the same applied to them - I don't want to slap Apocalypse Now back on after watching it, but that doesn't stop me from thinking it's a masterpiece.
Tomorrow, in a Year is fucking demanding, there's not really that much point unless you've got an hour and a half to spare and it is pretty gruelling for much of its length, but I think it's absurd to say that that should count against it. And the fact is I do want to listen to it over and over again, just with lengthy breather inbetween.
but it doesn't have to be perfect. If you were to choose a score out of a hundred for instance then a 95 rounded up would be a 10/10. People that say "there's never been a 10/10" like kiki up there are talking an almost insurmountable amount of bollocks. You could also argue that a 10/10 album is something that reaches the top tier in a ten tier system which again means it doesn't have to reach the giddy heights of absolute perfection.
And who could possibly argue with a reviewer saying an album is perfect anyway? It's their opinion, music as a subjective art form allows them this opinion. It could be their idea of perfection, just because YOU can't understand why when listening to it yourself doesn't make their opinion invalid.
It really gets me that every time an album receives a 10/10 we have this same tired argument, I'm having difficulty comprehending the stupidity of it all. I think a few people need to look up the word subjective in the dictionary for starters.
whether you see ratings in the context of the one album or the context of every album rated
i'd say it's more or less a waste of time comparing scores, a number is only really relevant to that one album.
this album might be pitch perfect, have nothing else it could've done to improve, therefore 10 over 10.
that doesn't mean....'OMGZZ DUS THIS MEAN IT'S AS GOOD AS THE BEATLES!!!...IS THAT WUT YR SAYIN IT'S AS GOOD AS BEATLES..?'
surely it just means this album has acheived every goal it set out to and does it perfectly etc.....etc etc...