fucking zomby got one.
extrapolate and its nearly 50 for the year. i don't think there are that many 9/10 albums in one year.
There doesn't seem to be any statistical consistency to DiS reviews and that's a good thing, as in reality there's nothing to stop 20 9/10 albums coming out in one month. Imagine if a truly outstanding album came out next week but sean had to tell the reviewer to bump it down to an 8/10 because he'd reached the monthly limit of 9s.
I think something's gone wrong here
Pitchfork does seem much more calculated with how they hand out scores...but even they have been BNM happy of late. Must just be a good time for music.
According to the album of the year website. So around 35 for the full year but given that it will go quiet for releases over the Summer until Autumn and then quiet again at Christmas, significantly less than that.
don't think I can discuss it beyond that
I can't remember the last time there was so much great stuff released in such a short period of time.
Although you're not really much of a dance music man from what I gather, so you might not have necessarily considered them.
I've got relatively conservative tastes for the DiS boards but in my world I'd give 9/10's to Daft Punk, Hookworms, Vampire Weekend, Still Corners, Deerhunter, Phosporescent, Charlie XCX, The National, Thee Oh Sees and maybe James Blake, Local Natives, MBV and Savages if I'm in the right mood.
I haven't heard Boards of Canada or These New Puritans yet and there's another load of definite 8's that could become 9's with time (Dutch Uncles, No Joy, Unknown Mortal Orchestra, Matthew E White, QotSA).
theres a couple wonderful tracks but i found it dragged for a lot of it.
aw come aw wry. now THATS a 9/10.
Worst Phosphorescent album to date IMHO but some fucking brilliant songs along the way.
I wouldn't say it drags but those 3/4 amazing tracks have coloured my view of the overall album in retrospect.
I'm new to the guy so maybe over zealous in my praise. I was wondering where to go next so thanks for the recommendation, will check it out.
Same goes for Kveikur...bit surprised you're not in agreement there actually.
But just because they're 9/10 records doesn't mean they should get 9/10. 8 tops.
Why are you talking so much bull?
So your argument is that... even if an album is worthy of a 9/10, they shouldn't give it a 9/10?
May I ask why?
I can understand how people might get concerned about grade inflation devaluing the importance of the review score as a comparative tool.
That said occasionally you do get bursts of really good albums that all deserve that 9/10 mark, so it evens itself out over time. If two or three albums were getting 9/10 a week then it would be different.
DiS isn't a huge website and only reviews a finite amount of stuff. I'd rather they reviewed stuff on the basis they were likely to really like it and then were enthusiastic about and raved about it when they did.
If DiS did lots of 5/10, 6/10, 7/10 reviews, it'd probably be a clue that it was reviewing the wrong stuff...
you know like most music zines and things?
Guess it`s just a good year for music.
considering they score out of 5
So 4 and half isn`t the equivalent of a 9 then?
Or is it just that there has been a rush of great records? Or maybe good records plus nice weather makes our writers kinder?
To be fair, as a lot of PRs have stopped sending me stuff upfront of release, quite a lot of these high score reviews haven't been added to our recommended section as I tend to ensure this is only for stuff that I think the average DiS reader will like (ie the xx didn't make it into recommended last year) http://drownedinsound.com/lists/recommended-records
But I guess they way reviews are divvied up here is more or less the same process as my university rag music pages. IE people generally opt to choose things they already like, things related to their friends or things they know they can write a hilarious review because they already dislike it. The music section of our paper ultimately ended up as being 80% fnnzine-level fawning, 10% plugs for mates toilet-circuit support slots, or entertaining but redundant slaggings. I'm purely speculating, but I guess the only way to counteract this is to make the choice of record/reviewer random, but then I guess you're leaving the door open for even more disasterous reviews (EG if I had that Zomby album to review, there's no way I could write anything without looking thick and/or completely ignorant of that kind of music). So keep this system, and stop caring in my advice.
that I would be thrilled and delighted to have the chance to write unpaid 600-or-so-word reviews of albums which I had no interest in
can I write DiS yeezus review please
I can't even be arsed to listen to it. Is he still a misogynist egomaniac?
You will HATE it.
OH YEAH! I went there
second dubstep album to get 9/10 this month after zomby!
doubt there's a more worthy 9/10 album ITT.
I'm kinda with Everett True on this one.
So whereas in film and theatre reviews there might be a bit more subjectivity and detachment, when people are writing about music, especially relatively small bands, and they love an album, they just say "I love this album! I love this band! 9/10!" instead of taking a step back and looking beneath the surface level and asking themselves what the album is doing, rather than just what it sounds like/how much it pleases them.
Like the Joanna Gruesome album springs to mind- I know it's an 8/10 rather than 9, but while I think it's a really fun album and really enjoyable, it's still very derivative and not really 'there' yet (although it definitely points to them getting 'there' in the future), so to me it's more like 6/10, which I'd equate to three stars, ie 'Good'.
Not saying it's necessarily better to write with more detachment, but I personally find it very hard to trust a reviewer when they're quite clearly a massive fan of the band, especially if it's a debut- if it's an album further in the bands career then on occasion it's quite nice to have a reviewer who knows that band inside out and can offer a really in depth opinion, so long as it doesn't cloud their judgement (which mostly it does).
*bar seeing them at Latitude
my point was more that music reviews in general are often based on initial impressions or the fact that a band have achieved a certain aesthetic etc (which is how genres like indiepop manage to thrive), and maybe hinge on the reviewer identifying with the record (back to the fandom thing again), rather than taking a step back and looking behind the music a little bit to fully comment on the purpose of the album.
Your review was probably a bad example, I only used it as I'd just read it! Just felt it was overly generous really, and the above could have been a reason why.
It puts people - me included - off reading the reviews when they'd quite like to do so, because they want to see the score at the end above everything else.
Give me a really good piece of writing about a really good piece of music any day. Scores are boring and autistic. If the review's of a high enough standard you should be able to tell what score it earned in the reviewer's mind anyway.
Wire doesn't have scores, does it? And obviously not music, but Sight and Sound's reviews are all the better for not having star ratings.
Although sadly I think that in order to get the clickthroughs from sites like Any Decent Music, they really have to keep the scores, otherwise DiS would be far less influential.
I like seeing what score stuff gets and whether or not I agree with it, because it's fun, but it does play into the whole indie geeky middle class white guy making lists rather than talking to girls mentality as you say above.
which is no bad thing but doesn't exactly appeal to a range of music fans, my mates who listen only to house and techno stuff don't understand why I still buy albums ffs, let alone rank things in a list in December.
I just want to know what the album sounds like.
but the people making it are usually people who don’t have to worry about running a website, selling a magazine or making a living from music journalism. I mean, I don’t think many would disagree with you on an ideological basis.
Fair enough point, though.
The Wire and tQ are exceptional, well-staffed and pretty highbrow institutions that attract a niche audience, and cater to it well, with professional writers who firmly believe in what the Wire & tQ represent. But if somewhere of slightly broader appeal (like DiS) abolished numerical ratings, the writing may incrementally tighten up, but ultimately clickthroughs would slump. Appeasing the minority who claim immunity to album ratings’ allure doesn’t seem like the greatest payoff.
although the Quietus does cover a broader range of stuff than I always assumed it did- Arctic Monkeys, Goldfrapp, Babyshambles, Franz Ferdinand, Crocodiles, No Age, King Krule, Darren Hayman have been reviewed in the last few weeks, which makes potentially 50% of their reviews output indie-based, whereas I think the indiest stuff I've seen Wire review is Flying Lotus and GY!BE.
I guess the rather longwinded point I'm trying to make is, if a website can review similar stuff to DiS (just not as much of it) without giving scores, it gives hope to websites like DiS itself to perhaps get rid of scores one day.
and a score.
Away with them!