Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Enthusiast
|
quote: Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
Good for you, then. Enjoy. By the way, Vice gave 4 albums a 10 out of 10 this month, including the Arctic Monkeys which TMT gave a 2/5.
It's a little frustrating that every time someone mentions something negative about TMT you jump on them a little bit. You have to admit though, that despite whatever you think 5/5 means, to the general public it signifies a flawless, classic album, and if a publication claims that 1 out of 10 albums released is flawless and classic, something seems seriously incorrect. |
| |
|
Jedi
|
It seems really strange when some of the records that get 10.0 on Pitchforkmedia while others do not. I am specifically talking about things like Interpol's Turn On The Bright Lights or Bjork's Homogenic or Sigur Ros Agaetis Byrjun getting a 9.9 and not a 10.0. What difference does a .1 make anyway. It's just ridiculous. As for the reissues, here is something that I have a major problem with, look at the way Pitchfork gave Boards of Canada's Music Has The Right to Children reissue a 10.0 but not reissues of Brian Eno's ambient works which received somewhere around a 9.0 or better. Eno practically made the idea of ambient music what it is and yet a group that owes a great debt to him gets a 10.0 but not the man himself???? On another note, I do agree with Glenn Branca's The Ascension receiving a 10.0 but I still think that Source Tags & Codes is a great record although not quite worthy of a 10.0.
|
| |
| Posts: 1388 | Location: Chattanooga, TN | Registered: 23 February 2006 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
|
Interesting comment on homogenic. I wonder what it was that got it docked a tenth. I don't believe in "flawless" works of art because then everybody would agree they were flawless. Something which is flawless is better than a 10. I do wholeheartedly believe in people honestly relating to art on an individual basis as flawless. But when I see a perfect score, it never connotes perfection to me. So in that way, I'm willing to give everybody, including Mescalito, some slack ( not that you need it) because he's actually anti-ratings. Just remember, mi compadre, what we type here is all "meaningless fun", but what we all feel IS personal, so "always with a little humor." [Yen Lo (Khigh Dhiegh) in The Manchurian Candidate (1962).]
"Naked Woman, Naked Man
Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
|
| |
| Posts: 12945 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004 | |
|
Apprentice Guru
|
quote: I don't believe in "flawless" works of art because then everybody would agree they were flawless. Something which is flawless is better than a 10.
Yup. As for BoC getting a 10, but not Eno, it's because Music Has the Right to Children is better than anything Eno did, at least that I've heard. That's no insult to Eno. First does not equal best. I think part of the reason that TMT gives so many 5's, other than their writers' autonomy, is that their scale doesn't allow for much differentiation. Pitchfork can always play it safe and hand out a 9.8, which would translate to a 4.9/5 on TMT's scale, and they just don't break it down like that. Basically, a 5/5 doesn't mean the same as a 10.0, and it's not supposed to. Still, RYM has a 5-star rating system and I try to save my 5/5's for the albums I consider true classics. Last year for example I don't think I had a 5/5 (considering giving one to Sleater-Kinney). |
| |
|
Jedi
|
quote: As for the reissues, here is something that I have a major problem with, look at the way Pitchfork gave Boards of Canada's Music Has The Right to Children reissue a 10.0 but not reissues of Brian Eno's ambient works which received somewhere around a 9.0 or better. Eno practically made the idea of ambient music what it is and yet a group that owes a great debt to him gets a 10.0 but not the man himself????
That makes no sense, who cares if BOC use ambient noises in there music, and brian eno happend to popularize much earlier than them.If an album is better than some other album than it just is. Your comment is stupid, and makes no sense. All the fuss over a rating system, who really cares what somebody else rates an album...really? These people who are probabbly the same people who dont even read reviews and buy albums on rating alone.Pathetic. |
| |
| Posts: 1103 | Location: Seattle | Registered: 25 May 2004 | |
|
Apprentice Guru
|
quote: Originally posted by Imprezu21:
All the fuss over a rating system, who really cares what somebody else rates an album...really? These people who are probabbly the same people who dont even read reviews and buy albums on rating alone.Pathetic.
That's strong sentiment against a hypothetical group of people. |
| |
|
Enthusiast
|
quote: All the fuss over a rating system, who really cares what somebody else rates an album...really? These people who are probabbly the same people who dont even read reviews and buy albums on rating alone.Pathetic.
That's quite a leap to make, especially since no one on here has expressed any tendency to do that. And I hate when people make comments like "who really cares about blah blah blah." Are we starting a war about it? physical violence? Emotional scaring? No, it's a fun conversation. That "who really cares" thing can be applied to basically any message board. It's conversation. It's fun. |
| |
|
Jedi
|
What is the point in getting so hostile over my comment. I'm not insulting Boards of Canada, I happen to really like them. I mean you arent' in Boards of Canada so why do you care? I also happen to really like Brian Eno's ambient works. I see a definite connection between what Eno did and what Boards of Canada do as well. Thanks for calling my comment stupid. That was totally awesome dude. I'm just trying to enter into what I think is an interesting conversation. I work for an online magazine that doesn't allow the use of ratings (Delusions of Adequacy). Our scores get posted here along with everything else and someone from Metacritic has to actually read what I write in order to assign a score. As for the comment about first not necessarily being better, I don't think I ever said anything about Boards of Canada being better than Brian Eno. I was just commenting on how silly the Pitchfork rating system is, and whether or not you enjoy Boards of Canada more than Brian Eno is completely beside the point. Brian Eno made some landmark records and I just thought that it would be nice to see some records that are classics receive an equal score to something that achieves "instant classic status" so easily.
|
| |
| Posts: 1388 | Location: Chattanooga, TN | Registered: 23 February 2006 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:
As for the comment about first not necessarily being better, I don't think I ever said anything about Boards of Canada being better than Brian Eno. I was just commenting on how silly the Pitchfork rating system is, and whether or not you enjoy Boards of Canada more than Brian Eno is completely beside the point. Brian Eno made some landmark records and I just thought that it would be nice to see some records that are classics receive an equal score to something that achieves "instant classic status" so easily.
I'm with you, and you make some good points. But giving an Eno record a 10.0 would be predicatable, and it's not indie cool to be that predictable, so... I find the 10.0 rating for Walt Mink's El Producto (a great record) to be strange. It's not a perfect record, as the score implies, and the review is all of 3 short paragraphs, saying almosyt nothing. Schreiber says more in the review of the low scoring Walt Mink live record and the high (9.3) review of Colossus. Ratings systems are abritrary and silly, and P-fork's is no exception. But it's nice seeing some Walt Mink love out there... |
| |
| Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by Television: quote: Originally posted by Filmore Mescalito Holmes:
Good for you, then. Enjoy. By the way, Vice gave 4 albums a 10 out of 10 this month, including the Arctic Monkeys which TMT gave a 2/5.
It's a little frustrating that every time someone mentions something negative about TMT you jump on them a little bit.
I'm not jumping on you. I'm just saying TMT hands out as many perfects as your average music magazine. No big deal. quote: Originally posted by mark f:
I don't believe in "flawless" works of art because then everybody would agree they were flawless. Something which is flawless is better than a 10. I do wholeheartedly believe in people honestly relating to art on an individual basis as flawless. But when I see a perfect score, it never connotes perfection to me. So in that way, I'm willing to give everybody, including Mescalito, some slack ( not that you need it) because he's actually anti-ratings.
Yep. That's why I like XLR8R, Exclaim!, and Harp: no ratings. I still automatically scan for ratings but then I have to resign myself to actually reading the reviews to see what that person thinks. If it's a flawless release, the reviewer would say so and in a way more meaningful (hopefully) than some random numerical assignment to an album title. Never Mind The Bollocks is not flawless but many would probably give it a 5, so I'd say there is more at work in rating a CD than just flawlessness, though all ratings are always arbitrary. We're not all Eberts. So, to get back to P4K, I really couldn't care less how many perfects they give out, though the baffling lack of any would seem to indicate a lack of balls on their part. Surely there are several worthy 10s and 0s released every year. I mean, they're just pointless numbers. Do what you want with them. Say something. In the end, we'd all be a lot better off without any numerical ratings. Does anyone know when Rolling Stone started using ratings?
|
| |
| Posts: 1345 | Location: Vansterdam, Canada | Registered: 28 November 2004 | |
|
Enthusiast
|
I don't understand ratings. Sites like Pitchfork, Tiny Mix Tapes and Cokemachineglow giving out exact ratings. What determines a 4.9 from a 4.8 or a 5.0? i dont think anyone has exact ways of determining this. It just seems stupid. If a critic is reviewing an album why don't they just write a review without the ratings, because ratings never really seem to make any sense.
|
| |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by robot:
If a critic is reviewing an album why don't they just write a review without the ratings, because ratings never really seem to make any sense.
I think the scoring system was invented as sort of a summation of the review...a sort of headline. I don't think the numbers are completely arbitrary, but you're probably right that there's not a whole lot of difference in quality between a 4.8 and 5.0.
-----
Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
|
| |
| Posts: 5923 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: It just seems stupid. If a critic is reviewing an album why don't they just write a review without the ratings, because ratings never really seem to make any sense.
Meanwhile, on Metacritic... |
| |
| Posts: 1652 | Location: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: 15 September 2004 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
|
Popmatters gave the new Television Personalities a 10 today.
--------------------------------------------------
I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being—that is enough for me; he can't be any worse.
|
| |
| Posts: 4605 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005 | |
|
Guru
|
Exactly. Though, again, P4K's intent would be even clearer if they gave their ratings system an A+ through F- system.
|
| |
| Posts: 828 | Location: Froofleberry, U.K. | Registered: 18 December 2005 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
|
Good lord, no! I hate the letter-grading system. It makes no sense. It's one of the reasons I never go to Stylus anymore.
--------------------------------------------------
I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being—that is enough for me; he can't be any worse.
|
| |
| Posts: 4605 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Good lord, no! I hate the letter-grading system. It makes no sense. It's one of the reasons I never go to Stylus anymore.
Essentially, a ratings system is a rating system. Whether you use numbers, letters, stars, colors, thumbs, weird phrases, or whatever, it seems pretty simple to figure out how well a publication likes an album. Also, if you look at the main page, they usually put some sort of key that explains the ratings.
-----
Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
|
| |
| Posts: 5923 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
Well, an A-F review system would give only 15 distinctions, and I think there are more levels of "goodness" than that. Pitchfork has my favorite rating system (unless some other site has that same 0-10) since it allows 100 distinctions between CDs. That one 6.66 was a bit of a stretch, but I think it was a joke...
|
| |
| Posts: 1114 | Location: San Diego//Duke University | Registered: 24 July 2006 | |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
©2006 CNET Networks Inc. All rights reserved.
|
