quote:

Originally posted by BContrat:
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...

I realize there's more distinctions on the scale, but I wouldn't call lettered systems confusing. I know what to expect out of a B+ album.

And aren't 100 point scales a little ridiculous? I mean, is there really a notable difference in quality between an 8.4 and an 8.7? Does that extra 3 tenths of a point propel it from being a great album to being a really great album?

What I have concluded about Pitchfork is that I tend to enjoy their 7.5 - 8.5 rated discs the best. The only album that they gave 10 that really blew me away was "I See A Darkness". Maybe that is because Pitchfork likes more experimentation and I like more folk stuff with interesting lyrics (a la Mountain Goats). But who knows...

quote:

Originally posted by DrAwesome:
What I have concluded about Pitchfork is that I tend to enjoy their 7.5 - 8.5 rated discs the best... Maybe that is because Pitchfork likes more experimentation...

I agree with you. I've been noticing that for the past year or so, and I'd even say my favorite discs usually rate between 7.0 and 8.5 on Pitchfork. Most of the stuff they rate really high tends to be more experimental, which for me usually means unlistenable. The only albums that have landed on their "Best New Music" section that I've really enjoyed this year are Tapes 'n Tapes, the Thermals, and TV on the Radio. I also enjoyed Band of Horses to an extent, though I don't think it was at all deserving of as high of a score as it got.

Hating on the letter grade scale is ridiculous. Anyone whose reading music reviews is pretty well educated, and has at least finished high school, many of whom have a Bachelor's degree.

They've recieved grades on papers or book reports before. Unlike most journalism, which usually writes on a level of an eighth to tenth-grader, record reviews have that leeway.

Anyone who has at least been to high school reading a music review probably knows a) generally what the difference between an A and a B, B and C, etc. is, even an A- and a B+ is, or a B- and a C+; and b) the general preference/bias of a writer over a certain period of time (usually sooner than later).

Anyone who can't quite figure out what a reviewer means between 15 overall ratings is, no offense, a little slow.

To elaborate:

A+ -- An untouchable record. Of high quality and establishes its own standard, myth or (sub)genre.
A -- An exceptional, superior record that even stands out among an A- record; will place in the top five of a year-end, maybe even decade-end list.
A- -- One of a handful of releases that will met with a critical consensus as the best of the year -- any quibbles with this record are semantic, at worst.
B+ -- Very, very good at what it does. Records like this are often "excellent genre peices" (from The Strokes to Boards of Canada to Interpol) by very talented musicians, instrumentalists and/or songwriters. Not accounting for genre preferences or successful experimentation in the genre, most "excellent genre peices" will end up getting this grade.
B -- Good. Well above average, but not without one or two glaring faults. Most promising debut records will get this score.
B- -- Barely qualifies as being a record you commonly listen to and desire to hear again when its done. Has more than a few major flaws but definitely still redeemable in more than a few people's eyes.
C+ -- Solid, but only that. I'm tempted to use the term "very decent." Its peaks might reach a B+, but most of the record is just "pretty cool." Probably not worth buying unless you're a real fan. If you are, then you'll want to collect this stuff, since it's probably a re-release or some collectible crap anyway.
C -- Totally average. Unexceptional but functions well and shows some talent and vision that has yet to grow.
C- -- Barely decent, with only a handful of great, B+ level moments. Questionable to buy even if you're a fan. May have one incredible song.
D+ -- Less than decent, but this grade is a little generous to its peak moments, of which there are maybe a few. Again, maybe one great song. Maybe.
D -- An overall bad record with one exceptional song that gets lost in the muck that is this bad record.
D- -- Barely redeemable, much less decent. Artist and music has enough dignity not to make, or try not to make, an awful record, but still mostly fail despite trying.
F+ -- For apologists of bad music only. Not a COMPLETE failure, but awfully close.
F -- A COMPLETE failure.
F- -- Didn't even try.

And the main problem I have with a letter-grading system is that it's different from what everyone else does. You can't compare scores without doing some sort of calculation. They shouldn't use letter grades in school either. It should all be percentages.

quote:

Anyone whose reading music reviews is pretty well educated, and has at least finished high school, many of whom have a Bachelor's degree.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Yay!, there are many individuals even on this forum that obviously read reviews but are still in high school.

I do agree with you that letter systems are quite simple. Pretty much any system for grading I've seen a magazine or site use I've found to be pretty straightforward.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jonathanbrisby,

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
And the main problem I have with a letter-grading system is that it's different from what everyone else does. You can't compare scores without doing some sort of calculation. They shouldn't use letter grades in school either. It should all be percentages.

Lettered scoring isn't that uncommon. I can think of at least two pretty reputable sources (The Onion AV Club & Entertainment Weekly) that use it. And this calculation you speak of...as Yay said, unless you've never been to school, converting a letter grade to a percentage is pretty much a no-brainer.

quote:

Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:

quote:

Anyone whose reading music reviews is pretty well educated, and has at least finished high school, many of whom have a Bachelor's degree.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Yay!, there are many individuals even on this forum that obviously read reviews but are still teenagers.

In my public school system, they didn't start using lettered grading until 6th grade, so I'll go out a limb and say anyone who's graduated elementary school ought to be able to figure out a lettered grading system.

To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what a B+ converts to on a 10.0 scale. In most classes I took, it meant somewhere between 88-92%. I don't think that's what it means in music reviews, but I'm not sure. I know a B+ is a pretty good grade, but does that mean it's an 80? A 70? A 90? I know what Metacritic does to those scores, but I'm not sure what I'd do.

This is the thing that gets me. I don't care where it lines up. Metacritic says that a B- is 67 because it's 1/3 down the slope of grade choices, but if I give a record, or more likely, a movie a B-, that is a basic "thumbs up". I am recommending anything which is a B- or higher. To me, a C+ is the fulcrum, just about the perfect balance, although I admit, even if it's a slight thumb down, it's still turning. If a C is satisfactory, I guess it should be the middle grade, but in general, I find it to be slightly too low, especially in music, where there's thousands of albums a year.

I was going to go into my translation from letters to numbers now, but I think it might bother some people. To me, an A- is an 80 and an unqualified recommendation. A B, which is a totally thumbs up rating, would be a 70. I believe this is where I lose RL and a few others, but that's the truth, Ruth.

Well, I see your point, Mark, but if I'm looking at reviews, there are going to be a crapload of reviews that are a 70 (or B) or higher a year. It's not very often that I try out an album based on a 70 review. On the other hand, there aren't all that many reviews that get 90+ scores, so if it's in a genre that interests me, I know it's something I want to hear.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by BContrat:
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...

I realize there's more distinctions on the scale, but I wouldn't call lettered systems confusing. I know what to expect out of a B+ album.

album?

When did I call it confusing in that quote? Actually I never did.
Anyway, I don't get letter grades at my school, just percentages (though it's obviously an easy conversion).
I just like Pitchfork's review system best, since I think that music quality is mult-faceted and nuanced, and that 15 distinctions don't quite capture this. And that is all I have to say.

Obviously, more affluent types read record reviews in the first place. Chances are, they've graded a paper or two before or had some kind of contact with academia. They know the realm of letter grades well.

If you're a precocious high school kid, or even just an astute, smart person in general, you can read a typical record review, then look at the letter grade (in that order) and figure out the aesthetic, the pros/successes and the cons/limits of this record.

A+ to F- works and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to be abstruse to confuse people. Anyone who says there's a clear, demonstrable difference between an 89 and 88 is probably just fucking with people.

To add:

A+ = 100
A = 99 - 95
A- = 94 - 90
B+ = 89 - 83
B = 82 - 79
B- = 78 - 70
C+ = 69 - 65
C = 64 - 60
C- = 59 - 50
D+ = 49 - 46
D = 45 - 40
D- = 39 - 33
F+ = 32 - 29
F = 28 - 19
F- = 18 - 1

Totally off the top of the head. I think that gives you a good idea of what P4K means with their numbered reviews.

I'm not saying the letter system doesn't work, just that I prefer pitchfork's.

Oh, and you're Percent/Letter conversion is actually surprising to me. I was just thinking in terms of school, where:
100-90 = A
89-80 = B
79-70 = C
etc.

The letter grades for music/movies can't be like school because then 60% are Fs. That only leaves you 40% to discuss things which aren't utter failures. I have a tweaked conversion scale sorta similar to Yay's, but it's not really worth posting now.

Pitchfork also gave a (1)0.0 to "Relaxation of the Asshole" by Robert Pollard

and Pitchfork gave British Sea Power a U2 rating for "Do you like rock music?".

Interestingly U2 translates to 40 percent on Metecritic, P4K do explain that they mean recent U2 not Joshua tree era.

All grading systems are inherently flawed because it is more important to know why reviewers like/dislike an album than just how much they do. I've always kind of thought that a series of categories would be more explanatory... like an album scores on harmony and lyrics, but fails on beats, energy and discordance etc... people who like discordance will stay clear and people who want lyrics will look further.

Or an album has indie appeal and shoegaze appeal, but little hip-hop, rock and dance appeal (and whatever other categories you can think of)

quote:

Anyone who says there's a clear, demonstrable difference between an 89 and 88 is probably just fucking with people.

On a 1000 point scale that would be equivalent to a 10 point seperation--890 and 880 respectively. Hopefully that clears things up.

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse:

quote:

Anyone who says there's a clear, demonstrable difference between an 89 and 88 is probably just fucking with people.

On a 1000 point scale that would be equivalent to a 10 point seperation--890 and 880 respectively. Hopefully that clears things up.

Lol, yep, and on a billion point scale, it would be a ten million point difference!!