Absolutely, this is a great great great cd. Not once did I say "this cd could have been better by doing this..." not that it's "perfect," as I doubt there's a such thing.

When we've been referring to an album, we weren't referring to vinyl, just a full length CD rather than singles...

Where do EPs come into this debate? I have a hard time wrapping my head around the point of releasing an EP (unless the only point is to get hype out for an LP)

quote:

Originally posted by Jglass:
When we've been referring to an album, we weren't referring to vinyl, just a full length CD rather than singles...

Where do EPs come into this debate? I have a hard time wrapping my head around the point of releasing an EP (unless the only point is to get hype out for an LP)

I've never really gotten the EP thing either... I figured it was more something like "Well, we've got 5 songs... why the hell not?"

Ok, i dont want to start sounding like i am ranting here but....

To give an album 10.0 is ridiculous. You are therefore saying that there will never be an album better than this, that music will never have the potential of creating something more beautiful, uplifting and powerful than this album. It would be irrelevant which band you were talking about here (I love 'In the Aeroplane Over The Sea') as it is not possible to have a perfect album. Everthing can theoretically be improved even if people can't at the time see how to improve it. no one can ever surely know the limitations of how a piece of music could be improved, we only have what has gone before to compare it with.

Ive kind of talked myself down a blind theoretical alley that probably means nothing thus constituting a rant. So i apologise and will just say its a bloody brilliant album but no tens please.

I give your rant a 10.0.

I have two ways to look at what you are saying in a different perspective. These completely agree that "Art isn't, or, perhaps more accurately, cannot be perfect".

Even if I agree with that, I also agree that lovers of art cannot be perfect either, so it makes sense to me that an individual can have a totally-subjective experience with a work of art which could cause them to relate to it on a "highest rating possible" level. That seems like a totally human thing to label your very personal best [read: favorite] things as 10s. Perfect 10s, no, but 10s just the same.

My second point is that ratings are transitory. An honest person will adjust their ratings when appropriate. Maybe a 10 today won't be one tomorrow. Maybe your fave 10-making band will make a better record and you can adjust your rating. It doesn't really matter to me what you do because you can do whatever you want. You can even say 10+! (even if that one kinda gets to me )

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Harrison:
Ok, i dont want to start sounding like i am ranting here but....

To give an album 10.0 is ridiculous. You are therefore saying that there will never be an album better than this

No, that's not what we're saying. You can read pgs 1-6 on this thread and find out what we're actually saying when we give a 10.0. For me, a 10 would mean, "this album completely satisfies my musical tastes; I couldn't ask for more from an album, I would never want to change it".

I know this will sound paradoxical considering I am speaking on a forum devoted to musical ranking (metacritic is all about numbers and nothing else), but regardless here goes:

Music should not be reduced to a digit. How can I possibly express the emotional impact of NMH's opus, or any other record for that matter? Certainly not with a number, or stars, or happy piggy faces. When digits get involved, it is inevitable that logistics will interrupt the sublime beauty of expression that is music. Hence we have debates over whether something deserved a 9.0 or an 8.5, 4 stars or 5, what have you.

It is my belief that there exists no way of adequately evaluating music beyond the subjective level. The impact that music holds over us is never universal and never adheres to the same set of defined characteristics. Does the presence of mixed meter automatically increase review scores by a point? Lyrics alone are nigh impossible to evaluate (think about how many bands with rather cliche or boring lyrics seem to hit just the right meaning for you).

Keeping the above statement in mind, there is an additional problem with music reviews and that is time. Because our perceptions are constantly in flux, and we are never the same person from one second to the next, how can we possibly agree that a record is "perfect." Perfection implies a timeless, flawless achievement that is rather silly if you think about it. Time will change your conception of all things. Grow old with a record and see how its meaning and influence change (and change yourself).

So skip those irrelevant digits, those collected metascores of critics who just want to rank and file art that should not, by its very nature, be compartmentalized and boxed in.

I agree that it's hard for any *one* numerical ranking to adequately evaluate an album, a movie, etc...but that's not what Metacritic is about.

A single critic, with all their biases and preconceptions, giving an album a rating is one thing. But what happens when the opinions of several diverse sources are distilled into one rating? To me, Metacritic kind of subverts the very notion you speak of...MC values the collective opinion, and guages that collective opinion with a number; by its very nature it's devaluing a single rating, which could be seen as a paradox, I know.

One guy at Pitchfork slapping an "8.2", or whatever, on something doesn't mean much at all to me. But when the rankings of 20 sources, some as different as night and day, are averaged into an "82" on Metacritic...well, that's something that's worth exploring, at the very least. Often I see a high-ranking film or album on MC, and after reading a few reviews just to get a general idea of content, decide it's not for me (at that moment). I just think of MC as a very useful overview of what's out there and what might be worth looking into.

As far as the issue of how well things hold up over time, it might be interesting if Metacritic had a "reissue" section like so many music mags do.

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

quote:

Originally posted by BContrat:

quote:

Originally posted by Tony Harrison:
Ok, i dont want to start sounding like i am ranting here but....

To give an album 10.0 is ridiculous. You are therefore saying that there will never be an album better than this

No, that's not what we're saying. You can read pgs 1-6 on this thread and find out what we're actually saying when we give a 10.0. For me, a 10 would mean, "this album completely satisfies my musical tastes; I couldn't ask for more from an album, I would never want to change it".

I know what you are saying but if we are attributing a scoring system to how we feel about music then a 10.0 is impossible to beat if that is the maximum in the defined range. So purely by implication even if it is not the intention it means that nothing can get a better score. it is no good setting up a system then giving something a maximum and giving yourself no room for improvement. I understand the 'i would not change anything about this album' but my point is how can anyone really know that, as there are infinite possible ways that the album could be changed that the listener would have not thought of or could not know (i.e what if there was a song finished just after the album that was better than one of the track, but that we have never heard. This has to be theoretically possible. Pitchfork has created a scoring system that provides a wider range than the average 5 star system or marks out of ten. This surely is with the intention of creating the ability to differentiate between a whole load of albums that in other places would all be 4 stars etc.

Essentially i suppose my point is that i dont believe anything can match the statement 'completely satisfy my musical tastes; i couldn't ask for anything more from an album, i would never want to change it'

None of this really matters though its just my ridiculous need for systems and a score being able to tell you straight away what it means without the need for further explanation. Can this be possible with art?

I just posted a blog re: Jeff Mangum and creating a musical legacy. I worked really hard on it (while in class haha) and I think it's excellent. Once again, feedback is extremely welcome.

Check my sig for the link.

Who else loves In the Aeroplane Over the Sea?

Too funny...

She should search out Jeff Mangum and give him a ItAOtS birthday present.... I hate that bitch but no man could say no to that.

quote:

Originally posted by JGlass:
She should search out Jeff Mangum and give him a ItAOtS birthday present.... I hate that bitch but no man could say no to that.

...as long as the "present" isn't herpes.

Ouch. Good call.

Fake photo.

Killjoy.

quote:

Fake photo.

I'm not quite 100% sure it's fake. It actually looks fairly real, but I'm no expert in picking out shopped photos. There's also a big part of me that in no way believes that she actually likes that record. I also saw a picture of her with Trout Mask Replica. Is there like some weird internet phenomenon that I'm unaware of where people photoshop pictures of Paris with good albums.

At the risk of seeming out of step with pop culture, who the hell is she?