[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/mu/ - Music



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



I'm considering rating music on RYM. But, I would want my ratings to follow a meaningful system. This seems hard because depending on my mood I like different music, I'm not sure if I should rate something with or without consideration for my biases for or against its style, sometimes I really like an album but rarely put it on, some music has obviously personal meaning to me that biases me, and so on. If you rate music, how do you define the different scores? If you don't rate music, how would you?

>inb4 shit about rym
It's just for fun and for myself
>inb4 "you're overthinking it"
Nah, thinking about it. If I didn't and the ratings meant nothing it wouldn't be fun or useful to me
>>
Also, personally I generally want to rate music based on how much I like it rather than a guess at how "objectively good" the music is, so I'm leaning towards letting my biases affect my ratings (saying this in case anyone has a suggestion for the approach I should take)
>>
>>75687524
there really is only one meaningful system and that is either giving whatever you're reviewing a 1 or a 5. No in between. It either did something for you or it didn't
>>
Just do your own thing. I'm not a professional music critic so I don't act like one. I just rate by how I feel. It's more for personal reference anyway, so I can keep track of everything I've listened to.
>>
Are you having fun talking to yourself?
>>
>>75687613
Yeah, that's my intention. It's to document my own taste for the music. Still, if a "4/5" doesn't mean something in particular, what's the point? So, what would a 4/5 mean to you?
>>75687608
I actually would consider this, because there's a lot of truth to it. The problem is that most music does something for me, though, and I still have favorites.
>>
>>75687524
This is mine it's just kinda stuff I consider good and stuff I consider shit, or just vague description
>>
what is the most underused rating and why is it 1.5
>>
>>75687637
I usually do
>>75687668
Pretty hard to follow and contradictory, for instance what if hand hair's ass makes a sound?
>>
>>75687705
You tell that hoe to hold that fart shit in
>>
>>75687639
I consider 3.5 to be great and 4.5 to be my favorites. Therefore, 4 is that stage in-between.

I have developed my own personal rules and guidelines over the years. It's always gonna be different for each person.
>>
when i go out into space in the ship of imagination
i am awed by each star that i encounter
how can one dense unending implosion be anything short of majestic?
are five stars really five? each is a unique cyclopean lantern burning a hole through time on its own nonidentical rubric
are two stars in binary embrace? are the three stars gapped by a billion light years?
the thinking behind this popular concept of attaching these cosmic mysteries to a shrink-wrapped products eludes me
now i shall leave you and go to hidden galaxies of wonder
>>
>actually rating music on rym
>actually thinking people care about your opinion
>actually thinking your feelings constitute a proper and objective rating

I bet you use last.fm as well
>>
>>75687840
>not reading the OP
>>
5 - epic masterpiece, only a couple hundred known to exist
4.5 - reserved for aoty or very strong entry for aoty of it's subgenre
4.0 - excellent without even a single weak song usually, couple hundred given out each year
3.5 - reserved for epoty and other special recognitions
3.0 - very good album but with apparent and numerous flaws, the classic satisfying but not exhilarating
2.5 - reserved for local aoty for each city so could be given out thousands of times a year if wished
2.0 - only rarely even has one excellent song. Not overtly bad but significant problems and should've been an ep at most
1.5 - reserved for /mu/core aoty meaning some shill who posts here but is otherwise beneath contempt
1.0 - almost zero redeeming qualities but no legal action required
0.5 - subject to litigation
>>
no offense but even the best poster on rym is a bona fide retard. literally the only people who care about the opinions of weird music circlejerkers are aspiring music circlejerkers. you can enjoy music without having to explain it to the world to feel validated
>>
>>75687944
No offense but you're retarded
>>
>>75687944
You've never wanted to visualize your taste? I think it's possible to be interested in yourself to a degree without wanting to proclaim your greatness to the world. RYM has a good system for cataloguing and rating music, and if someone likes my ratings or lists and wants to talk about music based on them, bonus.
>>75687889
Eh, not feeling this system as much. It has a lot to do with specifics of the album like how consistent it is, or how common its quality is. For instance the 3.0 rating is strange to me. I usually don't feel like an album is really satisfying but then want to dock it for flaws, the flaws would change how satisfying it is in the first place, according to their importance.
>>
>>75687758
Yeah, I like that distribution you've got going though. I feel like I would want most ratings to be good- I listen to more music I like than dislike. Do you not rate anything 5? Why or why not?
>>
Theres no reason to use RYM your music if you arent a Tripfag, a qt hipster girl(a trap). None gonna read your reviews or even care about your rate system or your favorite albums. Theres too much competetion latetly and the site is dying.
Yeah, i dont believe the its only for "you" thing.
>>
>>75688135
I pity you for not doing anything for yourself
>>
>>75687944
It’s not that deep
>>
>>75687639
I would think a 4/5 would be an album you'd consider a favorite but would still need to be in a particular mood to listen to, and a 5/5 would be an album you love so deeply you're ready to go on that ride whenever.
>>
>>75688183
Word, I like it.
>>
>>75688196
I'm curious what genres or albums are 5/5 for you, according to that system?
>>
>>75688085
>not feeling this system as much.
There are some 2.0 albums I actually love. If that makes it seem even crazier. They usually have one side that's almost completely bad.
>>
>>75688362
That’s a really bad useless system to anyone other than you then
>>
>>75688258
I actually had the idea for this thread a little bit before posting it while walking around, because I realized that the album I was listening to was truly a 5/5 in the sense you described. There are a lot of albums I think of as favorites based on their personal significance and how high quality I think they are, but not many that I just casually throw on whenever. I was listening to Crystal by Stan Hubbs. Pretty standard psych/hard rock style, but it also was a private press obscurity removed a few decades from the psych/hard rock 60s, and the music seems to reflect this in how obscured it sounds and the sort of desolate, melancholy sound of its music and lyrical themes. Pretty simple riffs, everything seems necessary and meaning packed though, and I know the album inside and out a few years on of listening to it. Not sure specifically which others would fit the category at the moment.
>>
Sellmeagods system but a little modified (.5=bad, 1.0=indifference, 1.5=fine) etc is the only one I abide to
>>
>>75688394
Well that's what I mostly use it for. Adding friends shows up on my map anyways so I never add anybody. I never write reviews either. It's not exactly some involved thing despite how frequently I sometimes use it.
>>
Bump
>>
>>75687524
>I would want my ratings to follow a meaningful system.
don't, it's music, it's not meant to be totally logical, if you really wanna make it meaningful then just make your 5s scarce
>>
>>75688401
I'm gonna listen to that, it sounds great. Hope your rating system works out.
>>
>>75689120
Thanks, and enjoy
I am already changing my mind about rating music though, I don't think I can ever rate things in a way that actually is very meaningful, but that's the beauty of music too.
>>75689037
It's true, but giving an album a number has to be some sort of attempt at treating it logically. Rating might just be a lost cause.

RYM is still great for cataloguing and lists though, so haters can still f off
>>
>>75687524
drone spectres
>>
>>75687524
5.0 - perfect album or your personal favorite(s) (prestigious rating to be used rarely)
4.5 - favorites (indispensable, desert island picks)
4.0 - fantastic (left a big impression, will return frequently and/or inspires further reading and exploration on the piece / artist)
3.5 - great (invites repeated listens and Really Makes You Think / moves you)
3.0 - good (will return occasionally)
2.5 - par (might return, no glaring flaws that prevent repeated listens)
anything below - bad / apathy/ will not return

this method helps a lot if you listen to a lot of music and find yourself over-rating things never to come back and enjoy them again
>>
File: 1503244217527.jpg (83 KB, 750x545)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
rym is easy t b h
5.0 - album is immensely underrated
4.0~4.5 score should be higher
3.0~3.5 yeah the album's score is about right
2.0~3.0 score should be lower
0.5~1.5 album is immensely overrated
>>
>>75687608
shitty view of things
>>
>>75687608
There are no grades of enjoyment or quality?
>>
>>75692483
underrated-overrated is an awful scaling system.
>>
>>75687668
>Midna face sit
A man of taste
>>
5.0 - the best
4.5 amazing, makes you cum
4.0 great, anything above a 4.0 is likely in your constant rotation
3.5 pretty good but not great
3.0 just okay
2.5 complete indifference
2.0 and below - varying degrees of dislike
>>
>>75687682
You're either a 1 or a 2, never 1.5
>>
Really gay thread.
muh music accessorizing.
I'm convinced most of you bozos hate music.
>>
>>75694141
indifference is worse than disliking something
>>
2-5 stars : like
1.5 stars : whatever
0.5-1 star : dislike
>>
>>75697456
>liking music
>>
>>75697467
I never understood this mindset. care to explain?
>>
>>75697591
if art completely fails to move you in any way intellectually/emotionally/spiritually it has utterly failed
at least you feel something when you dislike a piece of art
>>
>>75697611
So eating shit is better than eating white bread
>>
>>75697662
in an artistic sense, I suppose
>>
>>75697611
yeah
well that's just like your opinion man
>>
>>75697662
p sure you can still taste white bread
also if you consider a single slice of white bread and a turd next to each other to be culinary art your a weirdo who has bigger problems to worry about than philosophical investigations of artistic merit

>>75697695
my opinion is the best tho
>>
>>75697580
Sorry, I forgot where I was.
>>
>>75697709
what about a turd shaped like a slice of bread and a slice of bread shaped like a turd
>>
>>75697717
buddy if women can paint with menstrual blood, I can put a shit beside a slice of white bread and put that in a museum too
>>
>>75697750
as long as im not eating them im ok with that existing
>>
>>75697751
yeah but nobody is eating the menstrual blood paintings and talking about the artistic blend of flavors
>>
File: menstrual cookies.png (10 KB, 637x114)
10 KB
10 KB PNG
>>75697784
I beg to differ
>>
>>75697822
sounds like something grimes would do
i remember reading that but nobody ate them right

...right ?
>>
>>75697822
I think the lead singer of Perfect Pussy put her menstrual blood in a record they made. thank god that band is irrelevant now
>>
File: images (3).jpg (9 KB, 215x235)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>75687840
>Objective review
>>
does RYM have personalized recommendations like allmusic does? I rate my albums on allmusic because, of their recommendations system and I've found nothing so far to suggest RYM has that sort of thing but, if they do, I'd make the leap to over there.
>>
It just has to mean something to you, I've rated over 4500 albums and never spoken to another user on the site or posted in the forums, it's for me to keep track of my music and what I should go back to

But also, ultimately, moods do change and a rating has no indication of how many times I've listened to an album...a number of albums in the 4-4.5 range for me are albums that were amazing the first time but I don't want repeat listens for (stuff like indeterminacy and free improvisation are examples of this as listening to them too often will take away the purpose of the performance)

And though I don't generally listen to the stuff below 2.5 more than once, I suspect there's multiple albums in the 2.5-3.5 range I've listened to dozens of times and there's plenty of my lowest-ranked albums that have songs I love and I keep those and delete the rest of the album but I'm not going to rate a shitty album highly just because it has one of my favorite songs of all time
>>
>>75699044
I miss old last.fm recs, they were the best I ever found, RYM has a theoretical rating system but it's not really based on anything and quite garbage...after thousands of albums rated it still just recs me things that have like 2 ratings and foreign bootlegs of artists I've already rated and compilations of albums I've already rated...it's mostly dogshit...but it helps go through charts when you can tick "exclude albums I've already rated" to find new stuff
>>
File: rating sysem.png (9 KB, 204x453)
9 KB
9 KB PNG
This is what I use, make of it what you will.

I largely agree with
>>75699313

I don't really interact with others on RYM unless its for rec's.
>>
>>75699044
you find an album you like, then look at all the lists associated with it created by
users and then just listen to the albums and bing bang boom
>>
>>75699044
yeah it'll auto-rec you things based on thing you rate but it's hit-or-miss. sometimes you'll get some decent rec and other times it will flood you with EPs and bootlegs of and artist you've rated
>>
>>75687524
>I'm considering rating music on RYM
Why? You do realise nobody gives a shit about your half assed amateurish "evaluations" of artistic works far beyond your comprehension, right? Why would you want to force yourself into hours of pointless self-image shit based on the work of others while desperately trying to delude yourself into thinking that you're not doing this for approval of people that don't matter? Genuine question here. You and I both know
>It's just for fun and for myself
Is some cheap bullshit not even you yourself expect anyone to believe.
>>
>>75698443
oh look, it's the dumb illiterate fuck who thinks "objective opinion" is an oxymoron
>>
>>75697902
Meredith graves? She’s far from irrelevant with the pitchfork job
>>
>>75699655
it is in the context of rating music
>>
>>75687524
My system.

>5.0 Own this NOW!
Anyone who has even a passing interest in music should acquire this release if possible. This is the album you never leave home without. An album you can turn to even in your darkest hours. The kind of music that gives you purpose. Synesthesia defined.

>4.5 Masterpiece
A monumental achievement in a band's career. The music highlights a band's skills as musicians and is a testament to a genre. Your tastes may vary, but what's undeniable is the strength of the music. These albums have at least one song you always go to at any given moment. In sum, superb.

>4.0 Excellent
A fine release in a band's career. Very few, if any, dull moments, and no song here could be considered mediocre, much less bad. The music usually introduces some novel ideas that elevates it from its peers and stands out on its own as a good album. Of course, it's still missing some key elements that would merit the highest praise, but nonetheless a strong piece of music.

>3.5 Solid
A good, listenable album for any moment. Not too dense nor too weak. Just right. Perfect for genre fans and may be accessible to those seeking new artists to explore. Don't expect too much, though.

>3.0 Ordinary
Passable, but missing far too much to merit revisiting. Mediocre. Neither love nor hate.

>2.5 Only if you like 'em
For completists only. Similar to the above, but even more lacking. Lacks anything detestable, but definitely not worth revisiting. Like studying a blank white wall for its own sake. Consistent, but bereft.

>2.0 Disappointing
Falling horribly short and painfully flawed, but far from terrible. A dud in a band's discography. The band either introduced some cool ideas but had no idea where to go with them or just simply didn't try.

Anything below is either hilariously bad or cringeworthy.
>>
ITT retarded shades of hate raters
>>
>>75699396
RYM discussion boards less active but higher in quality than /mu/ in terms of recs and music discussion
>>
>>75700753
seems like your idea of 3.0 is a little harsh




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.