The Rating System

March 23, 2006

At long last, I, Don Ignacio, have decided to write a page about my rating system. Hopefully this will clear up a few things. Most notably, this will clear up why everything on this site seems to score above an 8.0.

Indeed, if you look at my "albums in order from best to worst" page, the median score of every album I ever reviewed is an 8.2. ... That's because I treat these scores as grade cards. Remove the decimal from the 8.2, put a percent sign after it, and you've got an 82%, which is a B-minus. My reviews are still in favor of awarding good albums, but ... I tend to review more high quality albums than not. (I did review Kiss and Madonna to help even this out, however!)

OK, I admit this system sucks and I didn't originally mean for it to happen like this (hence my earliest reviews are/were much lower than they should be), but that's how it evolved. If you don't like it, then screw all y'all!

Also, with the ratings, anything that essentially scores less than a 6.0 is an album that has too little redeeming qualities to purchase. There's always *something* in a 6.0 album, but it seriously did too many things to piss me off. Unfortunately, that also means that there's 6 whole notches from a bad album to an unbelievably bad album. Even though this rating system admittedly sucks, there *are* albums that score a widely down this 6.0 to 0.0 scale. So ... this still serves a purpose.

For example, Journey's 3.3-scoring Raised on Radio is a helluva lot worse than Madonna's 5.7-scoring Erotica. I was about to start scoring these albums on an A-F grade scale, since essentially I do that anyway, but under that system, both albums would get an F. You see, we must have degrees of crap! ... Crap isn't just crap, you know. There is more to crap than meets the eye.

There is also admittedly a discrepancy when it comes to albums that score between, say, the 7.0 to 8.5 range. Sometimes, I sound very excited about an album that scores in this range, and somtimes I'm not. This merely has to do with whether or not the album exceeded my expectations. Madonna's eponymous debut album received a 7.0 and I sounded pretty excited about it in the review. However, Shawn Colvin's Fat City received a 7.1 and I (probably unfairly) ripped it to shreds in the review. But, as we all know, Colvin is a much better talent than Madonna, and Colvin should only have albums that I would score in the 8.5 range! (Oh, and that brings me to another point. I want music artists to revolve around my taste.)

Lastly, there's no such thing as a 0-scoring album. There are such things as 0-scoring songs, but I haven't run across an album so awful that there's so redeeming quality about them. The only one that came close, Ring Ring by ABBA, was an early review. I won't change that score, though, because ... I want to keep it there for memories!

Alright. A rundown of scores for those who really need it.

10plus - 10.0 (A+) -- ONE HELLISHLY FREAKINGLY GOOD ALBUM

9.9 - 9.5 (A+/A) -- EXTREMELY EXCELLENT

9.4 - 9.0 (A/A-) -- EXCELLENT

8.9 - 8.5 (B+/B) -- VERY GOOD

8.4 - 8.0 (B/B-) -- GOOD

7.9 - 7.5 (C+/C) -- ABOVE AVERAGE

7.4 - 7.0 (C/C-) -- BELOW AVERAGE

6.9 - 6.5 (D+/D) -- MOSTLY POOR

6.4 - 6.0 (D/D-) -- POOR BUT WITH SIGNIFICANT REDEEMING QUALITIES

5.9 - 5.0 (F) -- POOR BUT WITH INSIGNIFICANT REDEEMING QUALITIES

4.9 - 3.0 (F) -- BAD

2.9 - 0.0 (F) -- EXTREMELY BAD

Now I shall talk about the "micro-scores" namely the "Average Song Score," the "Album Tilt" and the "Artist Rating."

The first thing you should know about these micro-scores is that they don't really matter. Don't dwell upon these for one micro-second. They're there to help me come up with a final score for the album, because I'm too insecure to just come up with an album score to slap on the album! I have these little methodologies to help me.

My actual method ought to be fairly obvious if you've looked around the site at all, but I'll write about it here so that the record will be set.

Firstly, I listen to every track, think about the track, and come up with a 1-10 rating for it. Usually, if it's a good song, it'll get an 8. Anything mediocre or bad will score less than an 8. (And, I know, sometimes I speak ill of 8 and 8.5-scoring songs ... don't worry about that ... I'm just blowing off steam or delving into too much detail about why it's not a 9-scoring song.) After I go through every track, I compute the average of the scores, which becomes the "Average Song Score." Once I have this number, I'm allowed to average in two extra numbers to it, which will drag this score up or down. If I feel the album as a whole has more or less merit than what the average song score gave it, then I will adjust the score accordingly. Normally, I *have* to decide if the album has more or less merit because this score is only allowed to occur on .5 increments. (And, I do also realize that this is a flawed way of conducting business, but the thing is, I don't really care! It's too difficult deciding a score in tenths.) Additionally, if I feel the album has more artistic merits than the average song score gives it, then I will increase this score. Generally, I'm only allowed to adjust this score by an increment of 10 on extreme circumstances. Usually, I don't adjust it more than an increment of 5.

But don't worry about these micro-scores. They don't mean anything. The final score is what matters. I'm just telling you the methods I use to come up with these scores. (And it's not like any of this is scientific, anyway ... it's all based on MY opinion, innit!)

Oh, and about songs that score 10pluses. When I calculate the average song score, 10pluses are treated as normal 10s. Every 10plus song that appears in an album increases the average song score by a tenth of a point. I figure any album that has such a fantastic song in it deserves an added boost.

Alright. I explained myself. It might not make sense to you, but ... this is the way I prefer to conduct my business. (Hey, not *that* kind of business. I know why you just sniggered.)