My Awesome Rating System of Awesomeness
I honestly feel this page is more or less pointless, since I think I have the most basic, most simple rating system in this history of mankind, and more than anything it’s just determined by simple gut feeling. In general, anything that’s a 7 or higher is good, 8 or higher is recommended, and 4 or lower is BAD, but here we go:
11: An album on which I play but do not take part in the songwriting.
10: A masterpiece. An album doesn’t necessarily have to be perfect to be a masterpiece and get a 10 (see my Diver Down review for proof), but it just has to touch me in a certain way that other albums don’t, even if that’s sometimes subjectively determined. I don’t ask for 100% perfection, because a perfect album has never been made, and even my favorite album of all time, Abbey Road, has one small flaw (“I Want You (She’s So Heavy)” goes on a little too long). And it can’t have any hideous crap on it. An album can have lesser songs, sure, but they can’t out-and-out suck, or else it’s impossible to attain 10 status. I don’t think anyone would disagree with me there, though.
9:
A would-be-masterpiece ruined by a bit of crap, or just an excellent album all
the way through. For many bands, a 9 is
the best rating they can hope to get, although that’s nothing to scoff at. Any album worth a 9 is still something I
thoroughly love, respect, and admire, even if I don’t adore or worship it the same way I might of albums worth a 10.
8:
A very good album. These are albums I
still give a definite thumbs-up to, and they’re still highly recommended, but
there’s usually something missing which prevents them from being given one of
the top two ratings. This is probably
the rating I’ll give out most often, I’d hazard to guess, too (at least until I
start reviewing bands that blow ass…I mean, besides Creed). Albums that I definitely like a LOT, I
thoroughly enjoy, and recommend, but I can’t say I love them. If that makes sense.
7:
An album that’s still good, but I can’t give it that high of a personal
recommendation. I’d say, for the most
part, 7-worthy albums fall into two categories: consistently OK or pretty good
albums with no real standouts, and albums almost evenly split between superb 9
or 10-level material and subpar crap.
6:
Closer to “mediocre” than anything else, but still half-decent and closer to
“good” than “bad.” Albums with a 6 are
just fine, but no more, and I really can’t recommend them much at all, though
in the Ebert and Roeper system they’d technically still get a “thumbs up.”
5:
Not good at all, but not THAT bad.
Either the definition of mediocrity or a pile of shit with a handful of
really good songs on it. These are the
types of albums that typically would be getting a 5, I think.
4:
A bad album. Not a terrible, awful, or offensive album. But simply a bad, bad album.
3:
Now we’re getting into the dregs. Albums
getting a 3 are REALLY bad. They usually
have some sort of redeemable qualities somewhere, or are mostly
overtly listenable, but they pretty much really, really, really suck ass
hairs. This is where I break out words
like “terrible” and “awful.”
2:
A completely hideous, offensive, morosely disgusting pile of horse manure. Maybe it has a redeemable song or a
few decent 20-second moments strewn about.
Maybe.
1:
Nothing redeemable at all. Not a second
of material on a 1 album is worth listening to by the human ear or has any halfway-decent
qualities whatsoever. Embarrassing
production, lyrics, and music. In other
words, Limp Bizkit.
0:
An album on which I play and take part in the songwriting.