|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jun 18, 2017 11:36:49 GMT
The current discussion about the Buckingham/McVie album throws up an interesting question, to which all answers are correct: When you are giving an album a score, what is the frame of reference that you use? For me, I ask myself whether I would ever play it again if it were sitting on a shelf in my living room. If the answer is no, then it gets the minimum score. Sometimes I'll add a point if I want to acknowledge the craft involved - musicianship, songwriting etc. On another forum, I once gave 'Thriller' by Michael Jackson the minimum score which happened to be zero and I was challenged over my decision. I scored it based on how musically rewarding it is to me. I decided that I couldn't ever envisage circumstances where I might derive any pleasure from it. However, I fully understand that others think it's fantastic. That's great & I fully respect their opinion but musically (which is the only measure I use) the album did nothing for me - I was unable to see how I could give it any other score. I did recognise that there was a high point on the record, however: The running out track on side two. |
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jun 18, 2017 13:21:08 GMT
The divisions, in my head, are some thing like... "I cannot understand anyone liking this." "I can see why other people might like it." "Like it, not love it" "Love it, will buy it (or already own it)." "Not only will I buy it I will actually play it more than once." ...which I then usually have to convert to numbers. As you may have noticed I do try and confuse matters by giving my own poll grades odd titles like " Rock 'n' Chips (with Mushy Peas)". 1 to 5, or 10, seems too precise, when in reality it can be quite a fluid quantification where things like how bored you are at the time or whether the sun is shining and you're about to have a cool beer might possibly occasion a deviation of one or even two points. p.s. Don't be surprised if you see the above 5 ratings in my next poll.  |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 18, 2017 14:29:36 GMT
Music is a lot more about a emotional connection after much consideration here is a rough guide to my points scoring
1 I never want to hear this again. I hear no musical value in it what so ever
2 to 4 I do not enjoy it and rather not listen to it again, or can tolerate have on as background music
5 to 7 Some things I like about the album but overall whilst I do not mind listening to it I am not going to actively seek the album
8 to 9 I really like the album I am tempted to buy it and will listen to it again. I probably check out more music by the artist or band
10 I have to buy it I will regulary play it in my system I will enjoy every song or piece of music on the album
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jun 18, 2017 15:26:03 GMT
I started all on my own.
Saw Amazon and possibly others had 5 but wanted more so went to 10
My definitions
10/10. After I play it I want to play it again, and again and again. I have occasionally played the same album all day long, most of the day. 10/10 are "the albums". I investigate that artist and maybe assemble everything they have done.
These albums totally take me.
I went to loads of gigs, concerts and festivals and when asked about drugs I said I never took them - why would I when the music takes me so high.
9/10. Play once, play it again. Love it. Never far from being played often.
8/10. Play and maybe play again. Keep it around for more plays.
7/10. Like it. Always enjoy listening to it.
6/10. Like it. Play it less than a 7. Weak in some aspects at least. Maybe with a stellar track but the rest are dross.
5/10. Ok. Reasonable. If I own it then I keep it. If I sampled it fully probably won't buy it
4/10. Not really for me. Can appreciate it has merits. Will not buy
3/10. Certainly not for me. May or may not have merit
2/10. Very little attraction, may be annoying in places
1/10. Annoying. Keep it away from me. Do not want to hear it
Then there is the quality of production engineering which can effect above.
Music I might hear on a radio, passing by can't get in as there is not depth. Cannot hear that quality.
Some albums are 9/10 on quality and I listen to them to hear what is going on and how good it all is.
The like rating usually up 1 or 2 points.
Genres I "don't like" can make it in to the collection
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 18, 2017 16:09:52 GMT
This is a great thread and quite thought provoking. I know we all score differently so it's interesting to hear how others do it. I guess I combine an emotional viewpoint with the musicianship, creativity and other aspects of the performance. I try and use a system that is equivalent between rock and classical, too. Here's what I do: - 1/10 has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Not only do I think it's bad, I cannot understand why anyone would want to listen to it.
- 2/10 - 4/10 there are some aspects that could be considered ok. It may have a song or two which is good. Others may like it even if I don't (e.g. Michael Jackson - Thriller or Meatloaf - Bat Out of Hell) but I'm unlikely to want to play it again unless I'm researching something.
- 5/10 is the median point, an album that has things going for it and I may play occasionally.
- 6-10 - 9/10 albums which are on constant rotation for me to a greater or lesser degree. More of the album is good if they hit 8/10 or 9/10.
- 10/10 albums which are utter perfection and could not be bettered in composition or performance in any way. These are very, very rare.
My scoring follows a guassian curve in that there are more 5/10 albums in my collection and the least number of 1/10 and 10/10 albums. It's skewed towards 7-9/10 in reality as I avoid buying the crap in the first place.
The only differences between rock and classical scoring for me is that rock music usually has only one performance (unless there is a live album, too); classical has many performances so interpretation and performance becomes more important although I am scoring the composition, too. It's possible to have great music score poorly, like Beethoven's 9th Symphony conducted by Roger Norrington, if it's interpreted very poorly in my opinion. I can't help that and at least it reflects my tendency not to play those versions. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 18, 2017 16:11:59 GMT
when asked about drugs I said I never took them - why would I when the music takes me so high Mike, I've often said the same thing. Jules and I went to a gig at the Festival Hall recently where no white powder was required or desirable. Nothing could have beaten that high for me. |
|
|
|
Post by speedysteve on Jun 19, 2017 19:43:22 GMT
Quite often I have to listen to something quite a few times to like it. If I am to like an album, there are usually a free 'hook you' tracks, then I build from there.
Listening to something once or twice I would really struggle to objectively score an album.
Guess that's why I don't.
If there was a true lack of music, if I was to listen to often enough I might come to get it, if perhaps not like or love it .
That's not a scenario we have to worry about in this ever expanding world population, and with easy streaming access to multiple millions of songs, there is no risk of that.
I suppose the easy access makes us all the more picky and we just skip on to the next thing to feed up on, sometimes without giving something a real go?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 19, 2017 20:34:32 GMT
Sometimes there's a knife-edge decision between giving an album one more listen and 'getting it' or otherwise discarding it as of no further interest. That's what makes our musical tastes so complex and varied.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jun 20, 2017 7:24:53 GMT
The classic on multiple listening for me was
Mahavishnu - Birds of Fire
Not keen on the first few listens but kept thinking there was something there.
Helped I had recorded it onto cassette and it was on a cycle of 10 or so in the car.
Then on one listen it hit me, wonderful, brilliant, difficult maybe but so worth the effort.
Think I am able to spot good ones better now but I may have lost some I didn't persevere with
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jun 20, 2017 8:02:30 GMT
Sometimes I go back to an album I had discarded years ago only to discover something new I had not heard in it before.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jun 20, 2017 10:27:15 GMT
I used to deliberately go through albums in order and had similar experiences.
Some albums are better than they were, others worse. The odd few dropped off the scale
With the system upgrades so many are a different experience or at least like a different version of the same track
Now I'm on the verge of changing tack.
Can't stop playing certain albums. Others I can, skipping tracks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 14:03:32 GMT
I have been pondering this one ever since Chris created the thread and have come to the following conclusions.
1: I dislike this album intently, there are no redeeming qualities and particularly relevant if produced by a competent artist who I feel are just being lazy and cashing in on their fame. I would go out of my way to never listen to this album again, to the point of turning it off if it came on the radio. I wouldn't buy it, if I were given it, I would throw it away or give it to charity.
2-4: Similar to the above but would probably listen to it if it came on the radio, doubt I would buy it.
5-9: I enjoy this and would listen to it again, possibly many times, but it wouldn't be an album I played regularly. Something I might play a lot for a while but then not play again for months/years. I would certainly buy it.
10: My go to albums, I listen to these regularly and enjoy them immensely, they are usually well recorded from my favourite artists and I just love them. I would go out of my way to buy it.
|
|
