Grading / scoring / marking records / music

How much use is a mark-by-mark breakdown of what grading systems mean? Like "A+: this record is perfect and I enjoy every track/cut/song. A-: this record is almost perfect and I enjoy all but one or two tracks/cuts/songs. D-: this record is a fucking dog", etc etc?

I see conversations between some of the ex-Stylus dudes referring to records as "definite A- territory" or whatever, and it confuses the fuck out of me. I'd never refer to a record as "a solid 9" in casual conversation, even with a load of music critics. Is this a UK vs US thing?

"Take no prisoners, Lou!"

i voted 0-5 stars, just because it's what i have to use where i write. it's essentially the same thing as 0-10 with no decimals (three and a half stars = 7 etc), though i do like decimals sometimes. deosnt really matter to me though, i can tell by the writing whether or not the record's being given a recommendation.

for me, it seems intuitive to mark singles/trax out of 5, and albums out of 10. (so many albums are neither as generic and average as 3/5 would imply, nor as excellent as 4/5 would imply.) grading gigs on any sort of scale seems odd.

so obviously, in the place i get to grade albums, i do it out of 5, and in the place i grade trax, i do it out of 10.

a pfork-style decimal points scale is completely o_0 though

i dont mind as long its not school paper grading

can i vote against no grade. i like to read whole reviews and i will listen to stuff that maybe doesn't have the best reviews, but sometimes i just want to hear a great album and what better way to find one.

the break downs (e.g. like christgau uses) does remind of of breakdowns for uni marks

i meant to imply that 0-5 stars includes 2.5/3.5/4.5, which translates to 5/7/9 for me, respectively

Spin used to use a "Green/Yellow/Red" system, which I always hated. I'm voting "no grade" (though I do find Xgau's letter grades useful once in a while.)

Voted "Other" as I prefer to see records compared to the type of bird they most resemble.

I like 0-10 with no decimal (assuming that the 0-4 and 0-5 star methods don't use half stars). I have no idea what the quantitative difference is supposed to be between 8.4 and 8.5, so that extra digit is meaningless to me. There's a good argument for grading in units of 0.5 though (i.e. 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, etc.)

Mark out of 10. Percentages and decimals are ridiculous. Ditto school grades.

"Have you heard that new Lady Gaga album? It's a right chaffinch."

I kinda like the 5 stars system with half stars, it feels natural. 4 stars seems different to 8/10 somehow.

lady gaga is more like a london pigeon dyed blonde

^^^ that's exactly why my system is awesome

When I used to read gaming mags as a kid there were at least a couple that marked games in four categories - graphics, sound, playability and longevity IIRC - and gave fucking % scores for each. Never seen a music publication that ridic

on the one hand i have sort of a philosophical problem with numerical ratings/scales/whatever, both for obvious "criticism 101" reasons (reductive; doesnt convey the full complexity of a work of art; allows a person to compare wildly disparate works; etc) and also for sort of, uh, selfish reasons (if i write a review, i want someone to read the review, not to just glance at the number)

and yet on the other hand i find the grades sort of useful in summing up a general opinion on an album--and even more i have a sort of weird affection for them & the sort of futility they represent

x-post; if you were tasked with coming up with 4 different "aspects" of music to grade, a la old games magazines, which 4 would you pick?

Like... Songs, Production, Longevity... and... ???

wtf how do you grade "longevity"

bass, rhythm, melody, handsomeness of lead singer

A lot of ppl would probably say originality but I dunno if I'd be one of them

chops

Longevity is I guess one of those "[x artist] is a name you'll still be hearing from in five years' time!" stoopid music journo things - I think what we are doing here is displaying why music shouldn't be graded in this way

I always have hated the A/B/C system, really grappled with it when I was at Stylus. Not crazy about the 10 point system but at least there you kinda know where you stand. With grades I start overthinking whether it lines with a college grading system or an elementary school system and all this stuff, gets really confusing. I had a conversation with noted 77 object of fun Dan Weiss once where I was like jesus, if that's how many 'A' records you hear in a year, either your standards are really low or you're just working with a completely different definition.

I prefer no grades, but sometimes a system of categories like "a must listen" or "avoid at all cost" can be helpful

wtf how do you grade "longevity"

Exactly.

Several Xs.

The old New Faces one of "Presentation / Content / Star Quality" ?

selfish reasons (if i write a review, i want someone to read the review, not to just glance at the number)

this, also. i've written sooooo many reviews that the artists seemed to consider flattering (quoted on their website, thanked me for, etc.) that they probably would've had a completely different reaction to, or not even read in full, if there was a C- or 5.5 at the top of the page. and sometimes i'm really excited about a record and wanna explain why it's interesting to the reader but there's no way i'm going to lie to them and say it's a 9/10 if i don't think it really is.

There used to be a supplement in the Observer that graded films separately on plot, character, suspense, romance, humour and explosions, or something similar. I remember some big budget Van Damme flick or something getting really low marks for everything and then boosting its average by getting 20/10 for explosions.

An ed at one of the mags I write for was recommending that we give OK-to-good albums like 4 or 5/10, which is all very well but there's an ingrained expectation, I think, about what scores like that reflect and that's kind of tough to shift

i like how sometimes rap mags/sites grade records on like beats/lyrics/etc.

i liked how on the old stylus singles jukebox, all the US writers would carefully and conscientiously stick between the 4-7/10 band of marks, whereas on the UK side, every single would reliably get at least one 0 and/or a 10. i remember one week when i think i dished out four 0s, all justified.

No grade.

Leonardo Da Vinci
Mona Lisa

Brushwork: A-
Originality: C
Attention to Detail: B+
Longevity: C-
Overall: B

Well done Leo! A great improvement on your last assignment.

The idea that a piece of art or music can be graded is of course silly, but then if there are up to 12 reviews on a page it is handy to skim around for the best ones (or the worst ones of course).

The title I write for seems to have a bias towards good reviews and the editors tell the writers to let them know if there's anything they've been commissioned that they find particularly offensive. They claim that this is because they'd rather be covering stuff people want to hear rather than the shit stuff, but I'm pretty sure it's an exercise in PR but whatever. It made more sense until the mag started implementing scores out of 10, so now nearly every review achieves between 6-8 out of 10. Pointless really if you ask me, I've started to get more ruthless as a result.

I think one of the biggest problems with grading music is that it kind of breeds a mentality for people to not listen for particular qualities in music or styles of music they like, but just check for 'the best' music. Like they don't have their own taste or experiences, they just want to hear the 8.5/10 or better albums from every genre regardless of how those records line up with what they personally respond to the most. I know not everyone that reads Pitchfork is a BNM zombie but the fact that there are people like that out there is depressing.

Actually, come to think of it, I really liked grading Top 40 songs on a 0.0 to 10.0 scale (with .5's in between) for the fanzine Radio On in the early '90s, and they did some cool math with everybody's scores at the end of each issue -- averaging out points to rank the songs, controversy ratings, standard deviation (which looked cool even if I could never quite wrap my head around it), etc. So it made sense then, and maybe I should have voted for that method above. Have never much liked providing scores to glossy publications (who are known to change the grades anyway), though.

there's definitely something that feels more right about grading singles and top 40 songs, which is part of why Singles Jukebox is the only thing i do these days that involves grading. when you're looking at songs that are all hits it's easier to judge them by that metric, whether they deserve to be hits, etc.

the one place I've done album reviews had a five-point scale with no halves, and since I generally only reviewed things I liked everything was a 4. 3 seems a bit shit, 5 seems like it should be reserved for the special, so there we have it. Like Lex said, 5 works well for singles, 10 for albums. My more sensitive side would bemoan any kind of rating system, but then I look at the reviews on somewhere like Dusted and I'll be fucked if I'm going to read all that to find out that you think the album's kinda alright.

rating out of 5 is just useless garbage (at least in practice). percentage ftw.

my controversial album rating system: mark each track out of ten, calculate the average as a percentage. maybe add bonus points for track order, flow, other context etc. if you must.

for anything else it's rock paper scissors

I hate all grading systems. The review section I edit has a 1-5 star system, which I loathe, but the people at the very to believe is loved by readers. At least with a percentage based system you can have subtlety, though how the hell a 79%/7.9 differs from a 77%/7.7 I don't know, I tell the writers that 5 means it's an album you expect to be listening to years hence, 4 one that you'll certainly be putting on shelves to listen to for pleasure, 3 is perfectly good and will be liked by thoser who like that sort of thing, but not one the writer would expect to return to on their own time, 2 is average to poor, 1 is poor to unlistenable. And i prefer them to mark down rather than up. Completely agree that points ratings encourage people to buy anything that scores over a certain mark regardless of whether they're likely to enjoy iy - I know people like that.

"very top" not "very to"

for this to be helpful id have to make it analogous with how I actually categorize music in my head.

like:
Love it, all time favorite, etc.
Really good, listen all the time.
It's ok, listen once in a while.
Meh. can't really be bothered with it after a few listens.
Hate it, wont listen again.

so any system that gives me five options works! i cant really imagine there's really 10, or a 100 different gradations for how people actually value music in their own lives.

yeah it's more for people who are interested in how some art may be better than some other art

i think the usefulness of grading systems really varies from one medium to another -- like for movies or (especially) video games, there's kind of a higher importance on technical accomplishments and basic standards of production values. maybe music is just a more abstract and personal artform or maybe it's just that it's easier/cheaper to achieve basic technical goals and is judged more exclusively like artistic or aesthetic merit, but you get a much wider range of reactions and scores when it comes to music. like there are 2-star and 1-star films I love but fully understand why they have 2 stars based on the general craftmanship of it, but if there's an album i love i'm not gonna score it lower just because it's really lo-fi and shitty-sounding, if that sound works in favor of the listening experience.

I like '0-10, no decimals' as a general system. Never liked magazines where they have a key to their marking system, "Three stars = Worthwhile but possibly not for the casual listener, approach with caution!" or whatever. I don't think you need that - the grades are useful for comparative purposes, any more detail should be in the review itself.

if there's an album i love i'm not gonna score it lower just because it's really lo-fi and shitty-sounding, if that sound works in favor of the listening experience.

Yeah grading 'chops' like someone suggested up there would never work either for that reason unless your readership consisted exclusively of Hongro

major press may as well just use 3 stars not 5. obv people become wary of giving too many 5 star reviews, ditto 1 or no stars. last time i looked at Uncut, 95% of the albums reviewed were 3 or 4 stars, really highlighting the futility.

would LOVE if didn't have to grade singles. Working for Resident Advisor I lost count of the amount of times people would comment on a review "3/5, this is definitely a 4" etc etc. marks just seem a way to let people not read the content of a review, to bypass the words, and that's already too easy to do on the net.

How much use is a mark-by-mark breakdown of what grading systems mean? Like "A+: this record is perfect and I enjoy every track/cut/song. A-: this record is almost perfect and I enjoy all but one or two tracks/cuts/songs. D-: this record is a fucking dog", etc etc?

I think this is very helpful for both the writer and the reader. When I first wrote for the Stylus Singles Jukebox back in 2005, Andrew Unterberger e-mailed me this rubric:

10 = Top ten single of the year. Should be used very, very sparingly,
most likely no more than five times a year.

9 = Top twenty-thirty of the year. Should also be used sparingly,
though obv. not as much as the 10--maybe once every month or two.

8 = Exceptional. The sort of single that, against all odds, you never
really get sick of hearing, even though you know it's not a classic or
anything.

7 = Very good. You know you'll get sick of it eventually, but not any
time in the forseeable future.

6= Good, not great. Above average stuff, you normally stick with it on
the radio, but begins to grate after a while.

5 = Average. You don't feel compelled to change the channel when it's
on, but might want to search around for something better.

4 = Below-average. Irritates you a little, wouldn't listen to it on
your own, but doesn't make you cover your ears or run out of the room
screaming when it's on.

3 = Ungood. Little if anything redeeming about the song, createst a
bad taste in your mouth when you listen all the way through, couldn't
recall a single memorable thing about the song if asked, but still
moderately tolerable in small doses.

2 = Bad. Can't listen to the song more than once without counting the
seconds before it's about to end.

1 = Awful. You reflexively change the channel within the first four
chords / beats. Should be used sparingly.

0 = Pure evil. Not only is this song ungodly, but its ungodliness
sucks other songs/bands down with it, actually lowering musical
standards for the rest of the world. Should be used just as sparingly,
if not more, as the 10.

When Andrew stepped down and we moved to Swygart's international format, it seemed like writers were using 9s and 10s a bit more liberally, but I had internalized that rubric so thoroughly that I probably seemed stingy by comparison at times.

yeah i try to go by some vague internal sense of what's fair not unlike that scale, but there's always a strong temptation to just want to being the average score as far up or as far down as you can based on whether you're rooting for or against the song.

Although I voted "No grade" I was tempted by "Other: Classic/Dud" - if you are an average record, go directly to 'dud'.

I like the bird grading too... "Devendra Banhart is a Bearded Tit"

M- (some dealers use N-) A perfect, unplayed record. I never use this grade but many dealers do.

E+ My highest grade. A near perfect copy with no groove wear.

E Very little groove wear and only slight signs of use.

E- Slight groove wear and signs of handling.

E-- A little more worn than E-.

V++ Obvious signs of play and groove wear but not "beat-up".

V+ Well-played with some graying in the grooves.

V Very well played with graying in the grooves and a fair amount of surface noise.

V- Beat up and noisy but playable.

Lower grades include: G+, G, G-, F and P. These records have little surface sheen and a lot of surface noise. P indicates a record that is completely gray and has little or no playability.

78s often have problems that are less common with LPs or 45s and should be noted.
These include:

Digs: A dug-out part of the playing surface. Indicate whether or not a dig "passes" that is, whether or not it causes a skip or repeat (it is assumed that most digs will cause at least some surface noise).

Lams: Cracks in the lamination of the record; indicate whether or not these affect play and how large or long they are (or how many if you want to be really strict on grading).

Cracks: Indicate whether or not the crack is a "hair" crack or a large crack and, of course, whether or not it affects play.

Ticks: Indicate any "ticks" during play and how many grooves tick.

Edge chip/flake: A chip is a piece broken off BOTH SIDES of a record; a flake is a piece broken off ONE SIDE. Indicate whether or not the chip or flake is into the grooves or not and, if so, how many grooves and what effect it has on the playing surface.

Needle runs: Indicate if the needle has run onto the label and caused label damage.

Skips and repeats: Indicate any of these, of course, as well as any other defects that you would indicate when grading an LP or 45, especially SCUFFS AND SCRATCHES, particularly for grades above V+.

For grades below V+, most buyers will assume the record has some scuffs or scratches. If you want, you can mention whether or not the scuffs and/or scratches affect play, especially if they are very heavy.

Heat: Note any heat damage and its effect on play, if any. Warping should be noted separately.

DON'T BE AFRAID TO GRADE YOUR RECORDS CONSERVATIVELY! A knowledgeable 78 buyer knows that a lot of 78s may look wretched but play relatively well and will not be as put off by a well-worn record accurately described (as he would be by a vague description like "looks good" or "looks like new"). Describe every fault the record has and let the buyer be pleasantly surprised by how conservatively you graded and how specific you were--you will be rewarded with a lot of repeat business. Many 78 buyers spend thousands of dollars a year on their hobby and all of them appreciate conservative, accurate grading.

I don't think I've ever cared much about the grade. I used to take more note, probably because I actually read quite a few music reviews, most short or bad, in which case the number is all you take away. I find them sort of pretentious and anal sometimes but when the writer has made their effort elsewhere I don't mind. At best its shorthand. But yeah, when pushed, I'd say comparing records to an abstract measure is stupid. Condition of 78s otoh...

Well, I've never graded records for anybody's use but my own, so it doesn't matter much. But I've always had reservations about the "letters" system, because I still think of those in terms of pass/fail; and I listen to music because I enjoy it, not merely to determine whether it passes some sort of litmus test and subdivide the world of music into either "music that passes" or "music that fails". The world of music is too vast to have only two categories, no matter what Duke Ellington says.

Me, I like a plain-old decimal rating system. But the standard ones aren't good enough. Even with 0.5 increments, the 0-10 scale doesn't have as many gradations as I'd like. And a simple percentage is TOO expansive - do I really wanna torture myself over whether album x deserves 72% or 73%? (I don't.) I need something like a Richter scale, albeit comprehensible.

haha, reminds me of this - pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

xp Not arguing with you Myonga, but I'm confused -- how are letter grades pass/fail? (A+ to F- has 15 categories, not just two. And I don't see how people using letter grades are necessarily subjecting music to a "litmus test"; they're just saying how enjoyable or unenjoyable it is, for whatever reasons might apply.)

(I don't know if Xgau has ever given a F+ or F-, though. So "13 categories" might be more accuate.) (Also, he uses E's, not F's, duh. Same difference.)

i vote for no grade.

i think all music should be graded by what type of animal you think would most enjoy listening to it.

http://sendmedeadflowers.com/uploaded_images/606px-Belle_And_Sebastian_-_If_You%27re_Feeling_Sinister-7003321.jpg = http://www.benwaysworld.co.uk/englishtravelphotos/Steam-Rally-Zoo/photographs/Twycross-Marmoset.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/70/darkthrone450wz7.jpg = http://www.savagewilderness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/hp-main.jpg

This tends to vary, xhuxk, but when I was in school, D- corresponded to 50-55% - the lowest grade you could get without failing. It was far from impressive, but at least you got course credit for it, one credit closer to graduation. The closest equivalent to a similar all-or-nothing proposition, musicwise, that I can think of would be "Worth buying/Not worth buying". A D- record, one that comes that close to "failing", must be reliant on outside extramusical factors, like the price. It's like saying "This record is barely worth buying, so long as you can find it for $8.99 or less; if you have to pay 9 bucks or more for it, it isn't worth it."

I dunno if I'm explaining it that well. I guess I'm saying I can't see the point of hanging onto a D- record - a record that's just barely better than listening to nothing at all. (It makes sense to me.)

One thing about letter grades, esp. the way that Xgau uses them, is that they seem directed at the artist. You can almost see the note in the corner of the paper: "Nice job on this buddy-- I'm giving you a B+." And Xgau has noted several times in reviews when artists have mentioned his name, so I get the idea that he likes the idea of being in a dialog with the artist about his or her work. Whereas other kinds of ratings, to me, are more of a dialog with the reader, a way of talking about the relative worth of records, listeners talking to other listeners about listening to records.

Buy it/burn it/trash it

you guys don't think animals is a good system???

I prefer ian's animals or noodle's birds to grades/ratings as a potential "consumer." In terms of an encapsulation, which the grades/scores provide, I'd prefer a pithy phrase from the review.

i voted for "no grade" because while 5 stars isn't nearly enough, neither is the 100 point system (0.0-10.0). it's absurd to think that two albums with the same mark will be equally good, or that a 9.0 is slightly worse than a 9.1. also, like, where's the cut-off from good album to bad album? 6/10 seems low, and i rarely listen to an album after reading a review with such a low rating unless i have other reasons. i've read some reviews that read like the reviewer really enjoyed the album but then gave it a 6.3 or something.

i don't mind thumbs up/thumbs down though. i probably would have voted for that if it was an option.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

B-)

A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- E+ E E- *** ** * http://www.robertchristgau.com/icon/s2.gif http://www.robertchristgau.com/icon/n3.gif http://www.robertchristgau.com/icon/x2.gif