Album Rating: 1.5

That and the fact that it also sucks. At least there were a few gems provided like "Tramp Stamps at Stonewall".

I think you guys are overanalyzing ratings in general. A bad album is bad at the end of the day. Does it really matter if it's a 1 or a 1.5? Like am I going to listen to their next album if I enjoyed 23 seconds of their first? Do we *really* need to discern how bad it is compared to other bad albums?

>Does it really matter if it's a 1 or a 1.5?

if it doesnt matter why bother to differentiate at all [:

(though we probably agree in spirit more than it seems at first glance tbh)

Album Rating: 1.0

i think its good to denote albums that are largely bad but have tiny glimpses of good, as opposed to fully bad

You got a point but I guess my main thought I'm trying to convey is how much discussion are you really going to get out of something that's just bad? Unless its like angel 2 the core or something but that's kind of a rarity and I don't think this matches quite up there. Eh

>is how much discussion are you really going to get out of something that's just bad? Unless its like angel 2 the core or something

yep, good lad!

Imo ratings are arbitrary the same way all language is arbitrary, you can use words however you want and they can accommodate a range of definitions but using them in a way other people can understand/interact with requires taking consensus into account at least a little bit

i used to think the same but found that very limiting personally

I mostly stopped rating albums here a long time ago. Every now and then I do it for shits and giggles

If we're going to bring up language, ratings can probably be brought up the same way that we give meaning to those words. Everyone has an idea of what their rating is and I think of you can effectively communicate that it's all gucci. I think it's why people can tend to be hyperbolic about their experiences with music because it's easier to imagine with the creative ways we can express our distaste.

""I'd Rather Die" does not suddenly become excusable if this band can pass whatever sniff tests of authenticity we want to subject them to"

It doesn't become excusable, but the sniff test separates redeemable problematic bands from irredeemable ones, I think. A band might write problematic or bad music but still have some artistic value and credibility (think Weezer/Pinkerton, Attack Attack, brokeNCYDE) and are just too young and stupid to know better. The inauthenticity makes them disposable and not worth talking because there is no artistic vision, just trolling.

Album Rating: 1.5

imagine being one of the band members and just stumbling on this review to find people debating the logical consistency and objectivity of rating systems just because this album is so shit.

They should probably just be pretty chuffed that this turd got a 2/5 review.

"imagine being one of the band members and just stumbling on this review to find people debating the logical consistency and objectivity of rating systems just because this album is so shit."

Lol yeah, we got people questioning if their other 1s actually deserved it

my metal 1s definitely deserve it :]

Hmm, good point CC!

And sitar I'm kinda saying I don't really think weezer or brokencyde being sincere or "authentic" make them any more redeemable than this band (specifically in regard to their lyricism). I agree that if they're specifically trolling or trying to get a rise that it's a distinction worth making though

It's damning when people are more interested talking about the things around your music over the music itself. I kind of find the title a bit insulting too because it feels like a pre emptive excuse. Our music was bad because we were drunk, which isn't to say you can't have fun party drinking songs but it also helps if they were actually fun like dropkick murphies or something. You can't use the satire label either like brokencyde could maaaybe use because it's played really straight faced.

@Kompy, so from a musical standpoint you don't think authenticity or an authentic artistic vision (even if let down by the lyricism) makes an artist more redeemable than coldly (mis)calculated spreadsheet-based demographic pandering?

Album Rating: 1.5

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. "We're serious and punk and angry" and "Haha, yeah we get crazy and drunk and therefore we're relatable but also any faults can be washed away by our drunk punk attitude." A marketing team almost definitely decided that this was the safest way forward. Also, I fucking hate that pop-punk/alt rock is often thrown around with the punk label now. Different ideals, aesthetics, genres.

Album Rating: 1.0

I just mean this is so bad it makes a chunk of the other stuff I have rated low look good in comparison