Album Rating: 5.0
Where's the LAMB SAUCE
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
I dislike the thought of 3 being average. On a 10 scale system, it means you have 6 varying degrees of average to bad and 4 of good to perfect, assuming you only use whole numbers.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
1 is terrible, 2 is bad, 3 is average, 4 is good, 5 is great. The .5s muck things up.
What you think of Portal?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Given that the 1 is the lowest rating you can give on here, 3 would actually be the average (the middle between 1 and 5). The 10 scale system comparison wouldn't work in that case because it would only range from 2 to 10.
I do pretend there's a possiblity to rate lower than 1 though. So for me, 2.5 is an average album, while 2 is often given to albums that are so average that they are >terribly average< and hard to listen to in one go.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
The midpoint between perfect and horrible is still above-average, I think. Most bands aren't half as good as the legends.
|
| |
Sputnik calls a 3.0 a "good album" so that's what I'm going with. I never thought too much about the numerical side of the ratings, I focus more on the adjectives linked to them
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Yeah, the Sputnik adjectives are pretty fitting overall, even though the step from "average" to "poor" seems a bit small, but w/e. I have a slightly different rating system for myself that I originally used for films, from 0 to 10 in 0.5 steps, and it works well for me. That's a scale of 21 ratings and those are divided into 7 for "bad" (0 to 3), 7 for "meh" (3.5 to 6.5) , 7 for "good" (7 to 10). So I basically just slap a "bad"/"meh"/"good" on it and then I try to be more specific with the exact rating. Although I wouldn't ever want to get even more specific. That would be painful.
Also "The midpoint between perfect and horrible is still above-average, I think. Most bands aren't half as good as the legends."
Agreed. Most artists on the world (no matter the art form) are probably on the low-end of "meh".
|
| |
For me the step from average to poor is fine, because I don't see average as a particularly bad rating. You can write a decent song and it could still be average (like a lot of metal for example). So for me "poor" is the first actually bad rating, where things start to get really rough. Consequently my ratings are often seen as low but it's not a punishing thing, more like a way to give true credit where it is due
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.0
Yeah, I agree with "average" not being exactly negative, but "poor" sounds too negative as the follow-up, so what I meant was the 0.5 step between them is too small for those adjectives imo
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Sub-par is more appropriate
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
how about "meh" at 2.25
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
how about "mehhhhhhhhh" at 2.22221351536
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
I agree with most of the above comments, especially the bit about actually using the descriptors in the Sput scale, did you hear that Blackwater? When I award my customary 3.5/5 that’s actually very complementary, not something to get worked up over.
Need to hear this, been re-jamming some Atheist recently & their music is so much more enjoyable than I remember. Hoping these guys are vaguely similar.
|
| |
Album Rating: 5.0
That ambient part that comes in at 2:30 in The Eagle Nature is bonkers
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
m/
|
| |
I just don’t rate and avoid all that shit
Traced In Air is pretty great but I wish it was a little closer to this is style
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
everyone check the demos theyre good i promise
|
| |
I’ve got the demo compilation they released last year, I agree it’s sick stuff
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
oh shit didnt know that was a thing
|
| |
Yea dude all remastered plus an unreleased tracks from an audition tape with a different vocalist
|
| |
|
|
