Actually, to get a high objectivity score you must be as close as possible to 3.0, and that one is "good", not "average" (not a fan of calling 2.5 average by the way, but whatever).

on this site yea i think ur right

still dumb af and the reasoning remains the same

Kudos to those that see the merit in that such objectivity.

I honestly have enough trouble listening to music I admittedly love, let alone dislike. But perhaps that's a personal problem.

Eh, I don't care that much about the objectivity rating, mostly because I like keeping my average rating close to 2.5, not 3.0; and even then a 2.5 isn't what I'd consider "average" music. But yeah, people listen to music in different ways, it's not a big deal.

Double post, sorry.

not trying to pick a fight but can u explain why u think 2.5/5 doesnt constitute average?

bc music isn't arbitrary, everything released wants to be closer to a 5/5 than a 1/5, there's that bias, so 2.5 being middle-of-the-ground doesn't work
in my head anyway

Sure, no problem. The way I see it 2.5 should actually be called "mediocre", that's the way I use it, 2.5 it's the closest bad rating to a good rating. After the internet more and more people can make music, and honestly most of it isn't even remotely close to be good; there's way too many people making bad music, the average level of musicianship is much lower than it was before, and because of that, the average quality of music is also lower. Of course, this didn't happen just with the internet, the average quality of music decreased through the whole 20th century; I could say that the average music before, from the medieval era to the 19th century (maybe even before the medieval era), was actually good, but I'm not 100% sure.

i mean aside from the arithmetic inconsistency of this website that ratings should go to 0 to be balanced on both sides of 2.5

not sure i get what u meant budgie

sure eveyrone wants to be a classic but the majority of everything is shit...

cept the things that are too obscure to have derivative regurgitation

ok i see alex has responded reading now

I get what budg means it's just hard to explain

Eh, I wouldn't say that everyone wants to be a classic, just that everyone wants to make something at least good; a lot of people aren't very ambitious.

oh so u meant to argue that 2.5 is below average. nah okay that's sensible and a sensible reasoning behind it too... my mind had instantly gone (and with good reason imo, the internet is shit) to the dumb shit some people pull like "nah on my scale 2.5 is actually really good because [incomprehensible stupidity here]" but i see what ur saying and i can def understand that



" I could say that the average music before, from the medieval era to the 19th century (maybe even before the medieval era), was actually good, but I'm not 100% sure."

tbh any historian worht their salt would slap u, cuz we just dont have anywhere near the evidence to support this. u think people have nostalgia goggles for 70s hits and classics, this would be that amplified by like 200x cuz none of the garbage from back then would survive.

Album Rating: 5.0

i dont think the vast majority of musicians set out to make a classic, just something that they like and can be proud of.



(im basically repeating what alexander said, fuck)

anyway jesushitler u love this alb?

"oh so u meant to argue that 2.5 is below average"
Uh, no, above average, actually (still not good though), I'd say the average music is like a 2.0 or a 1.5, and even then I feel that I'm being a bit generous.

"tbh any historian worht their salt would slap u, cuz we just dont have anywhere near the evidence to support this. u think people have nostalgia goggles for 70s hits and classics, this would be that amplified by like 200x cuz none of the garbage from back then would survive."
Yeah, that's why I'm saying that I'm not sure. I'm saying that completetly based on the work that actually survived and considering that there weren't many musicians; most of them had a lot more of discipline than your average punk band, simply because back then it was much harder to be a musician.

is english ur first language? cuz mediocre has a substantially more negativ econnotation than average

"I'd say the average music is like a 2.0 or a 1.5, and even then I feel that I'm being a bit generous."

Oh so thats how you're playing this game

"most of them had a lot more of discipline than your average punk band"

you can't extrapolate the few stalwarts of the times whose work remained in the public consciousness to draw any meaningful conclusion about all musicians though, the data points are simply too few and sparse.

you also can't compare them to "your average punk band" because your average pnk band is not going to be remembered in 3 or 30 years let alone in 300.

"simply because back then it was much harder to be a musician."

yes it was mostly a matter of affording the instruments and education; meaning that most people who had access to music were nobility with often only a passing, shallow interest in music. same w/ any other art. there's a reason why you never haer about w/e symphony composed by the shitty duke of whatevershire, cuz they werent any good, or even interested in composing to begin with.

man finally ive been refreshing for like 15 mins for the steam store to work properly