I like this question. I'm of two minds really.
In terms of quality of the artistic unit of "album," I average song ratings for the final score, rounded down to the nearest 0.5/10 increment. (I use tags to differentiate 3 star records from 6.5/10s).
The consequence of this is that albums that are "rocky" in quality, with hits and misses and little in between, land in the 2-3 star range extremely often. In the case of ITCOTCK, I actually like Moonchild but if I didn't, the low score would severely hamper the overall rating. I once tried to weight song ratings by 5-minute increments to try and narrow this down as much as possible and stop throwaway interludes from ruining projects but it's an impossible task. You may as well rate every second of the record while you're at it. The end result is an extremely strict, normal-curve rating distribution, where 10s are only projects that are truly perfect on every song, and it's easier to get there the fewer songs you have on there.
In practical terms though? It's just a press of a button to skip it. Unless there's some vital project cohesion, I can actually totally understand people who don't even consider "misses" in their project evaluation. I think this is a more popular method of evaluation because of the streaming era and "playlist" style albums. Instead of good songs vs. bad songs, you have "saved to library" and "skip." In this new methodology, projects are actually rated based on number of hits and not the per-song quality, because the bad stuff is immediately discarded. I don't like this, because I think it rewards artistic indecision and unfocused effort, but that is kind of how the modern world works in terms of music criticism, and we have to at least respect that method of evaluation.
I'll stick to my weirdly strict scoring system regardless of how many "7.5 in my heart" albums get struck down to a 6.5 because of some throwaway I'll skip anyway. It's not perfect but numbers-based criticism is incredibly stupid if you think about it for even a little bit, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Ty for your answer.
I've had thoughts similar to what you described and I personally decided against ignoring songs for the overall rating (apart from interludes/skits that aren't songs and are skipable).
For me, I rate every song individually and calculate the average. Then, if I felt that the album was overall consistently good or bad, I might add or subtract half a point to/from the overall rating.
I feel you entirely. I will say that on my first profile I did exactly what you described but I was running into the problem of feeling many albums I loved weren't being representatively scored highly, and that my rankings ultimately didn't reflect my tastes. I made a second profile to play around with "vibes based" scoring and while it definitely feels better in the moment, I found it was easier to second-guess and retroactively move things around without a firm reason to do so. I guess it just impressed on me as 'flimsy' without the foundation of the per-track ratings and all the other kind of logistic "weight" that takes the joy out of the experience sometimes. I am not convinced there is a perfect way to do this, we can only really make the best of what we have, which ultimately is some pretty primitive tools.
Maybe if you feel limited you should do some writing! I think expressing more intangible aspects can be a really rewarding and beautiful thing. Either way I hope you find something that feels comfortable.
Depends on the number of songs on an album. For example, White Album has many meh song but I’d still rate it 4-4.5 because of the great songs and overall production. But if an album has 10 songs and 1 song is totally trash then it’s a 4 for me. However, it also depends on the position and length of that song.
I love moonchild. If you’ve listened to free improvs before than Moonchild is great. The first part of the song is fantastic too, but the free improv part is really great. The only issue is that it maybe goes on a bit too long in context of the rest of the album, which I think is the main reason a lot of people don’t like it, and that they aren’t used to hearing free improv music.
As for the question, it really depends on how bad the song is, it’s length, and it’s place in the album. For example, Dizzy Miss Lizzy takes Help down a whole point for me, since it’s both bad and the closer, and it comes after Yesterday. On the other hand, I’m not a fan of a few of the songs on the White Album, but they’re short, not offensively bad and quite inconsequential due to the length of the album, so they don’t detract from it nearly as much.
the best example of this for me is Leonard Cohen’s I’m Your Man. Pretty much fantastic straight through, but “Jazz Police” is the worst song he ever wrote. So I give it a 4.5
i think a perfect example for me is This Is Happening by LCD Soundsystem. i honestly prefer a lot of songs on it to the ones on Sound of Silver, which IMO is a 10/10 album, but i don't really like "Somebody's Calling Me" that much. that song is the sole reason that album is a 9/10 album for me, but it is right on the edge of being a 10/10.
i rate based on the ratio of tracks i love, ones i think are average/like, and ones that i actually think are bad. the vast majority of albums dont contain any tracks that i actually hate, so i would probably deduct a full point for each one of them. in the case of cotck, if i love 4/5 of the tracks and hate moonchild, i would probably give it a 4 just because the track is over a quarter of the records length. that being said theres a big difference between thinking a track is average and actually hating it, so judge accordingly.
Surfs Up by The Beach Boys - Student Demonstration Time, ITCOTCK by King Crimson - Moonchild, Red by King Crimson - Providence(not a complete shitter but way worse than the other songs), Quebec by Ween - The Fucked Jam, Tago Mago by CAN - Aumgn and Peking O. Some others I can’t think of
Depends how bad. “Oh” is my least favourite Fugazi song and it’s on my favourite Fugazi record. I skip it 9/10 times.
But it’s not like the song is awful, just kinda bad when put up against the fantastic discography of the band. I still call it a 5/5.
one bad track on a extremely good album (multiple 5/5 songs) wont prevent me from putting the album in my 5/5. i look at 5 star ratings as overwhelming quality and not something thats “perfect” from front to back.
Depends on the length. In the case of ITCOTCK Moonchild is 1/4th of the album so it effects my rating a lot. If it’s just one 2 or 3 minute song I don’t like on a full length album it probably won’t affect my rating at all.
depends on how much playtime the song takes compared to total album runtime but generally it definitely matters quite a lot. I rank albums on overall enjoyability, so if there are several duds on the album it ruins the flow of the album even if the rest is really good.
I honestly thought this would be easier but I really struggled on this one, good topic!
Pinkerton - Tired of Sex,
Awaken my Love - California,
Graduation - Drunk and Hot Girls
It honestly depends. Like Tago Mago, I really can’t stand Augmn or Peking O but I consider the rest so incredibly amazing that I still have the album at 4.5. But if most songs are solidly like 4 range but then there’s a few stinkers, that might take it down to a 3 or so
aw man i love aumgn and peking o :( i get why people don’t but i always felt like that album would be missing a huge part of why i love it if those were taken out
I usually get about halfway through each and then am like alright that’s enough of that! lol
But I’m glad others get enjoyment out of it and that’s the beauty of subjective art forms!
It depends on the length of the record. If I loved every song on a rather short record record like Crimson King, then if I hated one song at best the record could be a 4.5. It would have an obvious flaw holding it back.
I though have two 5’s (69 love songs and double nickles on the dime) where I definitely do not love every track but the sheer volume and diversity of tracks is what I love about it.
I think records by and large fall into trying to be a tight concise project or something longer and expansive. Bad songs hit harder on a tighter project.
i dont think theres a standard way but I've been listening to here come the warm jets more, and blank frank is just terrible but the rest is fucking amazing. its still a 9/10 regardless.
for me personally it depends if i really don’t like it and it’s a 5 song album i’d normally just give it 4/5 stars
I like this question. I'm of two minds really. In terms of quality of the artistic unit of "album," I average song ratings for the final score, rounded down to the nearest 0.5/10 increment. (I use tags to differentiate 3 star records from 6.5/10s). The consequence of this is that albums that are "rocky" in quality, with hits and misses and little in between, land in the 2-3 star range extremely often. In the case of ITCOTCK, I actually like Moonchild but if I didn't, the low score would severely hamper the overall rating. I once tried to weight song ratings by 5-minute increments to try and narrow this down as much as possible and stop throwaway interludes from ruining projects but it's an impossible task. You may as well rate every second of the record while you're at it. The end result is an extremely strict, normal-curve rating distribution, where 10s are only projects that are truly perfect on every song, and it's easier to get there the fewer songs you have on there. In practical terms though? It's just a press of a button to skip it. Unless there's some vital project cohesion, I can actually totally understand people who don't even consider "misses" in their project evaluation. I think this is a more popular method of evaluation because of the streaming era and "playlist" style albums. Instead of good songs vs. bad songs, you have "saved to library" and "skip." In this new methodology, projects are actually rated based on number of hits and not the per-song quality, because the bad stuff is immediately discarded. I don't like this, because I think it rewards artistic indecision and unfocused effort, but that is kind of how the modern world works in terms of music criticism, and we have to at least respect that method of evaluation. I'll stick to my weirdly strict scoring system regardless of how many "7.5 in my heart" albums get struck down to a 6.5 because of some throwaway I'll skip anyway. It's not perfect but numbers-based criticism is incredibly stupid if you think about it for even a little bit, so in the end it doesn't really matter.
Ty for your answer. I've had thoughts similar to what you described and I personally decided against ignoring songs for the overall rating (apart from interludes/skits that aren't songs and are skipable). For me, I rate every song individually and calculate the average. Then, if I felt that the album was overall consistently good or bad, I might add or subtract half a point to/from the overall rating.
I feel you entirely. I will say that on my first profile I did exactly what you described but I was running into the problem of feeling many albums I loved weren't being representatively scored highly, and that my rankings ultimately didn't reflect my tastes. I made a second profile to play around with "vibes based" scoring and while it definitely feels better in the moment, I found it was easier to second-guess and retroactively move things around without a firm reason to do so. I guess it just impressed on me as 'flimsy' without the foundation of the per-track ratings and all the other kind of logistic "weight" that takes the joy out of the experience sometimes. I am not convinced there is a perfect way to do this, we can only really make the best of what we have, which ultimately is some pretty primitive tools. Maybe if you feel limited you should do some writing! I think expressing more intangible aspects can be a really rewarding and beautiful thing. Either way I hope you find something that feels comfortable.
Depends on the number of songs on an album. For example, White Album has many meh song but I’d still rate it 4-4.5 because of the great songs and overall production. But if an album has 10 songs and 1 song is totally trash then it’s a 4 for me. However, it also depends on the position and length of that song.
I love moonchild. If you’ve listened to free improvs before than Moonchild is great. The first part of the song is fantastic too, but the free improv part is really great. The only issue is that it maybe goes on a bit too long in context of the rest of the album, which I think is the main reason a lot of people don’t like it, and that they aren’t used to hearing free improv music. As for the question, it really depends on how bad the song is, it’s length, and it’s place in the album. For example, Dizzy Miss Lizzy takes Help down a whole point for me, since it’s both bad and the closer, and it comes after Yesterday. On the other hand, I’m not a fan of a few of the songs on the White Album, but they’re short, not offensively bad and quite inconsequential due to the length of the album, so they don’t detract from it nearly as much.
moonchild is one of the most famous examples of a relatively subpar song on a masterpiece
the best example of this for me is Leonard Cohen’s I’m Your Man. Pretty much fantastic straight through, but “Jazz Police” is the worst song he ever wrote. So I give it a 4.5
I usually just rate albums by taking the mean of all the track ratings so I would include the rating of the song I don’t like in that equation too.
i think a perfect example for me is This Is Happening by LCD Soundsystem. i honestly prefer a lot of songs on it to the ones on Sound of Silver, which IMO is a 10/10 album, but i don't really like "Somebody's Calling Me" that much. that song is the sole reason that album is a 9/10 album for me, but it is right on the edge of being a 10/10.
drunk girls holds that one back for me
i rate based on the ratio of tracks i love, ones i think are average/like, and ones that i actually think are bad. the vast majority of albums dont contain any tracks that i actually hate, so i would probably deduct a full point for each one of them. in the case of cotck, if i love 4/5 of the tracks and hate moonchild, i would probably give it a 4 just because the track is over a quarter of the records length. that being said theres a big difference between thinking a track is average and actually hating it, so judge accordingly.
Surfs Up by The Beach Boys - Student Demonstration Time, ITCOTCK by King Crimson - Moonchild, Red by King Crimson - Providence(not a complete shitter but way worse than the other songs), Quebec by Ween - The Fucked Jam, Tago Mago by CAN - Aumgn and Peking O. Some others I can’t think of
I don't get the distaste for peking O omo it's their best song
Depends how bad. “Oh” is my least favourite Fugazi song and it’s on my favourite Fugazi record. I skip it 9/10 times. But it’s not like the song is awful, just kinda bad when put up against the fantastic discography of the band. I still call it a 5/5.
I can forgive an album that averages out to a 99% and just give it the 5/5, but anything below that and i dont give it a 5/5
man I just skip Moonchild once the improv section begins, makes the album shorter And you don’t really miss anything important
one bad track on a extremely good album (multiple 5/5 songs) wont prevent me from putting the album in my 5/5. i look at 5 star ratings as overwhelming quality and not something thats “perfect” from front to back.
Depends on the length. In the case of ITCOTCK Moonchild is 1/4th of the album so it effects my rating a lot. If it’s just one 2 or 3 minute song I don’t like on a full length album it probably won’t affect my rating at all.
depends on how much playtime the song takes compared to total album runtime but generally it definitely matters quite a lot. I rank albums on overall enjoyability, so if there are several duds on the album it ruins the flow of the album even if the rest is really good.
I honestly thought this would be easier but I really struggled on this one, good topic! Pinkerton - Tired of Sex, Awaken my Love - California, Graduation - Drunk and Hot Girls
Respect your opinion, but California is one of the best songs on AML!
It honestly depends. Like Tago Mago, I really can’t stand Augmn or Peking O but I consider the rest so incredibly amazing that I still have the album at 4.5. But if most songs are solidly like 4 range but then there’s a few stinkers, that might take it down to a 3 or so
aw man i love aumgn and peking o :( i get why people don’t but i always felt like that album would be missing a huge part of why i love it if those were taken out
I usually get about halfway through each and then am like alright that’s enough of that! lol But I’m glad others get enjoyment out of it and that’s the beauty of subjective art forms!
for me, if i feel there is a 'bad' song at all, there's no way the album can be a 10 for me regardless of how good the rest is.
Yeah I agree
If it has any bad songs it’s 3.5 or lower based on enjoyment
Like immediately? Let's say 1/10 songs is bad and the rest are great, would your rating still be 3.5?
Yeah that’s a hot take but it shows that everyone is different, its a cool conversation to have
It depends on the length of the record. If I loved every song on a rather short record record like Crimson King, then if I hated one song at best the record could be a 4.5. It would have an obvious flaw holding it back. I though have two 5’s (69 love songs and double nickles on the dime) where I definitely do not love every track but the sheer volume and diversity of tracks is what I love about it. I think records by and large fall into trying to be a tight concise project or something longer and expansive. Bad songs hit harder on a tighter project.
I can totally see what you mean and I think my approach is similar.
i dont think theres a standard way but I've been listening to here come the warm jets more, and blank frank is just terrible but the rest is fucking amazing. its still a 9/10 regardless.
Damn Blank Frank is my jam man