/mu/ - Music (Temp full images)

>>54909254
What movie is that from? I agree with your second paragraph though.

>>54909277
This Nigga don't know lilo and stitch. One of the best animated Disney films ever. Where's your childhood?

>>54909277
Lilo and stitch
>>54909254
The 10/10 can only be the best album known, and it serves as reference. When a better album comes, the scale normalizes.
>not knowing scientific method

>>54909306
Tell me, then, what is the best album known?

>inb4 souljaboytellem.com

>>54909254
For me a 10/10 album is a perfect album for me. It's an album that resonates with me completely, an album that gives me some special emotions, sounds, colors, literally something I can really feel.
Doesn't mean it's the best album ever created and nothing can top it. I am not ranking music objectively.
I can have multiple 10/10 albums and some I may like more than others, which doesn't make those any lower.
Though if you are looking at albums in an objective sense, then you are wrong from the start, because there is no way to rank music objectively because music is not a craft. Music doesn't have some sort of a perfect mold that we can compare everything to.

>>54909375
>For me a 10/10 album is a perfect album for me.
For you, fine. Subjective or not if you think a perfect album exists you're wrong and all you're demonstrating is that you're biased and probably lack critical thinking skills

>It's an album that resonates with me completely, an album that gives me some special emotions, sounds, colors, literally something I can really feel.
An 8/10 fits that just fine too, you know.

>>54909321
Ah, you see, that's a tricky question, because you're applying scientific method (standardization) to a more or less subjective quality, that is musical quality. What do we consider? Enjoyability? Trascendence? Technical execution? Innovation?
To me, and all the scores I give are in base this, is DSOTM, which, to me, has the 10/10, but i am sure yours will be other and such. Since the scale is relative, the standards have to be relative. You also need a 0/10

>>54909277
Airplane II: The Sequel

>>54909411
Problem Child II

Finally someone who thinks the same

My highest rated album is a 9.2 and I really fucking like that album but there is just always something not perfect

>>54909407
I just wanted to make a Soulja Boy joke.

But getting back to seriousness here; Going by your theory we could only have one personal 10/10 at a time. I could almost get behind that, even if I don't feel that my all time favourite album deserves a 10/10 score.

>>54909423
Well, that is your 10/10 album. Otherwise you can't make comparisons and the whole score system fails.

>>54909437
I think I just haven't found my 10/10 album yet

>>54909399
It's not the same.
My rankings are not the same as yours, obviously. I rank albums exclusively by my feels and connections towards it. If I feel an album has delivered me everything it was supposed to, and if it really gives an impact the whole way through, or puts me in some really amazing atmosphere that's believable and makes me feel something I've never felt, that must be a 10.
It's weird to describe though. Can't really write down the process of how I would rank my albums. Anyways my ranks serve only a purpose for me, I rarely show off album ratings and similar stuff.

>>54909430
Look, it's like quality in products. A machine can't last forever, and so, the one who lasts the longest, has the best quality. That serves as a standard, and it's the top of its time. The standard it's not perfect,and will never be,but you need it to measure the rest. And if a new better machine comes, it becomes the new standard and all the scores are modified around this one

>>54909453
Yoi would be evaluating innovation and enjoyability

>>54909399
you're thinking about rating in a general way...many albums are 10/10 on a personal level if someone has never heard a 'better' album

right???

>>54909453
>I rank albums exclusively by my feels
Well I think that's a terrible standard to judge things with, anyway. At this point the way you score your albums is a symptom of a larger problem.

>>54909461
Okay, just as an example I'll use my personal favourite album. Leonard Cohen's "I'm Your Man". It's a good example to use because, as much as I love it, it has a pretty glaring flaw; "Jazz Police" is on it.

Jazz Police blows, it really does. But by your rules my standards for perfection include "has a shitty interlude track that breaks the flow of the album". That's rubbish. That's the kind of thing I try to avoid most of the time.

My hypothetical 10/10 would, in this example, be a version of "I'm Your Man" that doesn't have that track on it, y'get me. This album doesn't exist, but I know what standards it has and the traits it possesses. My scores compare to that selection of qualities.

That's just an example, though. There are a lot more things wrong with "I'm Your Man", of course.

>>54909473
Well innovation and enjoyability also help the album go up.
Obviously something that sounds different from anything I've heard before that's also really fun to listen to will be up there.
Anyways, I have no reason to rank an album objectively. Because as you said there are no objective 10s and there will never be objective 10s. It's like the speed of light, no matter how fast an object is going it will never reach it. So if you are ranking albums that way then there is really no purpose in ranking them. Kills the fun of enjoyment that music is supposed to give us.

>>54909499
Music is an artform and art can't be judged objectively. Art is not supposed to be ranked anyways but if you really do, you should do it based on your feelings towards it, because that's what art is supposed to provide you.

>>54909522
Of course it can't be judged objectively. But that doesn't mean we should descend into anarchy. Perspective is integral, lest we occupy the same circlejerking self-satisfied drain classic rock has been circling since the 1980s.

>>54909499
Well, it was something I tried to discuss in an old thread a long time ago. What do we really count? The album as an experience, or an average of each song? For example, idk, Michigan has no awful tracks, but overall is a mediocre album. For me is a 6/10. On the other side, we have OKC, which I enjoy and think the first half is very innovative and trascendental, but the second part is lazy (forme, i know many pwople who say that the second part is the good one). Nevertheless, it has a 9 on my scale, because even having Electioneering, the experience is very gratifying

>>54909554
>The album as an experience
For me, at least.

But Jazz Police is a buckshot to the knees of the pacing of that record.

>>54909254
when someoney calls an album a "10/10" he means that it's a personal 10/10 and not an objective 10/10 you fucking autistic retard

>>54909572
My point is, the type of person who would use a 10/10 has shitty opinions. Of course it's a "personal 10/10", no one's disputing that. But if you whore out points like that you're begging people not to take you seriously.

>>54909301
Lmao yeah I've seen it and those characters are very familiar but I thought it was a different movie.

>>54909563
It happens a lot. I consider as a very important part the ordrr of the tracks, like in Ladies and gentlemen we're floating in space, First song it's pretty fucking good, one of best I've ever heard. But the second song is shit. So, though actually it has a relatively good pacing for the rest of the album, the second song makes me feel uneasy, so 5/10

(This is one of the best threads i've been in)

>>54909587
>if people have personal 10/10's they have shitty opinion
you are so fucking retarded holy shit

>>54909587
>>54909591
>>54909572
And then this happens

>>54909599
>hurr durr you're retarded for having different opinion, everybody should be called jeffrey except me because i'm so special

>>54909610
What?

>>54909254
That implies we know what that true 10 sounds like, which we obviously don't.
So how could we tell whats a 9 or 7/10?

You can (very reasonably) say numerical ratings don't count for shit in general but if you use your scale you might as well use it

>>54909599
Great rebuttal. You need not list your 10/10s, buddy. I have all I need.

>>54909595
Well I haven't ever listened to that so I can't really comment on the accuracy of that.

On it's own Jazz Police is... well it's pretty mediocre, but the audacity of putting a boppy, uptempo novelty song between two of the darkest most melancholic tracks on the record handicaps the album in a way that's difficult to overlook.

Out of context it's merely garden-variety stupid. Within context it's cripplingly stupid.

>>54909627
>You can (very reasonably) say numerical ratings don't count for shit in general
A more appealing prospect with each passing day

>>54909610
That doesn't really happen.
Of course you can have multiple 10s but seriously if someone does consider everything a 10 then he is probably retarded.

>>54909617
how can you say stuff like this
>hurr durr you're retarded for having different opinion
to me when that's literally what you're arguing about? that's actually your entire argument.

>everybody should be called jeffrey except me because i'm so special
what the fuck are you talking about? it's not related to anything I ever said here. I'm assuming you're just heavily projecting.

>>54909623
They give out 10 like it was anything, not valuing their own opinion as a sentient and sensible being.

>>54909423
whats the difference between a 9.2 album and a 9 album? i don't see how you can make the distinction

>not realizing that if you "don't have" 10/10's, the highest rating you're willing to give becomes a 10/10 by default
op is seriously braindead

>>54909642
I'm explaining my point. I've never said the other anons retarded or autistic. Jeez man.

>>54909647
I've heard someone say it's just a means to avoid inflation

>>54909647
When you listen to a shitload of albums, you can make a fine scaling, like, these are all 9, but some of them are better and such.
>>54909658
So he will be expecting it? Or do you will to give a 11/10?

>>54909692
>When you listen to a shitload of albums, you can make a fine scaling, like, these are all 9, but some of them are better and such.
I think using a 100 point system is pretty pedantic. Honestly, I think Fantano's got the right idea. You can stress that some X's might be more solid or more tentative than others, but leave it vague.

>>54909703
I don 't know. I'm pretty used to scale things like that, because of my job, so I think it's not a bad thing.

>>54909254
can there literally be a 10/10? no, not unless we can scientifically make the most pleasing album to each individual person at one give time. but thats impossible.

is it possible to get a 10/10 when you can conceive of anything being greater? or maybe finding an album to be flawless in every way? why not

>>54909736
I'll try to explain this in a really simple way. Say your personal perfect album has the qualities A, B, C, X, Y and Z? Someone else's might be A, D, F, G, T and U, but let's put that aside.

That perfect album doesn't and can't exist, something that did possess all those traits would probably be too scatterbrained, anyway. So far the closest you've got is the album Self-Titled by The Dipshits, or whatever, but that album only has the qualities A, B, Y and Z.

Saying that is perfect is nothing short of hyperbole and your scores are meaningless because they're grounded to nothing tangible or real. Your feels can stay on your tumblr. Either commit to a scoring system or take that shit to livejournal.

>>54909254
The more 0s you put behind your scale, the less 10s you should put out. On a 10 point scale, the 10 score has to encompass a very wide breadth of musical quality. On a 100 point scale, we can still imagine that the 10th point encompasses more than one distinct unit of quality. For example, I would give Ulver's Nattens Madrigal a perfect score on a ten ort hundred point scale, but on a thousand point scale, it might only get a 998/1000.

>>54909254
>2015
>can't grasp the simple concept of subjectivity

>>54909736
>no b8
I think ITAOTS, Exuma, DSOTM, and F#A# infinity are pretty mich flawless; no bad tracks, trascendental, unique, enjoyable, innovative a great experience and technically marvelous.

>>54909647
Yeah, I just have an album rated 9, and this one is slightly better, so 9.2

>>54909790
Refer to >>54909773

FUCKING RETARDS. ON A TEN POINT SCALE THE TENTH POINT HAS TO ENCOMPASS EVERYTHING FROM A THEORETICALLY PERFECT ALBUM TO SOMETHING THAT GETS >9.4 ON A DECIMAL SCALE

>>54909819
>not rounding down

>>54909254

I agree, and by the same premise a 0/10 is also impossible.

>>54909823
Five rounds up you dickwad.

>>54909819
Oh, well, tell us, with your doctorate in music and bs on audio engineering, who also happens to know to play all the instruments, and also the objective and subjective qualities of all cultures who produced and produce music... How is that perfect 10? We cannot imagine such thing, so that's why the scale HAS to be subjective, and it's top can't be imagined. If someone could imagine such thin, it would be pretty lazy not to do it, right?

>>54909847
I know. Rounding down from any number that begins in 9.

9.9 is 9/10.

10/10 is perfect. If it's missing a tenth of a point it's not perfect, ergo 9/10.

>>54909852
None of that has to do with anything I said. It's a matter of rounding up for accuracy. Multiple albums can get a ten on a ten point scale, and they can be of different quality because there's only ten points on the scale. You can't seriously be implying that all art should be able to neatly and evenly fit in to one of ten 'quality units?'

>>54909863
But 10/10 is not perfect. 10/10 has to encompass everything from the theoretical perfect album to just really really good.

>>54909894
Any good scoring system rounds down to the nearest whole number. It can only be considered a 10 once it crosses that finish line. Same thing with 5/10. 4.8 doesn't cut it. The line is 5.0, no exceptions.

my scale goes from 1 to the # of albums I've listened to

the best album I've ever listened to is #1, the second best is #2, and so on

it's a completely subjective list just like ever other list

>>54909877
It's a subjective scale. Rounding is for math dweebs and staticians, we are music lovers and that's it. Why doy you have to put such strict laws in a system that evaluates something that tries not to be strict?

10/10 isn't perfection and it isn't the holy grail

if you can hear (your favorite) beethoven symphony and tell me it isn't a 10/10, then you can leave the planet and go to uranus because that's the place for you, no kidding

>>54909908
But 4.8 is closer to 5 than it is to 4. The method you're suggesting just promotes scores that inaccurately reflect opinions about any particular album.

>>54909254
there is and never will be such a thing as a "perfect album"

using it for "theoretical purposes" is complete joke because music is art no science

>>54909922
Not at all. You're welcome to clarify that it's a strong 4 or that it's brushing up against the border of a 5, but it's still a 4.

>>54909918
Yeah I think a 10/10 is just a piece of music that is as good as it could have possibly been.

>>54909952
All music has room to improve.

Settle for nothing.

>>54909254
>putting a numerical score on art, ever

When will this end?

>>54909983
i give it an assortment of crossbones, emojies, beer mugs, sparkles, and witch hats

>>54909983
never because entry level plebs are obsessed with feelings of validation and superiority

>>54910027
you've done a swell job of elevating yourself above those dregs

>>54910027
>Listening to music, saying it's bad
>patrician

>>54909277
The emperor's new groove

I give albums 10/10 because I'm not some weird Italian homophobic paedophile

>>54910068
/thread

>>54909941
That's not how numbers work you autist. 4.8 is numerically closer to 5 than it is to 4. Saying it's a 4 is just factually inaccurate.

>>54909254
>what is rounding up from 9.5 or 9.9
Fucking autism, man.

This thread is the most pointless bullshit ever. Fact.

>>54909961
We can say that to anything, for anything has room for improvement.
Yet, as a comparison, nobody has changed the pencil design since it's inception, and any attempt of change did not invalidate the original design.
Thus, we can imply the original design is 'perfect', even if it could be improved.

>>54909254
ahem