ALBUMS RATING GUIDE |

< Return to the review index

I'm a big believer in the John Peel philosophy of "if it didn't speak to somebody, it wouldn't have gotten made". It's probably funnier to just completely trash a record, but I only do that if it viscerally displeases me, and very rarely does a record actually do that. Otherwise, I only give it a middling score, because most albums have musical importance to someone, that someone just isn't me.

"100 album reviews!" from my journal, July 2024

When I rate an album, I'm judging it based on three factors primarily, from most to least important to me:

How much did I like this album?
How well did the band accomplish what they were going for, ostensibly?
How much will fans of this style get out of this album?

If an album is rather good but it just doesn't do a lot for me, the worst I feel comfortable giving it is a 6. My goal is not to denigrate hard work, but these are also my ratings for how likely I am to keep and continue listening to a particular record. 6/10s and up are just good enough to be keepers to me, especially for bands I like. 5/10 and under are what you should actually consider less-than-stellar.

I don't reward being historically significant or novel. A 10 is not immediately granted because everyone else says it's a 10. Frankly, you're listening for pleasure, or at least, I am. As I've said before, bands might be great vehicles to masturbate in, but do it in public and someone's eventually gonna see you driving with one hand. No one wants to see that.

Rating descriptions

Not that it needed explaining, but here's how the score ratings break down in my head:

	An album that does exactly what it sets out to do memorably and powerfully. This is a must-listen. Only non-album tracks like bonus or hidden tracks may constitute skips.
	A nearly-perfect record that may be kept from perfection by one or two cuts, but leave such an impression with the rest that all is forgiven. Highly recommended as a first brush with the artist.
	A garden variety great album that will majorly appeal to fans of the style of the music. By no means perfect, or with something odd that might turn away casual listeners, but any issues with it won't stop the dedicated from finding something to love about it.
	Overall good, these albums may have great songwriting or strong performances, but a noteworthy issue with them (say, questionable mixing, odd pacing, or a certain lack of inspiration) that tempers my excitement. Alternatively, these may be albums that are questionable in quality that I nevertheless find myself attracted to, or albums that aim for good and achieve exactly that, no more or less.
	A more middling album with plenty of padding or an absence of personality and spirit, or a good album that just does very little for me personally. Not truly bad, but its appeal may be limited and you'd be forgiven for not having heard it.
	True mediocrity. An album that stirs very little in me, but may be buoyed by a few tracks that you can only pray were released on their own.
	A mostly dull album that has its moments of properly contemptible musicmaking. Not completely meritless, but someone was asleep at the wheel here, and the one or two songs that show the promise of the original idea are merely salt in the wound.
	Properly bad. An album needs to have an overriding aesthetic that lands with a hideous thud or seriously poor songwriting to rate this low. Remember, songs are key here--most shortcomings in mixing and performance can be forgiven if you at least bring a few decent tunes. These bands did not.
	Appalling. You have to wonder if someone was trying, in the same way most bands aim for greatness, to make something unlistenable. Actively irritating, you're unlikely to find a single redeemable song here.
	God is dead.
	This film is not yet rated.
	All hail the Bulb.

NOFI | LOFI