MUSIC JUNKIES ANONYMOUS

THE RATING SYSTEM

NICK KARN'S CRITERIA FOR RATING ALBUMS

UPDATE: As of November 1, 2001, I've begun adding .5 rating additions to my scale, effective on my 'rewritten' reviews (i.e. the ones that I've put high point/ low point listings on). I'm doing this just because it's sometimes hard to pinpoint exactly where I rank an album from a 1 to 10 number rating - sometimes there can be quite a differerence between a low 7 and a high 7, so adding .5 additions seem to be the best solution for me.

My rating system on this site is fairly straightforward - every album reviewed (unless the reviewer chooses not to use ratings for whatever reason) receives an "overall rating" from 0 to 10.  Sometimes that rating can be difficult to assign to a record.  What exactly makes, for example, an 8 album?  A consistently great set of songs with only a couple weak tracks? A flawed album from a legendary band?  In a way, this is true. In case you haven't noticed it, but lately I have been downgrading the ratings to a lot of albums a little - some of the 10's down to 9's, 9's to 8's, 8's to 7's, etc.  This is because my standards for what exactly a great album is have increasingly become higher, and of course I have acted appropriately. Plus, my preferences and tastes (as well as the tastes of the other reviewers) change over time, and I may think an album is better or worse than what I originally thought.

Greatest hits albums are a different story: rated by how well the material is selected and the overall package is put together.  I don't consider them worth owning unless the band/artist has a patchy album output, but with some great songs scattered about their career.  Live albums are figured out similarly, and I consider them even less worthy than greatest hits albums of course, because the live versions are almost always inferior to the studio.  Unless it's The Who or Kiss of course - bands in which live performing was their greatest strength.  

The chart on this page is a revised overall guideline to how regular studio albums are rated, in case you're not quite sure.

PAT D.'S CRITERIA FOR RATING ALBUMS

My criteria for judging albums is a little bit different than Nick's. First, above all, for an album to get a high grade it must have interesting, well crafted songs. Nothing irks me more than a boring tune, which is why i gave U2's Zooropa the first (and probably last) 0 rating on this site. None of the songs are particularly painful to listen to, ala Yngwie Malmsteen's COLLECTION, but they are all incredibly boring; of the go-nowhere type.

Second, the album must be consistent. Actually, consistency should be #1, because that is basically how I come up with a number score for each album. In my opinion, to get a 10, an album should be completely consistent. For example, you could have an album with four of the greatest songs ever written, and then 5 of mediocre or boring tunes. This album would not get anywheres near a perfect score in my opinion. If the album has 4 classic tunes, I will of course state this, but there is no way in hell I will give a record a 10 if it is not great all the way through.

Needless to say there are not a lot of albums in the history of rock that deserve a ten based on these criteria. And yes, I will give a 10 to greatest hits albums. Such compilations may not deserve the rating in your view, but hey, if it meets the standards i wrote above, in my book, the CD would get a 10.

Finally, I would like to say a word about myself 'bashing' certain CDs and genres. Unless of course, your band name is Bush, I bear no anymosity towards bands until i have heard their musical compositions. Therefore, you can all be assured that if I rip into something, it comes from my truthful point of view. Despite what you may think after my searing of Gavin Rossdale or Fred Durst, I do like to think I have an open mind about music. Unfortunately it is our society where mediocre talent often gets severely overrated, and that just gets to me. In that case, it is my opinion that someon should 'tell I like it is'. Trust me, in five years you might even agree with me that the Bizkits are a mediocre fad.

Also, if nothing else, you can at least agree I wrote something interesting enough to get your frat-boy blood boiling. ;-)

As for my ratings:

0- Bad and/or Boring, boring boring. May not be painful to listen to, but inspires nothing except maybe creative uses for the CD.

1-3: Bad. May have one or two decent (or even good songs) but no more, and the rest of the album is filler.

4-6: Mediocre to Good. May have 4-5 good songs, but the rest is filler.

7-8: Very Good. A nice, fairly consistent album with maybe two or three mediocre tracks.

9-10: Great/Classic. A 10 is a perfect album. Every song is at least good. A 9 would be what most great albums of our time get. Usually albums that get the 9 have one bad or mediocre song, with a bunch of excellent tracks otherwise. Needless to say, you won't see a lot of 10s.

PHILIP MADDOX'S CRITERIA FOR RATING ALBUMS

Like everyone else on this site, I use a rating system of 0-10, 0 being the lowest, 10 being the highest. I don't use band ratings at all - I prefer to score albums completely objectively. I can understand band ratings, but I prefer to let the reviews speak for themselves. Since I tend to only buy albums that I think I'll like, most of the ratings will be in the 6-8 zone. Here's how the numbers break down:

Rating	What It Means
0	Totally worthless. No redeeming qualities at all. Painful to listen to, but too bad to even effectively make fun of. If an album I review EVER gets this, I'd be really, really surprised. Even the worst albums I've ever heard (Gub by Pigface and Vile by Cannibal Corpse) at least had a moment or two of listenability. I might give a boy band like N'Sync a score like this, but trust me, I'll never review a boy band.
1	As worthless as a 0 rating, but maybe not quite as painful. Maybe you can make fun of it and have a good laugh. Maybe it's just insanely tedious. Again, a rating this low would be extremely rare, but I could see myself giving it to Gub.
2	Slightly better, but still awful. There might even be a listenable song or two or even, *gasp*, a decent one. Still, the story is basically the same as 1's and 0's - awful music with no redeeming qualities. Still a very rare rating. If I buy an album, I'm usually pretty sure it'll be better than this.
3	Bad, but with a couple of listenable ditties and and overall feeling of less pain. I still wouldn't buy an album with a rating this low. Don't bother. This level of bad is usually just forgettable. You hear it, forget it, and never really want to hear it again.
4	At this level, there may even be a great song buried among seas of crap, or else the song level is consistently mediocre. I could conceivably give out a few of these ratings. If you like a song or two on it and see if for, say, a dollar, give it a go. Otherwise, steer clear.
5	A totally average, uninteresting album. Maybe some great songs buried by horrible one, or maybe just a constant level of being so-so and never picking up. Maybe it's a record in a style of music I just don't "get", in which case I'll make sure to point that out in my review.
6	Not too bad. Chances are, there are a few good songs, but the surrounding material is little more than passable filler. Usually nothing bad, or the amount of badness is kept to a minimum. This is the "buy it if you're really, really, really into a particular band and/or style" level. You could do worse.
7	Actually pretty good. This is usually either a bunch of songs that are simply "good", but not mindblowing, or a few great songs surrounded by tolerable filler. I actually enjoy listening to these albums all the way through in most cases. If you're a fan of the singles or have heard a few songs on it, you probably won't be disappointed. If you see an album at this level cheap, feel free to pick it up with no hesitation.
8	Pretty dang good. A bunch of very good songs or a few mindblowing songs with 2-4 less than stellar tracks. It's well worth owning, and chances are it makes it into my CD player very often. If you like a particular band and/or style, an album with this rating would be a good one to pick up.
9	Kaching! An extremely excellent album. Pretty close to being perfect, but I can't quite give it a 10 for one reason or another. It should be very consistent, with little to no filler, or if there is a little bit of filler, the best material should be so good that it doesn't matter. A smart buy, if you ask me. Don't hesitate to pay full price (unless you see it cheaper, but that goes without saying)
10	You know the drill. One of my favorite albums of all time. No filler at all, or else it's very very VERY short and inconsequential and/or helps the mood of the album. Most bands will never score a 10 from me, and if a band manages to score more than one ten, they've definately got it going on. Off the top of my head, REM and Jethro Tull are the only bands I'd give more than one ten (but that might change). Buy it now. Leave your computer and buy it now. If you can't afford it, steal it.

There are a couple of albums that I thought about leaving unrated (like Frank Zappa's Lumpy Gravy) beacuse they were so weird, but I decided to go ahead anyway and rank them based on exactly how much I personally like them. But, as your mileage may vary, I've tried to put a disclaimer on those reviews.

RICH BUNNELL'S CRITERIA FOR RATING ALBUMS

Good albums get 10's. Bad albums get 1's. If the album is somewhere in the middle, it gets a 5.

CASEY BRENNAN'S CRITERIA FOR RATING ALBUMS

This is a basic rundown of my rating scale. 0-5 being on the bad side. 6-10 being on the good side.

Rating	What It Means
0	Completely horrible disaster - I doubt I will ever rate an album this low, as a 0 means that the album is beyond unlistenable. An album with this rating has absolutely no redeeming qualities, with every song being a complete waste of time. I'll be more than surprised if I ever hear an album that is this bad.
1	Disaster - This is also a waste of recorded tape, and possibly the lowest any album could ever be. An album with this rating should immediately be discarded or burned. The best song on this type of album might be listenable, but still crap.
2	Horrible - This is simply a very bad album, with maybe only one or two tolerable songs on it (that doesn't even mean that they are even close to good). It's basically all filler, ranging from weak to pretty disgusting tunes. I haven't rated an album this low yet.
3	Very Weak - This type of album is just plain bad, with maybe only one or two good songs at most. As a whole it isn't unlistenable, but it is not the type of release you could stand to listen to more than once or twice. Any band that comes out with an album like this might want to think twice about continuing.
4	Weak - An album with this rating is usually boring, with only a few good moments shining through the mess. An album like this might only have a couple good songs on here (or one classic standing out from the murk), with a lot of duffers rounding out the rest of the set. A lame and pretty dull effort all the way around.
5	Mediocre - An album with this rating isn't really bad, but not good either. An album like this contains a lot of filler, with a few decent and good tracks standing out. It's still pretty lame though, as when taken as a whole it leaves you feeling empty. The album could be mediocre all the way through, or contain a few gems that one can find if they look hard enough.
6	Average, Enjoyable - An album with this rating is starting to become good. A 6 is usually an unspectacular release, with tracks that will give you minor enjoyment. A release with this rating will usually still contain a decent amount of filler, but at least not offensive filler (well for the most part). Even with the filler, there can be a handful of good songs, and maybe some classics. Or the album might simply be enjoyable (if not too memorable) all the way through.
7	Good - An album with this rating is probably most common. An album with this rating is your regular good album; it's a noticeable jump from just being enjoyable. A 7 album is one of two things. It can be an inconsistent mix of great, good, and just o.k. songs, or it can simply be good all the way through. For the most part, it's usually the latter. An album with this rating is definitely worthwhile. An album like this might contain filler, but whether it's bad or o.k. there usually isn't too much of it. An album with this rating might be considered a disappointment to a major band, but for most bands it's a fine release. This type of album may be far from mind-blowing, but it's still a very good release that you would want to play from time to time.
8	Great, Excellent - This is another noticeable leap, as there is a fine line between a good set of songs and an excellent set of songs. This type of album usually consists of very little or no filler at all, and is great all the way around. A few classics pop up on it, with a lot of good to excellent tunes filling out the remainder of the set. An 8 album can become quite addictive. Most 8 albums are very consistent and are the best some bands will do. Not an earthshattering release by any means, but some moments can come across as pretty breathtaking.
9	Near Classic - An album with this rating is short of being a classic. It usually contains a mix of good, excellent, and classic songs that make for a hugely consistent set. The difference between this and an 8 album is that there are even more topnotch moments here, and the flow of the album might be quite immaculate. This is definitely a high point for any band.
10	Classic - This album is the nearest to perfect you can get. It doesn't have to be revolutionary or highly influential, but a lot of times it turns out that way. There are usually a fair amount of classics on this type of album. Classic albums are superb and overpowering, with plenty of awe-inspiring moments. This type of album usually has great flow to it, with the classics making their appearance in-between lots of very worthwhile material.

KEVIN AKSTIN'S CRITERIA FOR RATING ALBUMS

My rating system, like the other reviewers', is pretty straightforward. You know the drill: 0-10. I try to be as clear and fair as possible, because, frankly, I find that some other rating systems leave something to be desired. For example, there's the matter of figuring out the difference between an 8 and a 9 in Nick Karn's system. How exactly does one distinguish between "excellent" and "near classic"? Also, 7 seems to be an awfully broad category, ranging from "good" to "very very good". Another example is Mark Prindle's system, which assigns only one 10 to each band. There are a couple problems I see with this. First, many, if not most, bands will never release a 10-worthy album. Second, some bands will produce more than one masterpiece in their careers.

Of course, I generally plan to give out more than one 10 to only my absolute favorite bands. The one exception I can think of is Metallica, who WOULD be one of my absolute favorites if they'd called it quits after the Black Album. It might seem like I give out an awful lot of 9's and 10's, but that's merely a reflection of my tastes. I buy what I like. Also, my collection is relatively small at the moment, so you can expect me to reduce some of the ratings as I add to it.

Without further ado, here are my ratings:

Back