The ultimate music rating system
 
I have a small hobby.  The hobby concerns music and the categorization of it.

You know how people are passively fed by music.  They just listen to it, (and accept it, or  they don´t accept it).  Perhaps this is the way it should be.  But there is one problem, people tend to communicate about the music and try to compare their favourite music with the music of a friend, and discover that they cannot. 

It is enjoyable to communicate about music, to pass ideas on, to explain how something affects you, point out hidden aspects of the music etc. But that´s not what people to.   Instead they just say:  This music is the best, this is worse.  And when their views (or *judgements*) differ they usually cannot find a compromise or realize why they like the music differently). 

This is what I would like to understand with a novel and a very systematic way of scrutinizing music.  Pulling it apart into its many different aspects.  For example: There is musical viruosity in terms of instrument playing (Hendrix), brilliant vocal performance (Aretha Franklin), stylistic innovation (Velvet Underground), creativity in terms of musical ideas (The Beatles), lyrics (Dylan), etc. etc.  Any musician´s strong point may not be the same as the next musician´s, and an avid fan of Dylan who doesn´t like Hendrix may not do so because he is still listening in terms of Dylan and lyrics, not realizing that there are many aspecs to consider at once when comparing music. 

When I do this assessment I am not concerned with any objective judgement.  I´m not willing to be a judge.  All I want is to find a way of passing on ideas about how a particular music works on me.  It works on many levels.  That´s what it is about.  Looking at the different levels and layers of the musical experience.  And when I think of a paricular category I am not concerned with bad things.  All I ask myself is this:  Does it impress me. If not then I say "No comment".  If the album is strong in a particular category then I say "plus" (it works to the album´s benefit) and if it is truly outstanding, then "top". 
 
 
 
 


 
The Ultimate
Music Rating System


 
 

 

I) THE ALBUM AS A WHOLE
Coherence 
First of all an album might work on me as a whole piece.  So the first category, called "coherence", deals with how the sum of its parts work as a whole. Most albums are just a collection of songs (no comment).  If the album is consistently good and one does not tend skip songs and feels overall coherent with no nasty stylistic turns (plus) and if the album has a strong sense of theme, storyline or a beginning and an end as if the album as a whole had a purpose beyond the individual songs (top).  Albums that top this category are usually very self-aware, with an intro of some sort and a breathtaking finale perhaps.  They tend to not rate well in a later category called "sincerity/sense of moment". 

Diversity 
The second category usually works against this first category, and it is called "diversity" or  "multiplicity of contrasts" and is a measure of the album´s overall breadth and width in stylistic approach. The question is: Does the musician use many different modes of expression. For example, I remember an album by Lou Reed (Berlin) that has a quiet guitar strumming in one song, a bluesy group feeling in the next, and an ominous crying voice as background for the third.  This album rates very high in 
"multiplicity of contrasts".  Most albums are in one mode.  Most songs sound more or less the same (no comment).  Then, some use a ballad here, a heavy rock song there, and introduce a weird instrument in yet another song or an additional vocalist perhaps (plus), but the truly great albums in this category can encompass drastic stylistic changes, going from rock music to 
blues and from blues to some sort of classical elegance, go from soloist quiet parts to explosive and heavily arranged group work etc. (top). 

As you might guess, very few albums can be musically very diverse and full of drastic stylistic changes and yet be very coherent and have a sense of direction and overall whole as if one song (however drastically different from the other) lead naturally to the other.  An album comes to my mind now "Greatful Dead - Blues for Allah".  All of the songs truly belong together, and the final sounds like a final, but the songs are *so* different, even defying defnition most of the time. 

 
 
 
II) THE PERFORMANCE 
(Singing, playing and expression)

Anyway, these two categories concerned the overall effect of the album. Next come three categories that are very related.  Of these "singing" is one, "expression" is another and finally "instrumental virtuosity".  Now, I´d like to separete expression from singing and instrumental playing. Sounds absurd, but for analytic reasons it is necessary because you can 
have a brilliant technical singer or a guitarist who does not have the heart, and vice versa.  Like Dylan who can hardly be an example of a good singer, but being the great storyteller he is - that comes from his "expressive" quality (and lyrics of course, which is one more category, - later). 

Singing 
So let´s start with "singing".  Most singers and most songs can be imitated shamelessly by almost anyone.  Not necessarily bad, but not good enough to deserve comment (no comment).  Then there is music that has to be *sung*.  You have to do it well in order to do it right.  You have to be have some smoothness or range to tackle it.  The music requires to be actually sung out and not just crooned (plus).  But some singers can go up to a difficult falsetto and descend effortlessly into a deep rumble, and play with a few trills in the meantime, always hitting the right note, in perfect control.  That sort of music can stand alone with the vocal virtuosity, that no untrained singer can tackle (top). 

Playing 
This same goes for "instrumental virtuosity".  Most of the time it goes by unnoticed.  A simple progression of chords by a simple punk group, for example (no comment).  But sometimes instruments start to stand out and really do something  on their own (plus) and in some cases there is such brilliance in instrumental performance that the actual music seems unimportant, and you find yourself bathing in technical brillance (top). 

Expression (catching the moment) 
Vocal and instrumental brilliance is of little lasting value if it doesn´t go hand in hand with true emotion.  Most music is plain in this sense.  The singer just sings, the players just play, and do it ok, but pass unnoticed (no comment).  At the time when they really devote themselves to the music and do it properly with true respect, that is when they start to be rated higher in this category (plus) but only do they deserve the highest mark (top) when the performer and the music merge.  There is no performer 
anymore.  There is just a sense of moment that will never come again.  When the performer is literally lost in the music, is pure flowing expression. That is rare. This can be a pure devotional falsetto, a wild hyena scream or thundering vibrato that seems to involuntarily explode in the hands of the musician.  It can take many forms, but most of all it is a sense of moment, something that you cannot really put your finger on sometimes. Something is *happening*.  Usually it happens only once with even the best of groups, something that *by definition* cannot be recreated at will, even with the best intention. This happened to the Beatles on Abbey Road for example.  They knew they were going to do this for the last time.  It is an incredibly expressive album and with a big aura, warmth and generosity ( It also happens to be brilliantly creative and coherent and full of interesting stylistic contrasts.  But that is another story...).  You might argue that expression is the most treasued quality of any music.  No matter how lousy it may be technically, it is always worthwhile to listen to if it is genuinely performed, catching the moment. 
 
 
 
III) IDEAS 
(musical and lyrical creativity)
Creativity 
Now we´re half way through and next stop is "creativity", starting with the normal "no comment" creativity in which a whole song is based on basically one or two simple ideas stretched out to fill a song.  You know how most pop songs are.  Once you´re past the first 30 seconds you more or less know how it will end.  The chorus will be the same again and again, and if it changes it will happen in some predictable way.  A creative music has something more than this.  It makes you wanna listen 
more closely, more than once in every song.  It stimulates your sense of wonder and discovery regularly (plus), but only few musicians can do this continuously through each and every song, as if they could do whatever they 
wanted and come up with brillant solutions and variations and sudden unpredictable changes time and again.  Such music sounds fresh again and again, because there is always something new to discover (top).  You´re never finished with them, as if they were alive and ever-changing. 

Lyrics 
Then there is the lyrics.  Most lyrics sounds the same, full of clichés or shallow observations.  It can be just plain stupid, unremarkable, meaningless or simply not important enough to get your attention (no comment).  Then on the other hand, there is music that speaks to you occasionally, or fits the music nicely and enhances its quality.  This can take many forms (dark music that has suitably dark words, surrealistic and creative music with crazy words etc.).  This rates as (plus) for the album because the lyrics enhances the quality of the music, and supports it.  But it is something else when lyrics can stand alone, and be read and pondered over as a piece of art on its own.  That tops the category.  Also, it is possible to rate it so high when the lyrics carry so much  meaning to you (personally) that it cannot be overlooked, and you feel almost uncomfortably voyeuristic or spoken to privately.  That is quite something.   Here, as everywhere, of course,  the assessment is very subjective, but basically if the lyrics has strong meaning on its own, outside the context of the music, then it can be rated as "top". 
 
 
 
 
 
IV) PRODUCTION 
(soundscape and conter-melodies)

Now there are three categories left.  Two of them are a measure of the quality of the music´s sound and production.  There are two things to consider: "the sound effect" (does the music sound deep, three dimensional, or have great sonorous contrasts that need to be enjoyed in proper stereo) and there is "contrapuntal effect" (or the "song within the song", like backing vocals, a tiny bell, the small things that pass unnoticed if not listened to carefully, but are important to the effect of the melody).  These are different things.  One contributes to the soundscape and the other lingers unnoticed in the background, supporting the melody. We must also bear in mind that the album is not necessarily better for a more detailed production.  There is such a thing as over-production, which can truly be enjoyable on its own, but it steals from other aspects of the music.  "Tops" in this category is thus not a measure of the quality of the production, just the emphasis it gets and claims. 

Soundscape 
"Soundscape" is usually flat, as in the typical punk band or troubardour music. It can easily be enjoyed equally in a lousy mono radio as in massive stereo.  Not necessarily bad, but yet it would receive the "no coment"tag in this category.  As soon as the sound quality starts to enhance the enjoyment of the music (and I´m not talking about clarity of recording, but rather the depth and the width of the sound) then it should be rated as "plus".  When the sound starts to be an enjoyment on its own, and you can get lost in  "all those sounds"coming at you at once (just think of Pink Floyd´s "Dark Side...") that is a topper in terms of sonority/soundscape. 

Counter-melodies 
But, to reiterate, this should not be confused with "contrapuntal effect"in production, in which we deal with counter-melodies in the background and additional items and sounds that emphasize the main music in subtle ways, and have to listened to closely.  Most pop music has no deeper layers of music.  It is all on the surface, as it appears on the radio.  Closer listening is unrewarding. If the music is such, an can be enjoyed in its entirety on small radio, then I´d give it "no comment".  I mean, some music is just 
what the singer is singing and nothing more.  But if you can get something more out of listening more closely, like the backing vocals, the multiple vocals, the backing strumming guitar behind the electric one etc. then give it a "plus".  But occasionally a series of songs and many layers of instruments seem to lie behind, waiting for discovery.  A tiny bell can make all the difference, a backing instrument, environment recording, all those tiny things.  Just think of the Beatles and how they were brilliantly produced in this way.  All the subtle details make the song so much richer.  On the surface it can seem shallow, but even the jolliest and simplest songs they made (esp. Ringos) go from casual melody to such depth of musical ideas that you cannot help but marvel at it all. 
 
 
 
 
V) STYLISTIC INNOVATION 
(The artistic approach)
Stylistic innovation 
This is the final category.  It is particularly tricky, but important.  And it is not to be confused with creativity.  Stylistic innovators take an initial stance, arrange the instuments in a paricular way, discover perhaps a novel way of approaching things (like Joy Division which played the melody on bass and let the guitar back it up) and take it from there.  They may not necessarily be very creative from that point on (and creative musicians may be creative without being stylistically innovative), but they have a distinct sound to them.  I remember one of my favourite groups (My Bloody Valentine) who have thunderous noisy guitar sound but the singing is soft and cuddly as if it were a lullaby.  Stylistic innovation.  Then if the musician continues to play with endless ideas within his stylistic approach, then the musician would rate high on the creativity scale too.  But these two should not be confused.  Most musicians are basically doing something that has been done before, sounding traditional, sounding typically like rock, blues etc. and yet be full of creative ideas (take any traditional improviser as an example). So, it terms of stylistic innovation:  As soon as you discover your own voice you become worthy of imitation you get your "plus".  But very few go higher than that.   Occasionally a drastic stylistic innovation takes place and leaves the musical society stunned or admiring at least.  This "top" stylistic change is rare.  For example, my favourite Lou Reed album (New York) is not particularly striking stylistically.  It is simple rock, blues, jazz, all of this mixed together in a  very varied album, creative and played with pure emotion.  But stylistically it sounded "normal". But the album that came after that was puzzling.  Reed joined John Cale in a collaboration to pay tribute to Andy Warhol.  Cale played the piano and occasionally the violin.  Lou Reed played his guitar.  It was abrasive but simple, repetitive and minimalist, with only two instruments at any one time, lots of space between the notes, lots of narrative, very bare.  This was stylistically striking, but it was not as constantly creative as "NY". 
 
 
 
 
The Five Categories:
 
The "whole":
 		  coherence 
 variety
Performance:  
 		  vocal performance 
 expression 
 instrumental performance
Flow of ideas: 
 		  lyrics 
 creativity
Production: 
 		  sonority 
 contrapuntal details
Art and character
 		  stylistic innovation
 
 
 
 
Afterthought
 

 

What is interesting is to see that most albums that are strong in one category tend to be weak an a particular place elsewhere.  For example: Some albums are stylistically innovative, but don´t change so much through the album (thus are not varied, because they have to make their point, right?!) and an album that goes through constant stylistic shifts is usually not very coherent.  Albums that are lyrically rich is usually very simple in terms of soundscape or musical innovation, but rates high in terms of expression instead. This, we must bear in mind, does not reduce the quality of the album.  The number of "tops" does not necessarily say that the music is better overall.  It basically describes the way in which the album is good.  After that it  is all down to personal taste and how you connect with the music. 

Which goes to say that the system doesn´t tell the whole story.  They are just the most objectively identifiable aspects of the music.  I have left out such personal taste as "quality of melody" and how the music relates to particular moods.  That is all very important for our taste, but impossible to rate really and compare.  Our most personal taste has to be describe with words, or just  kept to ourselves.  We must keep in mind that many of our favourite musicians are admirable because of some subtler things things, because of their stylistic makeup, even though they are not particularly brilliant in any of the other categories above. 

Now, take a look at my attempt to rate some of my albums from my personal collection of music.  And make your own.  Then, let´s chat about music, and learn. 
 

Steini 

p.s. 
there will be a link from here 
to another page later on 
to further the discussion 
with more examples.