post patrician curves
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
post patrician curves
>>64470669
"minimal" synth
>>64470669
le "I hate fat people for the good of society" meme
>>64470644
what?
>>64470669
>People who spout "MUH PUT RISHIN" all the time are overweight
Sounds about right.
>>64470725
here is a pleb curve, for example
>>64470755
Nope, that is a real patrician curve
OP's is pleb as fuck
>>64470644
wow you're right - that's really post-patrician, nice moves!
>>64470767
>"no"
r8 my curve /mu/
>>64470669
http://thisishangingrockcomics.tumblr.com/tagged/is-it-her%3F
when is she coming back anyways?
>>64470669
>tfw she would be really qt if she were skinny
>>64470847
Mine is similar but I haven't given anything 5 stars
>>64470669
Is that Trigglypuff
True patrician curve coming through
>>64470924
absolute madman
>>64470924
um...
>>64470924
lmao
please link the profile
I just restarted.
Is this any good?
>>64470924
damn...
>>64470669
obesity is literally a disease
>>64470924
Hahaha
>>64470847
Same
>>64471310
i'm always somewhat baffled by ratings like these. do they really mean to suggest that there's a much mediocre stuff as there is unlistenable trash (0.5 stars) and as there is transcendent god tier works (5 stars), or are they just working on an entirely different, non-intuitive scale?
>>64470669
haha baka
>>64470767
>Hated by all except those three non-conformist-at-all-cost idiots
>Patrician
Senpai plz, there is a long road between exceptional and deliberately-bad-to-be-different
>>64471310
>veni vidi vomit
>>64470767
>Forces himself through shit just to give it a shit rating just to fill out his ratings and appear well versed.
Nah, fuck off.
>>64470962
Why the fuck are you even asking that? Are you seriously seeking validation on an anonymous image board? Don't fall for the meme.
>>64470644
>>64470847
>>64470962
If you don't have at least 500 non-single ratings you shouldn't even bother posting your profile
>>64471501
>>64470852
thats not actually taylor ruth is it? did she actually come to mu wtf
kek
check em desu
>>64472000
HOL UP
>>64471310
>>64471414
Why would they bother to listen to or take the time to rate all of the unlistenable shit they've heard?
>>64471953
yes it is
>>64470847
pretty similar to mine actually. I feel like I rate too high but I don't usually listen to stuff I don't like enough to think of a solid number rating for it. Maybe if I really hated something then I would.
>>64470924
Can't get more patrician than this
>>64472044
i find this so untrue. she never struck me as a fattie
>>64472000
I just found a really strange one this is from a random profile I found
"For years I've been pondering how one could possibly objectively rate music given the binary way in which our brain processes information. One might really enjoy a song by Avril Lavigne, as it brings back great memories for said person, and results in positive receptors going off in this person's mind. This is the "right brain" speaking. Whereas Moonchild by King Crimson is not insofar as an emotionally powerful slice of auditory pleasure, but it is a track that stimulates the brain, and something I would classify as "musical genius." This is the "left brain" speaking.
These are the two poles of musical enjoyability. Often, humans sort nearly everything into two different types of love. "Conscious love," and "Heart love," with little room in between.
We need to stop lying to ourselves in the way we rate music. Rating an album like The Velvet Underground & Nico (one that you "appreciate, but do not actually enjoy) above a track like "Complicated," by Avril Lavigne is a slap in the face of how humans react to and consume art. There are no "guilty pleasures," saying so would liken you to a hipster that prefers to remove his ego from the synapses in his brain.
For these reasons, I have concocted a new rating scale to counteract this musical superficiality that has run rampant on this website, one that is psychologically accurate and in line with the ways in which art can touch our lives."
also, why do people skip ratings. why would you actively restrict yourself like that?
>>64472113
can you send this profile?
>>64472076
internet is so powerful
also i really would not call her fattie. she is morbidly obese
>>64472145
yes
https://rateyourmusic.com/~losefka
>>64472114
not everyone likes using a 10 point rating scale
>>64472114
what is the difference between 1.0 and 1.5 please tell me
>>64472113
What about music that is both emotionally and mentally stimulating?
>>64472113
this is really pathetic, i have no idea why people need to pretend that objectivity in music exists. the guy who's doing this takes it a step further as he's based it on his his knowledge of high school psychology
>>64472113
If nothing else, it's a creative use of the site.
I also privately rate music with respect to emotional impact and complexity separately. (My favourites combine both of course.)
>>64472188
yeah i get that but i'm trying to understand what sort of motivation one would have for using, say, a three point scale (which i've seen a surprising number of times). is it easier for some people to rate given so few choices, or what?
>>64472204
personally, i rate something 1.0 if it's mostly unpleasant, but maybe has one good track. 1.5 is a few okay tracks, or a redeeming concept etc.
i try not to think of it on such rigid terms, it's really a fluid thing and sometimes i just rate based on overarching feelings i have for a release. in any case it's nice to have the option to differentiate more, for me.
>>64472231
This and it goes against the way the site operates
>>64472172
christ, i never knew, just followed her on tumblr. thats pretty saddening but reflecting not all that surprising? she'd be so qt without that weight.
>>64472293
Does the site actually officially says anywhere that ' is supposed to bad and ***** is supposed to be good? If not, then no matter how implied it is, he's not doing anything wrong.
>>64472324
agreed. she would be cute even if she was 200 lbs but her current state is just too much
>>64472204
for me I do it this way:
You have 5 levels, Great Good Average Bad Terrible
5* - Great
4.5* - would be great if it werent for this one song/ section/ etc ; definitely in 5 territory but held back by some flaw
4* - Good
3.5* - definitely good, but one or two poorer parts that hold it back
3 and 2.5 are for things that are average
1.5* - Bad
2* - definitely bad, but one or two good parts that raise it up
0.5* - Terrible
1* - would be terrible if it weren't for one or two reddeemable songs/parts
>>64472325
it averages the ratings and then generates the best of year and best of all time lists based on how high the ratings are and how many ratings there are. If you don't think that it is implicit that a higher rating is supposed to mean a better album then you are lying to yourself.
>>64472325
No but it has "top charts" which rank things based on the premise that a 5 is better than a .5
I mean it's just one guy and he's really not going to affect anything significantly, so let him use it how he wants. RYM is big enough to let some oddballs through.
5: should be low. Keep it between 20 and 40. Shows what you really like without propping up only two or three albums/singles like positive rating scale fags, which is cheesy.
Then the biggest bump should be in the middle.
Keep your 0.5 low too, so it's clear what you _really_ hate. Rating 100s of releases the lowest rating doesn't make you look discerning, it just makes you look like a loser
>>64470755
>>64471508
>>64471623
https://rateyourmusic.com/list/SellMeAGod/why_i_rate__a_word_about_thee_benefits_of_a_positive_rating_model/
Lurk moar
>>64471953
yes it is her, its one of her old profile pics or something. did she really just lose all interest in music after like a year or so?
>>64472324
who's that in the pic?
>>64472448
literally one of the worst users, senpai
>>64471623
nope, because for those users 2 stars is already "good album". They simply want to tell you the music they like, not dislike.
>>64472457
as far as i can remember, she was known for having a really eclectic taste but wasn't all about hunting and listening to new music, she just had some weird taste that people jumped at her for.
and that's her in the pic, according to google. potentially fucking gorgeous, but......
>>64472510
Nah he's great
Guys, I only rate what I listen to a lot. I feel like there's no way for me to be able to say "yes, this is a 3.5" after only one or two listens. I feel like it takes me about 4 to 5 listens before I feel like I can rate something meaningfully.
So the only ratings I have are for things that I've listened to a lot; which tend to be things that I like. So my ratings are top-heavy, I only have a few below 2.5. I listen to plenty of music that I don't like and would probably rate as 2s or 1s but I haven't listened to those enough to be able to find which number best reflects how I feel about it. And besides you often need to listen to things several times before you get it or start to appreciate it.
Am I alone? Anyone else do this?
>>64472549
You should adopt a positive rating model
Read the list I posted minutes ago about it.
Mine is the coolest.
>>64472568
hmm you know what that's really interesting. Maybe I will. I'll think about it.
>>64472549
I mostly rate stuff I've known about for like a decade or more
maybe I'm old or something idk
I even go back and forth on those ratings though. Numerical categories are all fraudulent
>>64470669
ugh god those cankles
>>64472600
your 4s and 4.5s might me a little high but overall this is the way to do it. it's intuitive and makes sense
positive rating scale fags are just trying to make an excuse for having an ~aesthetically pleasing~ slope
>>64472632
>>64472568
So after a first listen of something you would probably just rate it between 0.5 and 2.5 and move things up over time as you listen if you feel they deserve it? rather than not rating anything until you think you have a final rating? interesting
>>64470924
What does he mean by this?
>>64472448
His misuse of the pronoun 'thee' invalidates anything he says. I don't care that he's using it wrong intentionally.
>>64472679
Yeah in your case it would be something like that
I personally don't care about rating something I just listened too highly but I know it's something really personal
>>64472693
what a sad way to live a life
>>64472274
everyone has their different reasons who cares
>>64472670
>your 4s and 4.5s might me a little high
it's because i tend to listen to music i know i will enjoy. I don't want to waste my time with music/genres i dislike.
You fuckers are just mad she's better looking than you.
>>64470924
damn
>>64472534
huh, interesting. probably someone else with the same name then? and i don't remember it too well but i thought she just droned her taste off of horbgorbler and zyklon boy/kodak ghost which is why she was disliked?
>>64472448
The 'why bother grading the degree to which you hate things, why focus on bad music' is flawed because my RYM is not just a private catalogue, I also sometimes want to show that a popular record is bad. Some popular albums are lazy, some are obnoxious.
>>64472717
jeez i was just curious
>>64472742
>Enjoys listening to music
There's your first problem
>>64472742
this, what's the point of listening to artists/genres you already know you don't enjoy
>>64470669
those poor soles
http://taylor-ruth.tumblr.com/
this is her also
>>64472780
>>64472768
In other words, I want a way to differentiate between 'ItAotS'-bad and 'Loveless'-bad.
>>64472709
I'm more offput by his standard Christgau-wannabe writing style
"It's hard to fault thee voodoo rumble this platter conjures up despite its put-ons an affectations..."
>>64472804
http://eyeluvgod.tumblr.com/
http://itchycoil.tumblr.com/
here are her tumblrista avant teen buttbuddies
>>64472804
yes she has a few different ones, they're all linked from the main one i think.
>>64472764
oh i never knew she was on /mu/ or rym, i just followed her on tumblr, surprised to see her rock up here. idk its probably her, its just a photo of her face and she's never had a super fat face, plus it's just a complimentary angle
How do I get the text beneath the numbers? pls
>>64472708
I suppose since positive ratings scales seem pretty common, that must be a big reason that it seems like recent music is underrated on rym. More people have only heard it a couple of times than have heard it many, many times.
One example of this is the seer and tbk are 3.82 and 3.83, and the great annhilator is 3.85. Nothing against tga, good album but in no way is it a better album than either of those.
>>64472777
>>64472188
this is literally the only explanation you need, it's always different depending on the user
>>64472693
yeah anybody who thinks "thee" means "the" never finished grade school
>>64472864
https://rateyourmusic.com/account/rating_system
>>64472896
https://rateyourmusic.com/list/SellMeAGod/thee/
>>64472768
But I mean, who cares about "showing that a popular record is bad". Nobody's gonna look at your opinion and change their mind. You're not gonna affect the overall rating in any significant way, unless it's for something very obscure.
So why bother? Use RYM for yourself, not for others.
>>64472896
umm its called artistic license, he's a QUIRKY SNOWFLAKE , HELLO
>>64472896
i always thought he was parodying pretentious music snobs/critics, see also "rekkerd"
>>64472896
Actually, I was wrong. I didn't care much for his essay, so I just parsed the thread as if he used it in place of 'thy' and 'thine' and didn't even notice was simply misspelling 'the'. His mistake just went from inexcusable to silly.
>>64472822
I get that but the idea of a positive rating system and the points he raises in defense of it exist whether he writes obnoxiously or not. I'm more interested in judging the ideas and points he raises on their own merits rather than based on the author's writing style.
>>64472930
It's fun. My internet buddy sees I don't like OK Computer, we talk about it, etc. no different than any other time and space wasted on a website with other people
>>64472851
fair enough. yeah she's/was ~hardboiledbabe on RYM, no idea if she herself actually ever posted on here though.
>>64472928
so he uses it wrong on purpose? kek
>>64472930
>Use RYM for yourself, not for others.
That's what I do. I want to state the grades of bad I see. Sure it's ultimately insignificant, but who knows, maybe a person or two with very similar taste will come and see that we share opinions on bad albums as well.
>>64472982
Fair enough then m80
>>64471310
>vidi
audivi fucking autist
>>64473019
>maybe a person or two with very similar taste will come
That is literally what it means to use RYM for others and not yourself.
>>64470961
not him, i initially thought it was https://rateyourmusic.com/~1000ratings but apparently it's another person doing this
>>64473056
Fine, but that's still just a minor factor; I primarily just want to cover the whole range of my feelings. I don't think bad art should be ignored, I think it should be criticized.
>>64473117
That's a fine stance to have, but looking at it in a utilitarian way, you really don't get much, selfishly, out of rating bad albums badly except for a shallow feeling of striking down overrated garbage (to you) in what little way you can.
>>64473206
shallow feeling of satisfaction from striking down*
>>64473206
Shallowness is subjective.
My rating scale:
"transcendental" 2.0
"epiphany" 1.5
"of interest" 1.0
"loathsome" 0.5
2.5 - 5.0 don't exist, by the way.
>>64473831
objectively superior rating scale
"good" 1.0
"shit" 0.5
1.5-5.0 don't exist
>>64472408
he wouldn't affect anything either way, sharifi said that accounts centered on giving too much 0.5 or 5 have their rating weight at zero
>>64472534
am i the only one who noticed she's wearing a GUNS N' ROSES T-SHIRT
>>64472113
sweet fucking jesus this is pretentious
>>64470847
mine is like this but with moar ratings and a bigger gap between 4.0 and 3.5
mine :)
I find it hard to rate things really low because I make sure I'm going to like an album before I listen to it. I don't know how people have so many 0.5s. Why do you subject yourself to shitty music?
>>64473931
hahaha
went thru her ratings and GN'R are at 2.5 and tagged as "guilty pleasures" and "nostalgia"
>>64473931
how ironic :^)
I'm embarrassed by how many positive ratings I have.
>>64474154
what are your 5's?
>>64474582
Boris - Feedbacker
This Heat - S/T
Macha - See It Another Way
>>64472764
It is her. She shared on her tumblr some songs off "rymcore" albums.
She was disliked because she faked her ratings, of which some were really unbelievable, because physical copies of these albums/eps cost like $500 on discogs etc.
>>64474727
oh okay, thanks. Yeah I heard she didn't listen to a bunch of music she rated but I thought that was just a meme
![92e5099cb0[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/uSJAOxF.png "92e5099cb0[1].png")
everyone who whines in these threads about people is automatically shit
talk about concerning yourself with the wrong things
>>64474939
What are ur 5's?
>>64474939
hi sal
>>64470924
>the one 3.0 rating
>>64474939
you just whined, feggot
>>64474939
not whining, just asking honest questions here sir
