post your rym curve and rate each others curves
>>65374576
whats ur 5?
>>65374576
>>65374470
t. embryos
>>65374737
t. austistic avant teen
>>65374892
his ratings are super messed up but he has rated a lot of albums
>>65374470
Still going through Bowie
https://rateyourmusic.com/~Prismadoll
>>65374737
Why do you only use 6 of the 10 ratings you have?
>>65375042
Because it's easier than using 10.
>>65375040
>>65374784
>>65374470
>implying musical quality is a bell curve.
>>65375040
>>65374784
good curves
>>65375034
good curve but a bit top-heavy, consider combining 0.5 and 1.0, and shifting everything down in order to give your 8+'s a bit more room to breathe. Surely those 148 at the top would benefit from being parsed into 3 groups.
>>65375073
surely there are albums that would fit better somewhere between ambivalent and recommended, or between favorites and best?
or why not split ambivalent and conditional into two groups?
>>65375139
>music is objective
This is an indefensible standpoint that has been debunked many times.
>>65375139
>implying i give a fuck about your opinions on my arbitrary ratings
>>65375008
what the fuck is this, how can you have this many ratings and not realize that you could use the extra three spots you're not touching?
>>65375153
>surely there are albums that would fit better somewhere between ambivalent and recommended, or between favorites and best?
Sure but I don't think it's worth it to distinguish between the two. It's not that big of a deal imo.
>or why not split ambivalent and conditional into two groups?
I don't think one's better than the other, they're just two different adjectives to describe the same general quality level.
>>65375139
I don't do it on purpose
>>65375185
if i don't like a music release, i just don't care about it. i'm not interested in distinguishing between degrees of dislike. that's a lot of effort... for what?
>>65375231
Yeah I 110% agree with you. but why does something being a 2.0 or 1.5 mean you dislike it?
I think you should expand so that you can more specifically demarcate your -degrees of like-, not -degrees of dislike-.
Why is your floor 2.5, and not 1.0? I mean, if you were to move all of your 2.5's to 1.0, all your 3.0's to 1.5, and all your 3.5's to 2.0, now those 2+24+361 albums at the top can get spread out more and you can more easily show what you really like.
>>65375153
I would, but rym doesn't give enough numberical ratings for my distribution to be accurate. It's a bit top heavy because i seek music i enjoy.
its quite a mess
I don't feel like fixing it tho
>>65375342
Well surely nobody cares about the difference between a 0.5 and 1.0 right? So if you combine them, then bam you've got some more numerical ratings freed up.
>>65375342
>>65375384
What I mean is why bother using a whole spot just to show how much you hate those 16 albums, when you could use that spot to better illustrate the differences between the 148 that you love?
>>65375328
when i joined RYM, i had already heard hundreds of albums.
of those albums, there were plenty i didn't like, sure. but when i dislike something, i tend to just ignore it afterwards and forget about it. for me to start judging specifically *how much* i disliked something, i'd probably have to relisten to a lot of those albums. there's no point in investing that much effort just to say that "i dislike this a little more than this." my scale is based on how much something stands out to me in a positive way.
i don't use a positive scale like SellMeAGod where you set the floor as low as possible, because there's a point where it's too much.
if i used more degrees than i currently have, i would have to re-rate albums constantly, because the amount of *like* i feel towards an album might change day-to-day, based on my mood, enough to change its rating. that would drive me insane.
>>65375406
>>65375384
idunno, because i thought those 148 deserved that rating and the 16 deserved the other rating? Which is why you use ratings?
>>65375544
ratings are all relative though... saying "hmm this is an 8.3" means nothing unless it is given context by other ratings of other albums..
>>65375468
>if i used more degrees than i currently have, i would have to re-rate albums constantly, because the amount of *like* i feel towards an album might change day-to-day, based on my mood, enough to change its rating. that would drive me insane.
Fair point.
>>65375917
best curve ITT
>>65375817
I don't really care, I'm just gonna give them what i feel like they deserve desu
>>65375983
fair enough my dude
>>65375983
Fucking this
I hate people with bottom heavy charts where there 2.5s are like "good albums"!
It skews the charts
>>65376110
no it doesnt. they dont have weight.
>>65375139
>being this retarded
the raitings you give are arbitrary in the first place, if you're not choosing to grade them on a bell curve you're doing it wrong. your raitings are meaningless if you don't have a bell curve as frame of reference. my 4/5 and your 4/5 might mean something very different if we dont use the same reference system.
>>65377288
agreed fampai
>>65374470
>has changed who i am
>>65374784
worst curve in the thread
>>65377148
im a massive pleb and even my curve isnt this pleb
https://rateyourmusic.com/~losefka
>>65379972
pls gib blood vials
fair enough
>>65375034
What's in your 0.5?
>>65374470
>>65374576
>>65374784
>>65375034
>>65375040
>>65375365
fine
>>65374737
edgy basement dweller who hasn't listened to most significant classical pieces, yet still pretends he knows shit about "art" music after listening to garbage EAI and "modern classical"
>>65380700
Yours is much better than mine
>>65380782
LOL nice classical music experience bro!
>>65381332
Pathetic
>>65381349
yeah what's worse is that he does this in every RYM thread
>>65381332
I don't pretend to care about classical music though
>>65381446
Where did I?
>>65381446
Then why the fuck would you throw stones in glass houses? How stupid are you?
>>65375849
>that many 5.0s
