Why does almost every music journalist use a rating system out of 10? A 4 star rating system like Roger Ebert used makes so much more sense. 10 is just unnecessary.
>What do you think /mu/?
Wow, I knew I should've used a qt for the pic instead of fricking Review brah.
>>66270089
I prefer reviewbrah to meme sloots
>>66269963
Yeah it makes no sense because anything <6 is not worth listening. So all the albums even worth checking out are smashed into 7-10 anyway.
10.0 best new pizza
>>66270119
>anything <6 is not worth listening
Correct
>>66269963
Well it is what it is, OP
>>66270119
That's my point. Plus, two great albums from an artist are rated a 9. But one is 9.6 and the other is 9.8. Majority of the fans will forever preach how much better the 9.8 is based on the review.
>>66269963
Ebert used half stars so that is out of 8
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-world-is-not-enough-1999
>>66270240
Yes but Pitchfork uses 10.0 so that's out of 100
Fantano says strong and light so that's 20
Scaruffi uses halves so that's 20
8 is all you need.
>>66269963
i like the 5 number rating system that sputnik has
>0.0 - unlistenable
>0.5 - barely listenable
>1.0 - very awful
>1.5 - awful
>2.0 - poor
>2.5 - average
>3.0 - good
>3.5 - great
>4.0 - excellent
>4.5 - superb
>5.0 - classic
>>66270460
The problem is that anything under 4.5 will be considered absolute trash by most people.
Rating systems need to be heavily weighted towards the higher end to make sense to people
>>66270546
Why 4 stars is most based. Only below 2 stars would stop people from caring about it.
