Post your 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 your curves
I'm ready to be bullied for liking things and avoiding music I don't think I'll like
>>64824452
don't worry these threads are pointless cancer anyway
>>64824452
everyone does that, your ratings are simply improperly scaled. they are based off an imaginary metric instead of relativism
Nowhere near finished rating most of my library, let alone new releases. I've got a fucking backlog ten miles long.
>>64824594
Why are you tripping
Boring thread post recent rates
>>64824514
autism?
>>64824519
does it really seem that way to you?
if so, I'll change em so that I don't seem like such a critic
>>64824713
>why doesn't your curve look like mine REEEEEE
probably
>>64824769
your ratings imply you have never heard music "below a 2.5," yet if you have never heard music that bad, how can you know what it sounds like? therefore it's meaningless. your 2.5s are essentially 0.5s by saying that's the worst you've ever heard.
if the imaginary metric you're using is, say, radio pop you've heard in public, why would you use that? that means you are using a relative scale, but comparing unlike things relatively. you should be comparing like things, meaning judging all albums you've sat down and listened to relative to your prior experience hearing albums. that is the only thing that can inform you of what a good album is and what a bad album is. if you've simply not heard enough albums to be comfortable with your idea of what "an average album" is to you based on your own listening experience, you shouldn't be rating.
>>64824895
stop caring
>>64824706
>>64824929
also, if the issue is that you want to base your scale off your emotions--meaning 2.5 is "no feeling" and higher is feeling good while listening to the album, you should consider using a positive rating scale. you are arbitrarily selecting the center of the scale as the center of your emotions--and that doesn't carry over well, leaving the scale mostly unused / super clumped up. this is not a school grade; you are not hurting the artist with your arbitrary numbers. it is simply a method of organization.
>>64825064
>it is simply a method of organization
so people should use whatever they find more useful
stop being a retard
>>64825099
i'm interested in hearing your argument as to how
>half the scale unused
>other half saturated / clumped up
is "more useful" than a normal distribution.
>>64824514
Do you even like music? Like I'm not for inflated rankings or anything but with that many low rankings it's like you're looking for things to hate.
>>64825152
without him showing his rating descriptors, you don't know what those scores mean. he is probably using a positive rating scale with relative ratings rather than making 2.5 "neutral emotion."
https://rateyourmusic.com/list/SellMeAGod/why_i_rate__a_word_about_thee_benefits_of_a_positive_rating_model/
>>64825123
no, I use the 'normal' distribution
I think it's the best one
I'm just not an asshole about it
The way I think about it is, if you're nice to yourself, your bellcurve is going to be top-heavy. Unless it's your job to be a music critic, why are you going out of your way to listen to music you hate just so you can have something on the bottom. If it's something you're hearing on the radio, pop singles already don't tend to chart well on RYM and don't need to be downvoted. If you know what you like, there's no reason to go through all of this
>>64825178
i'm just stating some logic and following it through. this is a thread specifically about rating scales, why are you discouraging me from discussing them?
>>64825208
you are basing your ratings off an imaginary standard and placing 2.5 as the center of your emotions, which doesn't transfer well. consider using relative ratings to achieve a normal distribution--something that's actually useful for both organizational purposes and using rym as a social site (all people care about are what you think stands out).
>>64825253
I don't like giving albums I enjoy lower than average scores because that (somewhat negligibly) effects the cumulative score. Like, a 3.00 album cumulative score on RYM is basically an album RYM thought was shit. That's lower than average for most of the genres I listen to.
>>64825253
>which doesn't transfer well
Hahaha
Next you're gonna say you rate music in a objective way
>>64825212
You're not discussing anything, you're trying to teach people how to rate
>>64825171
Not only is that completely ridiculous, it fucks up the average scores of the albums.
>>64825346
>it fucks up the average scores of the albums
Their rates have no weight
>>64824514
What are your 7 5 stars?
Do you guys go out of your way to listen to music you KNOW will be mediocre/shitty just to improve your curves?
I don't have a RYM account but if I did it would mostly be 3.5 and up, sometimes less, very rarely anything less than a 2. Not because I don't have standards, but because I won't download any music that is shitty.
I have 10,000+ songs in my collection by the way, and I'd say most of the music I have is great, too. Fuck you tryhards. Just listen to the music and don't let your god damn curve ruin it.
>>64825390
How? Is that a setting or something?
>>64825439
Just to add to this:
Normal curves are supposed to appear only if the sample is randomized. If the albums you listened to were obtained completely randomly, then yes, I would expect some clean, symmetric curves.
However, NOBODY listens to music like that. People download/listen to albums that interest them.
WHICH MEANS YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING BIASED WITH YOUR RESPONSES. UNLESS YOU ARE COMPLETELY RANDOMLY OBTAINING THE ALBUMS YOU LISTEN TO YOU ARE PURPOSEFULLY/SUBCONCIOUSLY GIVING THEM RATINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOUR CURVES LOOK BETTER
SO FUCK YOU GUYS YOU FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT. Probably giving great albums low scores to impress your online friends.
yes im fucking mad. fuck you guys.
>>64825502
Not everyone likes to stay in their little comfort zone of genres they love like you.
Some people like to try new things. This means they'll come across albums they don't much care for, but it also means they'll discover gems that they wouldn't have ever heard otherwise.
>>64825502
Most artists I like have albums I like and dislike. I listen to entire discographies.
>>64825171
this man is correct
>>64825433
see attached
>>64825064
what happens when you DO encounter an album/track that you really really dislike? you'd have no rating for that
https://rateyourmusic.com/~regency
>>64825879
nice taste
>>64826172
thanks you too
