21-12-2010, 19:07
Oh, where can I find an explanation of your rating system? I'd like to know what I'm reading when I see those.
Sorry, I have explained it before, but don't like to put it with every review I do.
Range is 1.0 to 3.0
1.0-1.6 = do not like
1.7-2.3 = like
2.4-3.0 = love
Albums I own, I grade each individual track as a 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0, then post as *, ** or ***
Albums I listen to for the first time online, I am a little more flexible, as an impression can change with more play.
In that case, for each track, I use 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0, with the same meaning, but the .5's allow for the possibility of them moving up a notch after repeated listenings.
In either case, I then add the total of the track ratings together and divide by the number of tracks to arrive at that final rating, 1.2 for Jamie's album, which translates back to six 1.5's and nine 1.0's. Meaning nine of those tracks I would not care to hear again and even if I did, I probably would never like them. Six of those tracks I would probably actually like if I heard them more.
Sorry, I have explained it before, but don't like to put it with every review I do.
Range is 1.0 to 3.0
1.0-1.6 = do not like
1.7-2.3 = like
2.4-3.0 = love
Albums I own, I grade each individual track as a 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0, then post as *, ** or ***
Albums I listen to for the first time online, I am a little more flexible, as an impression can change with more play.
In that case, for each track, I use 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0, with the same meaning, but the .5's allow for the possibility of them moving up a notch after repeated listenings.
In either case, I then add the total of the track ratings together and divide by the number of tracks to arrive at that final rating, 1.2 for Jamie's album, which translates back to six 1.5's and nine 1.0's. Meaning nine of those tracks I would not care to hear again and even if I did, I probably would never like them. Six of those tracks I would probably actually like if I heard them more.