About rating songs

[revolt]

*edit: conversation originally started here: http://curefans.com/index.php/topic,5344.msg54199.html

jb

EDIT: This is my opinion of the 2004 sessions.

Lost - 9/10
Labyrinth - 9/10
Before Three - 8/10
Truth Goodness and Beauty - 9/10
The End of the World - 9/10
Anniversary - 10/10
Us or Them - 2/10
alt.end - 7/10
[I Don't Know What's Going] On - 3/10
Taking Off - 6/10
Never - 2/10
The Promise - 9/10
Going Nowhere - 10/10
Why Can't I Be Me? - 6/10
Your God is Fear - 10/10
This Morning - 10/10
Fake - 6/10

Average [Session] = 7.35
Average [Album] = 7.08

In my opinion, that is the rock bottom-est they've been since 1979.

Judging by your ratings, it seems to me that you LOVE the majority of the songs from those sessions. 10 out 17 get ratings between 8 and 10, and only one of those is an 8. If you didn't rate some of the other songs so poorly (and I think you are exagerating there...) you'd easily get a higher overall rating...

[Lostflowerboy]

Judging by your ratings, it seems to me that you LOVE the majority of the songs from those sessions. 10 out 17 get ratings between 8 and 10, and only one of those is an 8. If you didn't rate some of the other songs so poorly (and I think you are exagerating there...) you'd easily get a higher overall rating...

That's right but also seems to be a general problem as one hardly finds ratings below 6/10 in the media. That scale needs to be cut at the lower half, so 8/10 is a 3/5.
Anyway, here's my rating of the 2004 session:

Lost - 9/10
Labyrinth - 5/10 (unfortunately more sound than song)
Before Three - 10/10 (Best single that wasn't a single)
Truth Goodness and Beauty - 8/10
The End of the World - 6/10
Anniversary - 7/10 (great beginning, but the chorus sucks)
Us or Them - 4/10
alt.end - 7/10 (at least live a killer)
[I Don't Know What's Going] On - 5/10 (this one has "B-Side" written all over it)
Taking Off - 6/10
Never - 1/10
The Promise - 5/10 (very overrated song)
Going Nowhere - 7/10 (standard)
Why Can't I Be Me? - 6/10
Your God is Fear - 5/10 (uninspired at best)
This Morning - 7/10 (in my oppinion overrated too by most fans, like everything with a disintegration-esque sound)
Fake - 6/10 (nice pop song, nothig special)


Overall 6,11

[Bloodflower]

It takes a nine or ten for me to love something. And just for perspective's sake, here's what I'd rate Wish:

Open - 10/10
High - 8/10
Apart - 10/10
From the Edge - 10/10
Wendy Time - 5/10
Doing the Unstuck - 10/10
Friday I'm in Love - 9/10
Trust - 10/10
A Letter to Elise - 10/10
Cut - 10/10
To Wish Impossible Things - 10/10
End - 10/10
This Twilight Garden - 10/10
Play - 10/10
Halo - 9/10
Scared As You - 10/10
The Big Hand - 10/10
A Foolish Arrangement - 10/10

Average [Album]: 9.33
Average [Session]: 9.5

The 2004 album could have made a killer EP, or even a great short album. But way too much from that session should have been set afire.

[japanesebaby]

my two cents on rating songs:

It takes a nine or ten for me to love something. And just for perspective's sake, here's what I'd rate Wish:

i understand your point Bloodflower. but doesn't the perspective actually depend on what approach we take on our rating? what i mean is, one can rate songs trying to base it on more or less "objective" aspects like songwriting, production etc. - that kind of quality. or you can purely rate songs intuitively, based on your emotional response.
as long as we base it on the latter, the ratings are "merely" opinions (which is NOt to say opinions weren't valuable, of course they are - but the discussion based on emotionally charged opinions is bound to be different than a discussion based on more "fact-like" opinions.)

an example, if i may:
'(i don't know what's) going on'. the song is generally bashed for being a crappy song. probably because most people don't find anything to reflect there(?). maybe some other reasons. but looking into certain songwriting aspects of the song, i think it's pretty obvious that song is actually one of the strongest ones on the whole album. it's that song and 'the end of the word' that have most wit, that are clever (in a positive sense of the word). and actually, this is not merely an emotional opinion but something that can be "proved" (although i HATE to use that word and i ask you not to get stuck with that word - just file it under my limited english skills or something). because it all depends on which aspect we are looking into, we need to define it better. if i try to rate '(i don't know..)' merely emotionally, then maybe it's not among my top 10 cure songs. but if i look at it simply sturcturally, the way the song has been put together, the way it's constructed, the way it works structurally - then it's a really good song - a LOT better than something like 'the promise' which from the structural point of view is simply a damn boring song and nothing more. then again, it does have some other qualities. so...

so i guess what i'm trying to say here is that "rating" is rather abstract thing, unless it's a bit more defined - notjust to others but to ourselves too(!).
what aspects do we really look into, what qualities of the song do we really use as the basis for our ratings?
there are things that can be discussed objectively and things that really can't and we should be able to keep those two apart. without that discussion i think we can endlessly debate whether this song is better than that or whether someone is right or wrong when he/she rates something the way he/she does.


(ps. perhaps it might be good time to create a new topic for this discussion? after all, this is the 'sleep when i'm dead' thread... )

[japanesebaby]

ps2. i don't find ratings live recordings overly difficult, as long as rating is based  purely on the technical merits/the lack of them of the recording. but i've always found rating albums/individual songs (on studio recordings) that way extremely hard - and perhaps not even necessary, in the end. surely i could post a list of 'disintegration' songs here and we might find that i'd be bound to rate all songs 10 or at least 9, simply for emotional reasons - what would that really tell me, not to mention to anyone else? imo, nothing much. that i kind of like the album. sure. but i could just as well say "i like disintagration a lot!", that would serve the same thing, imo. that's rating based on my emotional response to that music and that's something very subjective and something so completely in the realm of "opinion only".
but, sitting down and rating those same songs purely for songwriting wise/for their structural (i mean musical structure, form etc.) values/etc., that would be something pretty different. and a really challenging excercise! because you'd HAVE to be able to look past your emotional responses and all the numerous ways you're attached to those songs emotionally - simply look at the musical matter there, as objectively as you could. very difficult for sure but a very good excercise too, imo. AND i'm convinced that if i'd bother sit down and do that, then i think some much more interesting data would surface. not just a row of "mute" nines and tens.
and if more people did this, would our ratings still differ? of course they would. so i don't mean there's some universal way out there that should work for everyone. of course not. but at least we'd have something that could be discussed more objectively because we ourselves would know a bit better why exactly we rated something 9 and something 6, we'd be forced to think about it more. and then it would be easier to discuss and compare our ratings, without them simply staying on the vague level of being "just my opinions".

anyway, i don't want to veer off any more. but let's discuss on if we feel like it and let's then split this topic if needed.
on-topic, about 'sleep when i'm dead' i've nothing more to say than what i've already said: very scary.

[Lostflowerboy]

Well said, japanesebaby. But I doubt that there are objective criterias to rate a song, apart from technical stuff like "Beats per minute" or "Total number of chord changes". Rating a song will ALWAYS be from a subjective point of view and therefore be based on emotions. A very easy song in terms of songwriting (let's say "Boys don't cry") can work perfectly for most people and a rather clever, complex one won't.
What you have in mind as a fair song rating can in my oppinion only work if we are talking about different (live) versions of one song. Then it's indeed down to technical aspects.
If people can describe why they love/dislike a song without only using emotional terms then we are the closest we can get to what you'd prefer. But the oppinion by itself will always be emotional. We just have to hide that.

[japanesebaby]

But I doubt that there are objective criterias to rate a song, apart from technical stuff like "Beats per minute" or "Total number of chord changes". Rating a song will ALWAYS be from a subjective point of view and therefore be based on emotions. A very easy song in terms of songwriting (let's say "Boys don't cry") can work perfectly for most people and a rather clever, complex one won't.
What you have in mind as a fair song rating can in my oppinion only work if we are talking about different (live) versions of one song. Then it's indeed down to technical aspects.
If people can describe why they love/dislike a song without only using emotional terms then we are the closest we can get to what you'd prefer. But the oppinion by itself will always be emotional. We just have to hide that.

yes i know what you mean and i agree that there is no universal way to rate anything (thank god there isn't! that's the whole point, i think).
but i don't think it's quite that black and white and i still don't agree that everything's just based on emotional responses only. there's an area in between emotional responses and counting chord changes (which i don't find interetsing at all myself, by the way) and that "inbetween territory" is what i find most interetsing to explore.

here's an example: i think it's pretty easy to find bands/styles of music which you can't really say you like but which you still sort of rate high because you can clearly hear there are values there. for instance, i could pick frank zappa or opeth: i don't really connect to their music on an emotional level, they leave me very empty that way. BUT i can easily list a lot of things in their music that i really rate high (and i don't mean just "they know how to play their instruments"- that's just one small thing among many).
maybe i'll write that list later, to keep this short. but what i mean is that not everything "valuable" in music is based on direct emotional responses. yes, music without emotion is dead so emotion is the heart of music, there's no doubt about it. but zappa's music is not without emotion just because i can't really find a way to connect to that particular emotion myself - so there are other qualities in all good music than just the emotional responses they create in us. and some of the qualities do extend beyond "mere" opinions.
an extreme example: one doesn't have to like classical music but i doubt it that anyone can say that mozart was/is crap. imagine someone saying that mozart is crap merely because "i don't like his music, it doesn't create much emotional response in me"?
we can agree that the person saying so is correct as long as he's describing his own opinion on mozart based on his emotions. but i think he's certainly wrong when/if he says that's all that there is. what about the structure, form of the music he wrote? what about th arrangement/orchestration? what about the treatment of melody? the treatment of rhythm? the interaction of the two? what about the harmony? what about... etc. - in short, i don't think you have to be emotionally thrilled yourself before you can start registering this kind of qualities in music. i mean, you can still hear that the person who made the music was fully into what he/she was doing without feeling the same yourself.

so what i mean is that it's perfectly possible to find and discuss qualities in music without "letting the emotional side interfere", AND that doesn't mean we should simply sit and count chord changes (which, like said, i find totally uninteretsing - because it's not the number of chords that matters but the chords itself, and how they were used...).

If people can describe why they love/dislike a song without only using emotional terms then we are the closest we can get to what you'd prefer.

i do believe we'd then be closest to having a conversation that would extend beyond mere debates like: "i like this!" > "i like that!" > "i'm right, you're wrong!" > "hey guys everyone is entitled to their opinion peace&love" > the end of conversation....

But the oppinion by itself will always be emotional. We just have to hide that.

well, of this i do disagree. because i could discuss zappa or opeth for a long while and find myself praising them for many reasons and on many levels - but at the end of the day i still wouldn't be emotionally thrilled about their music.

[Lostflowerboy]

@japanese baby:
I really respect your point of view, and do agree on most parts. Well said, by the way.

So I think it's mainly down to a question of attitude. I personally don't find it reasonable to give Zappa a 9/10 because I deeply respect his music, even if it doesn't touch me at all. If it's about rating a Cure album in a Cure forum, personal emotions are well enough in my oppinion.  

[revolt]

What you have in mind as a fair song rating can in my oppinion only work if we are talking about different (live) versions of one song. Then it's indeed down to technical aspects.

Not really. Much of the difference between live takes from the same song comes from the EMOTION and the INTENSITY with which the song is delivered... And those are not "technical aspects", I think.

[revolt]

i could discuss zappa or opeth for a long while and find myself praising them for many reasons and on many levels - but at the end of the day i still wouldn't be emotionally thrilled about their music.

Zappa I can understand, because his music is generally emotionally detached. It is something to be admired (if indeed it is to be admired) on a more purely intelectual level, if such a thing exists. But Opeth!? Most of their music is really emotionally charged, I fail to understand how can someone listen to them with enough attention so that they can say that their music deserves praise and then, at the same time, not feel some sort of emotional response to it...

[japanesebaby]

What you have in mind as a fair song rating can in my oppinion only work if we are talking about different (live) versions of one song. Then it's indeed down to technical aspects.

Not really. Much of the difference between live takes from the same song comes from the EMOTION and the INTENSITY with which the song is delivered... And those are not "technical aspects", I think.

yes, actually i didn't mean it as "a method" of comparing live takes but i was  particularly talking about listening to some individual song (be it live or studio take).
comparing (live) performances is a complete different thing to me.
i simply meant an analytical way of listening where you can choose where to focus, if you need to.

i could discuss zappa or opeth for a long while and find myself praising them for many reasons and on many levels - but at the end of the day i still wouldn't be emotionally thrilled about their music.

Zappa I can understand, because his music is generally emotionally detached. It is something to be admired (if indeed it is to be admired) on a more purely intelectual level, if such a thing exists. But Opeth!? Most of their music is really emotionally charged, I fail to understand how can someone listen to them with enough attention so that they can say that their music deserves praise and then, at the same time, not feel some sort of emotional response to it...

i think you might misunderstand me. what i've tried to say all the time is that there are different modes of listening to something. and not every listening mode has to be emotionally charged ANd that you can actually choose what listening mode you use. at least you can learn to choose it. you can consciously teach yourself to pay attention to different aspects on music and focus on those aspects. but that doesn't make the other aspects disappear, it doesn't mean you neglect paying attention to them: it's just a temporary choice that you can make. and that has nothing to do with whether the music itself is emotionally charged or not - that's a whole different thing :!:. it's just about your own choice, what mode of listening you choose to utilize.


i'm pretty aware (correct me if i'm wrong, anyway i base this on some previous conversation on people elsewhere) that many people tend to use only one listening mode and don't really consciously try to change it. btw that's also why people are often fast in deciding whether or not they "like" some music or not - because they base their judgement on their "instant mode", their quick response. well there's nothing wrong with that, that's not my point. it's not a question of what listening mode is the best or more valuable than other. that's completely irrelevant. but all i can say is that it's actually very refreshing, trying to change your mode sometimes and consciously trying to listen to different things that you usually do, even on music that you know very well. just put on some cure album and give yourself an excercise, make yourself pay attention to some aspects that you wouldn't normally focus on. like ignore the melodic patterns and just listen to the rhythmic composition on all parts alone. or, focus on the use of registers and the way it's utilized in the arrangement (IF it is). it's really difficult to say what listening mode is fruitful with which songs - it depends on what you're listening...
anyway, just try to take a different point of view to it.

so there's no contradiction in me listening to opeth and not getting all emotionally charged every time just because the music is emotionally charged. i can choose to pay attention to something else than that (you see, i refuse to be the slave ) - but that doesn't mean i am not aware of the emotional power, that i totally eradicate it somehow. of course it's there and of course i know it, i register it and i can hear it. but i don't have to let it engulf me so that i am unable to focus on some other aspects whenever i need to. let's say that i can very well listen to opeth in that "detached  mode" if i want to. and it's actually interesting.

[japanesebaby]

i suppose it's my way to listen to music, trying to dig into it in ways that i haven't thought of yet. sometimes these experiments don't reveal you anything, sometimes it can be a  revelation. some people are happy with staying with their one mode and like said, there's nothing bad in that. but still i'm pretty convinced to say that the kind of proof for any really good music (the proof of whether it's really good music or not) is this "multi-dimensional" aspect. when you come across with music (or other art) that really cannot be approached but from one single angle, where you can hear everything worthwhile during the very first/first few listenings - that's always of disappointing discovery. it means it's flat and has no depth whatsoever. actually imo it doesn't even matter if it had instant emotional impact on you - because it's still flat in the end.*) but if you can vary your approach consciously and notice new dimensions, it's got to be good - even if it really didn't instantly inspire any huge emotional response in you.



*) edit: that's the trick that most crap disposable music out there is based on: it's beased on making a strong initial impact on the listener on the very first lisetning so that people will rush and buy the recording. then they get home and after listening to that a few more times they get bored and that's it. and so the next week they need to buy a new album... repeat and fade....
that's how all shit crap flat numb music manages to sell millions and millions - because people don't stop and listen any more closely, just go with the flow after that initial little adrenaline peak they got from it...

[revolt]

i think you might misunderstand me. what i've tried to say all the time is that there are different modes of listening to something. and not every listening mode has to be emotionally charged ANd that you can actually choose what listening mode you use. at least you can learn to choose it. you can consciously teach yourself to pay attention to different aspects on music and focus on those aspects. but that doesn't make the other aspects disappear, it doesn't mean you neglect paying attention to them: it's just a temporary choice that you can make. and that has nothing to do with whether the music itself is emotionally charged or not - that's a whole different thing :!:. it's just about your own choice, what mode of listening you choose to utilize.


i'm pretty aware (correct me if i'm wrong, anyway i base this on some previous conversation on people elsewhere) that many people tend to use only one listening mode and don't really consciously try to change it. btw that's also why people are often fast in deciding whether or not they "like" some music or not - because they base their judgement on their "instant mode", their quick response. well there's nothing wrong with that, that's not my point. it's not a question of what listening mode is the best or more valuable than other. that's completely irrelevant. but all i can say is that it's actually very refreshing, trying to change your mode sometimes and consciously trying to listen to different things that you usually do, even on music that you know very well. just put on some cure album and give yourself an excercise, make yourself pay attention to some aspects that you wouldn't normally focus on. like ignore the melodic patterns and just listen to the rhythmic composition on all parts alone. or, focus on the use of registers and the way it's utilized in the arrangement (IF it is). it's really difficult to say what listening mode is fruitful with which songs - it depends on what you're listening...
anyway, just try to take a different point of view to it.

so there's no contradiction in me listening to opeth and not getting all amotionally charged every time - just because the music is emotionally charged. i can choose to pay attention to something else than that (you see, i refuse to be the slave ). but that doesn't mean i am not aware of the emotional power, that i totally eradicate it. of course it's there and i know it - i can hear it. but i don't have to let it engulf me so that i am unable to focus on something else if i wawnt to.

I understand what you mean. I have sometimes chosen that 'anaytical' mode of listening as far as some Cure songs are concerned, for instance.

A very simple thing you can do (and that I have done) is chose a single instrument - the bass guitar or the drums, for instance - and then focus your attention on that for the whole of the song. In this way you can get a better picture of what each musician contributes to a song. It's also the thing to do if you're trying to learn how to play the song.
You can also complicate it a bit more and focus on the way some instruments interact - bass guitar and drums, or rhythm and solo guitar, for instance.
Or you can try and detect what specific feature of the song gets your emotional response. Sometimes there's even only a small transition note there that makes all the difference - in "Open" and "Bloodflowers" (which are not masterpieces for me) such a thing happens with the bass guitar line...

[revolt]

i suppose it's my way to listen to music, trying to dig into it in ways that i haven't thought of yet. sometimes these experiments don't reveal you anything, sometimes it can be a  revelation. some people are happy with staying with their one mode and like said, there's nothing bad in that. but still i'm pretty convinced to say that the kind of proof for any really good music (the proof of whether it's really good music or not) is this "multi-dimensional" aspect. when you come across with music (or other art) that really cannot be approached but from one single angle, where you can hear everything worthwhile during the very first/first few listenings - that's always of disappointing discovery. it means it's flat and has no depth whatsoever. actually imo it doesn't even matter if it had instant emotional impact on you - because it's still flat in the end.*) but if you can vary your approach consciously and notice new dimensions, it's got to be good - even if it really didn't instantly inspire any huge emotional response in you.



*) edit: that's the trick that most crap disposable music out there is based on: it's beased on making a strong initial impact on the listener on the very first lisetning so that people will rush and buy the recording. then they get home and after listening to that a few more times they get bored and that's it. and so the next week they need to buy a new album... repeat and fade....
that's how all shit crap flat numb music manages to sell millions and millions - because people don't stop and listen any more closely, just go with the flow after that initial little adrenaline peak they got from it...

The thing is, you can also chose to analyse "crap' music. Celine Dion's songs have a structure too, they have arrangements that can be stripped down to their main elements and then appreciated, and so on... (actually , Dion's 90's albums are produced by Jannick Top, Magma's genius bassist, so even if they are crap there must be some 'science' to it...)

The thing is, unless it is part of your profession, it is probably difficult to endure this analytical listening mode in the cases where you don't like the song... At least for me, if I really don't like a song, it will be a torture to have a listen just to detect its technical aspects. And since I am not a masochist, that's something I will not subject myself to. 

[revolt]

so there's no contradiction in me listening to opeth and not getting all emotionally charged every time just because the music is emotionally charged. i can choose to pay attention to something else than that (you see, i refuse to be the slave )

You can actually manage to escape the slavery of emotions only to find yourself captured by the claws of reason... It can happen, you know?