The following is an e-mail exchange that Dan Weiss and I had this past week, kind of picking up from our earlier conversation about the new Travis Morrison album and touching on our differing attitudes about number/letter ratings in record reviews and a lot of other stuff. It's all extremely nerdy, and probably a bit inside baseball for anyone who isn't a music critic, so you might wanna skip it, but I thought both of us articulated some ideas that were interesting enough to share:
Dan: I didn't realize you liked All Y'All nearly enough for Top 10, so either it grew on you real hard or I missed something from your post. Good list, though, I'm liking Graduation, Epiphany and One Man Band Man a lot myself.
-------------------------------
Al: Haha, well to be honest, dude, I think you and I just have vastly different ways of grading records as good or bad, at least judging from your post that implied that you've heard at least 25 A+/A/A- albums so far this year. I think I'd put maybe 3 or 4 albums from 2007 in that range (and not even necessarily my top 4, if that makes any sense), and that's if I'm feeling generous. But then, I'm a grump and kind of stingy as far as ratings go anyway: I gave exactly one 8.0 out of my thirty-something Pitchfork reviews, and nothing higher than a B+ out of at least twice as many Stylus reviews. I don't really like to slap numbers/grades on records to begin with, but when I have to, I tend to do so on a steep curve, just because I think giving out high scores too easily belittles whatever gravity that score carries, y'know? I don't know what All Y'All is yet, it could be a B or a high C or an 8 or a low 6 or something, but it's definitely lower-reaches-of-top-10 as far as this year goes right now, and will probably end up lower-reaches-of-top-20 unless I really start to love it or I hear a whole lot of much better stuff soon.
-------------------------------
Dan: I got you. I'm more liberal with grading, but I usually assume most people's Top 10s (I know, I know, this isn't year's end yet) are at least A-. Not many people do this, but I use B+ as the benchmark and consider anything B to below as a failure in some respect. To me, repeated listens are more important than the why. Like, if someone twists my arm on a record and eventually I concede it's a B, but never play it again, does it really have more value than a C- or D+ I'll never play again?
I generally A- anything I get to a ninth or tenth listen of at all, unless it's for research or it's a majorly "important" or acclaimed record I'm really trying to understand. I give a B+ to anything I play that still annoys me in too many places, but A- are generally records I like start-to-finish, or at least records with few annoyances that have turned to mere quirks for me as I've grown accustomed to them. I give an A to things that I'm still listening to long after I have to be, and those usually make up my top 10.
-------------------------------
Al: Yeah, I guess that's kind of Christgau's philosophy, anything lower than an A is a failure, right? Maybe I'm the one whose perspective is really warped, because I kinda feel like a B or C can be a record that I really enjoy, but is fundamentally flawed on some level, or can't be enjoyed all the way through. Like, a mediocre album with a great single or a couple great standout tracks could be a C, or say, something that's really derivative or similiar to an artist's earlier works but enjoyable all the same. I agree that repeat listens/replay value is paramount, but there's got to be something more to it, or I'd be able to rate everything based on iTunes play counts.
Also, I feel like like calling something that isn't a masterpiece or consistently listenable or a A/B+/8.5 a "failure" is, in its own way, kind of unnecessarily harsh. I like minor works, I like finding the more elusive pleasures of an artist's catalog from before or after their inarguable peak. I like realizing that the 10th-most famous band or rapper from their scene is actually my favorite even though it's pretty obvious why those 9 other acts ended up more successful and revered. That's the kind of stuff I live for, and not just for the thrill of a surprising obscurity. I'd rather have a hundred records to listen to that are 'merely' good than a handful of great ones, y'know?
-------------------------------
Dan: If you read my shit enough, you know I'm Christgau's bitch, so yeah. You make an excellent point about the more-good-records versus few-great-ones thing. It's just that those are the records I consider all B+s...1/3 really good songs, the rest merely good or listenable, maybe a few duds. I'd say most records released every year are B+ (good) or B (competent but for some reason unremarkable). I'm not one for obscurities either; but I like a lot of between-the-cracks major/minor records because I think it's fascinating to watch bands transition into uncomfortable territory and often wrings suprising stuff out of them. Most of my favorite albums this year are pop masterpieces in someone else's clothing: Against Me, Miranda Lambert, Rilo Kiley and Apples in Stereo. I didn't mean like "failure" failure (yeah, it is a bit harsh sounding), just that, the worst thing a band could probably receive is a nice rating that doesn't invoke a lot of passion in one direction or another. Given, plenty of bands are down the middle and deserve to be graded as such. But it's harder to comment on those at all so I'm probably just biased towards the records I can write 300 words on.
-------------------------------
Al: Yeah, I'd say you're right that most records are B's (or maybe high C's), unless you're gonna include even the smallest runs of CD-r releases, at which point I think the average starts to drop due to the sheer volume. I think part of my distaste for rating records, and writing for publications that run ratings with reviews, is that the numbers in and of themselves aren't interesting. Like I said, I never gave anything on Stylus higher than a B, and I just gave an overwhelming number of B's out, especially after they started giving ratings based on the review instead of letting the reviewer decide it, which I think was especially bad for me because I do a lot of measured "but" and "however" hedging that makes even records that I think are A's or C's come out sounding like B's. It makes a huge range of different sounds seem like they're all in one tidy category.
I've heard before the argument that a record that gets a middling review is somehow worse than one that gets a really negative review, but I just don't buy it. But again, that might be just my bias because, as I said before, I'm not a fan of stunt-rating moves like giving a goose egg to disappointing or befuddling records like Travistan. Average records make the world go round and, pretty often, they're what people who make great, inspired music end up with when they just don't know how to record/produce it well yet or let circumstancial shit get in the way. I feel more passionate about some flawed but likeable non-masterpieces than I do about just about anything that I hate or think is more or less worthless.
Dan: I didn't realize you liked All Y'All nearly enough for Top 10, so either it grew on you real hard or I missed something from your post. Good list, though, I'm liking Graduation, Epiphany and One Man Band Man a lot myself.
-------------------------------
Al: Haha, well to be honest, dude, I think you and I just have vastly different ways of grading records as good or bad, at least judging from your post that implied that you've heard at least 25 A+/A/A- albums so far this year. I think I'd put maybe 3 or 4 albums from 2007 in that range (and not even necessarily my top 4, if that makes any sense), and that's if I'm feeling generous. But then, I'm a grump and kind of stingy as far as ratings go anyway: I gave exactly one 8.0 out of my thirty-something Pitchfork reviews, and nothing higher than a B+ out of at least twice as many Stylus reviews. I don't really like to slap numbers/grades on records to begin with, but when I have to, I tend to do so on a steep curve, just because I think giving out high scores too easily belittles whatever gravity that score carries, y'know? I don't know what All Y'All is yet, it could be a B or a high C or an 8 or a low 6 or something, but it's definitely lower-reaches-of-top-10 as far as this year goes right now, and will probably end up lower-reaches-of-top-20 unless I really start to love it or I hear a whole lot of much better stuff soon.
-------------------------------
Dan: I got you. I'm more liberal with grading, but I usually assume most people's Top 10s (I know, I know, this isn't year's end yet) are at least A-. Not many people do this, but I use B+ as the benchmark and consider anything B to below as a failure in some respect. To me, repeated listens are more important than the why. Like, if someone twists my arm on a record and eventually I concede it's a B, but never play it again, does it really have more value than a C- or D+ I'll never play again?
I generally A- anything I get to a ninth or tenth listen of at all, unless it's for research or it's a majorly "important" or acclaimed record I'm really trying to understand. I give a B+ to anything I play that still annoys me in too many places, but A- are generally records I like start-to-finish, or at least records with few annoyances that have turned to mere quirks for me as I've grown accustomed to them. I give an A to things that I'm still listening to long after I have to be, and those usually make up my top 10.
-------------------------------
Al: Yeah, I guess that's kind of Christgau's philosophy, anything lower than an A is a failure, right? Maybe I'm the one whose perspective is really warped, because I kinda feel like a B or C can be a record that I really enjoy, but is fundamentally flawed on some level, or can't be enjoyed all the way through. Like, a mediocre album with a great single or a couple great standout tracks could be a C, or say, something that's really derivative or similiar to an artist's earlier works but enjoyable all the same. I agree that repeat listens/replay value is paramount, but there's got to be something more to it, or I'd be able to rate everything based on iTunes play counts.
Also, I feel like like calling something that isn't a masterpiece or consistently listenable or a A/B+/8.5 a "failure" is, in its own way, kind of unnecessarily harsh. I like minor works, I like finding the more elusive pleasures of an artist's catalog from before or after their inarguable peak. I like realizing that the 10th-most famous band or rapper from their scene is actually my favorite even though it's pretty obvious why those 9 other acts ended up more successful and revered. That's the kind of stuff I live for, and not just for the thrill of a surprising obscurity. I'd rather have a hundred records to listen to that are 'merely' good than a handful of great ones, y'know?
-------------------------------
Dan: If you read my shit enough, you know I'm Christgau's bitch, so yeah. You make an excellent point about the more-good-records versus few-great-ones thing. It's just that those are the records I consider all B+s...1/3 really good songs, the rest merely good or listenable, maybe a few duds. I'd say most records released every year are B+ (good) or B (competent but for some reason unremarkable). I'm not one for obscurities either; but I like a lot of between-the-cracks major/minor records because I think it's fascinating to watch bands transition into uncomfortable territory and often wrings suprising stuff out of them. Most of my favorite albums this year are pop masterpieces in someone else's clothing: Against Me, Miranda Lambert, Rilo Kiley and Apples in Stereo. I didn't mean like "failure" failure (yeah, it is a bit harsh sounding), just that, the worst thing a band could probably receive is a nice rating that doesn't invoke a lot of passion in one direction or another. Given, plenty of bands are down the middle and deserve to be graded as such. But it's harder to comment on those at all so I'm probably just biased towards the records I can write 300 words on.
-------------------------------
Al: Yeah, I'd say you're right that most records are B's (or maybe high C's), unless you're gonna include even the smallest runs of CD-r releases, at which point I think the average starts to drop due to the sheer volume. I think part of my distaste for rating records, and writing for publications that run ratings with reviews, is that the numbers in and of themselves aren't interesting. Like I said, I never gave anything on Stylus higher than a B, and I just gave an overwhelming number of B's out, especially after they started giving ratings based on the review instead of letting the reviewer decide it, which I think was especially bad for me because I do a lot of measured "but" and "however" hedging that makes even records that I think are A's or C's come out sounding like B's. It makes a huge range of different sounds seem like they're all in one tidy category.
I've heard before the argument that a record that gets a middling review is somehow worse than one that gets a really negative review, but I just don't buy it. But again, that might be just my bias because, as I said before, I'm not a fan of stunt-rating moves like giving a goose egg to disappointing or befuddling records like Travistan. Average records make the world go round and, pretty often, they're what people who make great, inspired music end up with when they just don't know how to record/produce it well yet or let circumstancial shit get in the way. I feel more passionate about some flawed but likeable non-masterpieces than I do about just about anything that I hate or think is more or less worthless.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, September 09, 2007 at 12:30 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Post a Comment