| rostasi |
12-10-2017 05:20 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
(Post 1902403)
Yeah. The reason Starman scored a 14/10 is cause I am factoring in an four extra credits cause the song is going beyond and above the call of duty. It goes beyond the regular "oh, it's a good song." They did every thing right so they gets a normal 10/10. But it has a certain je ne sais quoi. There is something more about it, something mythical, something magical, so the need for 4 extra credit points being added to its 10/10. It totally makes good sense to me.
|
Why "4" and not 30 extra points? I mean, why not; since we're in meaningless meta-mathematical no man's land? The reason it doesn't work as if you're grading papers is because rating things based on taste, is, like I said earlier, usually linear. Going by your logarithmic way, it would mean that Frownland's score of 5 would mean that the album was worse than a failure (something that's as "meaningful" as 14 out of ten). Same thing if you apply it to any other product review - Yelp or otherwise. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't say, "The movie went 'beyond and above the call of duty," so I give it 140%" or a Yelp review of a restaurant that gives it a 3 star (meaning "good") would, in your system, be a complete failure at an equivalent 60%.
If we really are just wanting to talk about the music, then why even have the rating system? 'Cause that's what we do here - pit people and things against each other.
I'm rethinking my review. Since I think it's a cool record, I'll have to take the formula for the speed of sound thru ice and calculate each tune's placement within each calculated sound/time space and probably have to resort to Baire's Theorem to come up with a similar meta-math that gives an answer outside rational boundaries ... or, I'll just continue with the scale of "1" equaling "crap," "5" equaling "average," and "10" being nearly unobtainable perfection. |
