That depends. Are we good?

David Bowie is cool.

This album is cool.

I give 10.

If not every song is a 10/10 then I don't think the album can be considered a 10: it can't be 'pulled up to 10' if every part of the album is not platonically perfect. I'd argue that 10/10 is literally impossible, and I think that people underestimate how amazing, say, 8/10 is: there is a well known fallacy wherein people vote from 7-10 instead of from 1-10. I've seen a few posters say things like 'it's solid but not amazing' and then give it a 9, a huge mismatch. That language suggests a 7 or so IMO.

My 2 cents :o:

I don't relly like nitpicking things like that, but to me what you're talking about would apply more to the % scale. 10/10 doesn't communicate perfection as much as 100% does. 10/10 means it's great. A classic. Very, very strong. Amazing... Not necessarily, literally perfect.

I mean fair enough, and most in this thread seem to agree with you so I guess I should/will leave you all to it. It just makes no sense to me.

You’ve never listened to it?

I get what you're saying and I've had this in the back of my mind while reading the various "MB Classics" ratings.
It's as if the ratings were logarithmic (emotional) rather than linear (analytical). A 10/10 should be an extreme rarity
that would warrant a kind of thesis to back up its glorification. My rating was meant to be the equivalent of a "very good +."

I’ve heard it several times.

It is true a five star rating has been watered down a lot. People used to understand a three star rating was really good before yelp came along. Three stars should mean it exceeds every expectation. Four, for a new release, means it’s astonishing and you don’t give five star reviews to new releases because it takes time to really know it’s that good.

I don’t use that criteria here because those days are gone.

But Ziggy Stardust is definitely five star or 10/10. Time has told us.

Of course, change your vote for God’s sake.