In the terrible and beautiful world of 2022 there has never been so much shit and as it is instinctual for all humans when they see some shit, they need to discuss it. The history of mankind is the history of the discourse of shit. At some point in the process, very early on I reckon, we put judgements to these talks, it’s a natural thing, this shits bad, this shits good, and this shits just okay. Then somewhere along the line communication and quality of life improved to such a degree that people had easier access to all variety of shit, so much shit in fact that they needed opinionated people to tell them what was worthwhile due to a lack of time to consume the endless waves of shit, lack of knowledge to differentiate quality shit from not so quality shit, and/or lack of want to use the time and/or knowledge available. Shortly after this moment, or maybe simultaneously, people discovered their time was so constricted that perusing a detailed piece on the virtues of a schlocky action movie couldn’t fit into their schedule either. A need arose and inventive minds sprang into action to provide. This genius evolution was to score the thing. Simple and elegant, an easy barometer of goodness in as few characters as possible. The writer only needs to choose a scale that is easy to understand and appropriately conveys the gist of their judgment. A classic example is Robert Ebert’s four star system with half star intervals making for nine possible outcomes when you take into account the possibility of a zero. A perfectly adequate method with two and a half being average, zero being unwatchable and four being a masterpiece with room, albeit not much, to express a range of opinions. 

Now before we get too deep into this I am assuming that most use reviews as a means to determine what deserves their attention rather than as a supplement for the curious consumer who wants additional viewpoints to compare to their own. I believe this to be as close to fact as one can get, though I do recognize that I could be underestimating people. 

Occasionally I draw issue with the individual systems, depending on the publication but more often, and more passionately, with their misuse. There are too numerous cases of this to count so we will start with one of the most egregious that falls in both categories. The modern Pitchfork review uses a scale of 0.0 to 10.0 with room for decimals, firstly the system is too wide; it is significantly easier to know the difference between a 5 and a 6 then a 6.2 and a 6.3. I would go as far as to say no one could easily explain what the line that separates a single decimal is and anyone who would claim to know so is being purposefully absurd. Once any confusion descends upon qualitative information like ratings then its usefulness is thrown in doubt. And yet this is minor when put up against the real killer to its credibility, the way in which they utilize their scale. Nearly all reviews land between the scores of 6.0 to 8.5. The problems that this creates are numerous. If most are placed within that range does that make a 6.0 awful and an 8.5 perfect or are they especially kind, rating everything at least an above average mark? Or perhaps they are mimicking American school grading where anything in the 6.0s is bad but if that’s the case why not use letter grades to communicate this instead of having a giant selection of numbers made obsolete? And then in the rare instance that they publish an outlier score how is that album substantially better or worse then the hundreds of other reviews? As is, it serves less than zero purpose, it is a detriment to the reader as it misinforms and confuses in equal measure. Not to mention it is the very first thing that one sees besides the album and artist name. Although placement of the score is more up for debate. Having it be directly up front seems bad because they can see a number and draw an opinion straight off that, boom, close the tab, no reading required, but one can argue placing at the end just makes the user scroll a bit and that if they wanted to read the piece they would do so regardless. I see merit in both points. Not to call out Pitchfork as the only offender, there are plenty in all media industries, it has reached such an astounding level of pervasiveness that if you name a publication their scoring system is almost certainly nonsensical. 

This brings to question what is the ideal scoring system for critical analysis? And the answer is very easy, as long as it is intrinsic and consistent then any you come up with is ideal. If it is a range of numbers I expect that the max is the best score and half of that is average, and you can go even more straightforward than that like with recommend/do not recommend, the goal is that a totally new person will immediately understand it and if they look at several of the reviews that they will apply this logic uniformly. This can be assisted by a combo approach, number rating with a descriptor of what it entails, for example, 6/10 – above average. I use this method but with a range rather than a label for each individual point, such as 1-3 is bad to worse and so forth. It would be beneficial if publications had a small article explaining the methodology of grading scales with how seriously the average user takes them and the prevalence of critical aggregators. We have passed the point where basic intuition will suffice and to where a deeper comprehension is a necessity. 

Do I think this quick read of an opinion so cocksure it borders on self-proclaimed fact will change any large or small company’s framework? Of course not, they’ve been at this for a long time and have been fairly successful while doing it, one could make the argument that the ambiguity of their ratings are good for business because no blind fan can get too pissed when they aren’t sure of what’s being presented, you’d think the meteoric rise of more sensible scorers like Fantano would prove this assertion to be incorrect but it doesn’t appear anyone has made an attempt to change the status quo. The hope is this will generate discussion whether it be someone looking into getting into the critical process or an industry vet because a quality review isn’t just about an entertaining and well articulated opinion, its as much about clarity and readability, not only for the underground educated but for a fresh face trying to find some cool shit.