10 out of 10?

Just a quick entry here.

I am slightly confused about the way that some people seem to rate and rank albums. I'm not talking about publications necessarily because they seem to justify their reviews to a certain degree even though it is frustrating when some work off a scale of 10 and some work off 5 (how do you represent 5 out 10 on a scale of 1 to 5?).

I am talking about my friends and colleagues and the average man in the street. Their ratings seem to be so biased and not objective in many cases.

Take a die hard fan of Kasabian. He had probably already decided in his own mind that their second album was going to be 10 out 10 in his head so when it was released and was considered by most people in the music industry to be a regression from their inspiring debut album, he simply marked it down to 8 out of 10 and told all of his friends it was a 'grower'. I don't understand this kind of partisan blindness. Star Wars fans across the planet were more than happy to pan the three new films that came out a few years ago and this was a franchise they had held dearly close to their heart for 20 years. So why can't I find a Killers fan who can admit that Sam's Town is not a great album? It is not a bad album but this comment I found on an Amazon review sums it up for me -

'This is a 5 star album people.
I can listen to this album form start to finish, that is very rare for me !
No mainstream songs, far from It.'

I don't understand this. You loved the first album with songs such as 'Mr Brightside', 'Somebody Told Me', and 'All These Things That I've Done' so you went out and bought the second only to find there are no real standout tracks (with the possible exception of 'When We Were Young') yet you still gave it full marks! Can I suggest that that score was written before even hearing the music. I am not afraid to mark down my heroes when they release material which is either below their par or is not worthy of an inflated score. I used to be the biggest Oasis fan on the planet, had ever rarity and bootleg CD released and have seen them live more times than I can remember. However, ever since Standing on the Shoulder of Giants scored 3 out of 10 with me I have not bought any subsequent material. Much like the Star Wars fans, my love for a band is not the unconditional love I have for a family member - more the love I have for a girlfriend or close friend and as in life, I am perfectly capable of falling out with a band and not speaking to them again. And before anyone criticises me or calls me shallow bear this in mind. We all bought the albums Kick and X by INXS in the late 80's/ early 90's but I'm guessing you haven't gone out and bought their last 12 albums.

Anyway, I mentioned that I gave Oasis's 4th album 3 out of 10. If you're heard the album you too were probably disappointed but you are also probably thinking that 3 out 10 is a bit harsh. That is because you are using your system of rating albums and not looking at it objectively. Allow me to explain...

The average number of tracks on an album is 10. If you use a scale of 1 to 10 then you can roughly assign 1 point for each track. If a track is good it gets a point. If it is not a standout track or a clear album filler then it doesn't score. If you want to err on the side of caution give any tracks which may be 'growers' a half point. Using this system seems to me to be the fairest way of marking an album on merit without taking into account previous releases or any other stock the band has built up with you. You are reviewing the album, not your love for the band.

Bear in mind that 10 out 10, or 5 out of 5 is 100%. Top marks. Perfect. Nothing you would change as it is perfection personified. Can you really say that about some of the albums by your favourite bands you have given 10 out of 10 to?

It is simple. 10 tracks on the next album you buy. 6 are good. Score it 6 out of 10 if anyone asks. Don't let the fact that you had your picture taken with the singer last year in Spain cloud your judgement.

I give this article a 6.5 out of 10.