December 4, 2001 by A.S. Van Dorston

I get comments, questions and criticisms on how most of the albums in my BEST OF THE YEAR lists are rated 9- or better. Let’s just jump into this can of worms and sort it out once and for all.

Let’s look at the numbers for 1999, the most recent year the RIAA reported statistics in number of albums released. In that year, the RIAA reported that 38,900 albums were released. When I listen to and/or review albums, I don’t do it randomly. I don’t just walk into the new release section, close my eyes and pick whatever is in front of me. And I don’t just review what’s sent to me, although I try to at least give anything a chance that someone bothered to send me. I put a lot of thought, effort and research into tracking down what I think I would enjoy most. I read lots of reviews, pay attention to newsgroups, listen to CDs in local record stores that are recommended by knowledgeable people, search the Internet, download MP3s, and borrow music from friends.

I made it clear in Fast ‘n’ Bulbous that the albums listed are the ones I like best. Partly because I’d rather not waste time reviewing albums that are mediocre or worse, and partly because my main value to readers is being a consistent, specific source for recommending GOOD music.

I spelled it out in my Explanation of Rating System back in 1995 —

“I use the 1 to 10 system. It’s just been my preference ever since I can remember. SPIN just started using it last year. I included a chart of how other rating systems are roughly equivalent. You may be familiar with the letter grade system from Robert Christgau of The Village Voice. Rolling Stone uses stars, along with many record guides like the Penguin Guide to Jazz.

Not many albums listed are rated less than an 8. It’s not that there aren’t plenty of crappy albums out there. I just don’t want to bother listing them. This is a list of music I like! I have listened to every album that I rated. If there’s something really good missing from a particular year, I may not have heard it. So feel free to e-mail me about something I should hear. And hey, all you record labels, feel free to send me promos!”

One problem that people have in reading reviews in a magazine, is that each critic is different, and unless they’ve been following them for a long time, they may not know where they’re coming from. I believe my lists of favorite music going all the way back to 1965 should be a sufficient way to gauge where I’m coming from, what my biases and tastes are. My tastes are my own, and no one can be expected to share the exact same taste. While I don’t claim to be the most knowledgeable critic around, I do spell out exactly what I do know, what I’ve heard, and what I HAVEN’T heard but think I might like. I think it would be cool if every critic could have a site like that.

Back to the numbers. In 1999 I listed a total of 407 albums. Of those, I rated 221. As I’ve said before, I don’t rate or review everything I hear, because I don’t like everything I hear. I probably heard at least 600 albums. So of the 38,900 albums released that year, I heard 600, or 1.54%. Of the 600 I heard, I liked none enough to give a 10. None, zero, zilch. I don’t give 10s very often. However, I did give six albums a 10- rating, which is more than usual. That’s whopping 1% of the 600. Another 62 albums got a 9+. Why? Because I’m pretty damn good at tracking down stuff I like. If anything, I don’t know if I’m doing my job all that well, because out of 38,900 albums, there should be more than 66 albums I like enough to give better than a 9 rating. But hey, I’m picky, and I’m only human. I can’t listen to or acquire or even have room for more than a few hundred a year. Near the bottom of my list, I listed six albums under the 7 rating. These were relatively high profile albums by Tori Amos, Fiona Apple, Filter, Ministry, Paul Westerberg and Penelope Houston. The point was to offer a little perspective. While there are probably another several hundred albums I could have rated in the 8+ to 7+ range, I didn’t want to be bothered. Those six artists are ones who I may like something about them. At one time I might have even adored them, like Westerberg. But my point was that their albums are mediocre. And when there are 38,900 different albums available, mediocre doesn’t cut it. I want my music to be extraordinary. I usually sell any of my 9-s after tiring of them, and about half the 9s for space sake. An 8+ to an 8 is considered good or above average, by why bother? 8- to 7- is mediocre, and if you want to know what would entail 6+ to a 1, just take a gander at the Billboard Hot 200 chart. A good number of them would fit in that range. No one needs me to state the obvious.

I believe in keeping my scale realistic. Which means that I have a lot of 9s. Whereas, say, SPIN might give Dave Matthews Band an 8 and Tortoise a 5 (I made up those numbers as I only skim them at the bookstore, but were you give me a few issues, I know I see bizarre inconsistencies like that pretty often. I know Mercury Rev got a ridiculously low rating, much lower than Britney Spears. That’s just wrong.)

I’d like to think my audience are not the type who would care for the wild inconsistencies of SPIN andRolling Stone, and are sophisticated enough to be able to see how the albums fit in my overall spectrum and glean some idea of what to expect.

Posted in: Rants