Upcoming 2017 releases

[Geoff]

 

Yes, I do say the album is not worth 80% and as per my long post above, I don't care what the average score for a percentage of the album is. So the top 10 songs average out at 80%? Cool. But that's not the album, is it? It's 10 songs from an album. I am rating full albums. Regardless of how many songs are on there, each entire album is treated equally.

 

Yes, I do skip songs I don't like, or I don't rip them to MP3 to play into the future... but you're definitely missing the point here. I am rating albums. AOR. Album Orientated Rock, to some. I am not rating individual songs for MP3 players, or 10 songs and discarding the rest. Yes, I gain info in order to decide which MP3s to rip and keep, but I am rating albums for a purpose.

 

So I guess I can see your "point," but it's plain and simply just not what I am doing. Like I said, I don't honestly care at all what you guys do. It's just not what I am doing. You're rating 10 songs per album. I am rating albums as they are - from the first track to the last. If a band has more songs and some are crap, then call it "penalising" if you must. To me, it's just rating the entire album for what it is. Basic, simple as that.

 

But it depends on why you are rating an album - fair enough if you are just rating an album to catalogue everything do what you like.

 

But you cant just throw up 2 summaries as an argument that you like TS more when on average the 10 best songs are on Rocketride - it makes no sense to any of us.

 

Peace out.

 

 

Yep, that's me. Just rating every album to catalogue my music selection, with the same criteria for every album I rate.

 

But I still stand by my ratings and what I say. As far as I know, we're discussing the better album. In my opinion, 'TS' is the better album, overall. Sure as hell, the better songs from the two albums are mostly on 'Rocket Ride.'

 

So yes, overall, 'TS' is a better album in my opinion, and if you ask me what the best songs are, I'd list them.. most from 'RR' apparently. But that discussion didn't come up. Just complete albums, I believe is what we were discussing.

 

With your system, how does this work? Say I bought these two albums today;

 

Cock Infested Waters - s/t

 

1. I - 10

2. Love - 3

3. Having - 10

4. A - 3

5. Nice - 10

6. Big - 3

7. Long - 10

8. Hard - 3

9. Schlong - 10

10. In - 3

11. My - 10

12. Mouth - 10

13. Frequently - 10

14. Please - 10

15. Thanks - 10

 

- So, using your rating system, we minus the 5 weakest songs. And Hoopla! This album would rate a full 100%. So, it's the perfect album! Flawless... isn't it?

 

Vagina Hunters - s/t

 

1. But - 9

2. Jeez - 9

3. Those - 9

4. Vaginas - 9

5. Are - 9

6. Yucky - 9

7. Things - 9

8. Yuck - 9

9. Go - 9

10. Away - 9

 

90%

 

We all know where the better songs are, but which is the better complete album?

 

It's like finding a woman with great face, breasts, buttocks and vagina.

 

But, woman number two has a perfect face, breasts, buttocks and vagina. Sure, she also has a penis, but we're just rating the best four parts, aren't we?

[Glen]

Again, why would you penalise an album for providing more music.

 

There are 10 perfect tracks on album no 1, but only 10 excellent tracks on album no 2......personally I would just ignore or skip the 'extra' music.

 

Of course I do get your point about rating a whole album, but then this becomes tricky when you are directly comparing 2 albums and one album has more killer songs than the other but is dragged down by 2 or 3 weak tracks - personally I would ALWAYS reach for the album with the most killer songs which must mean I like it more. In fact I bet I would reach for an album with 5 or 6 killer/perfect songs over an album with 9-10 very good to excellent songs.....just to hear those songs over and over.

 

As a result, rating individual tracks is a flawed process for just this reason when comparing albums.... its why last year I went on gut instinct............but then again I know its all a bit of fun....the best of list and all that, but its a load of bollocks really isn't it, cos when 10 albums are like 5% different, any given day your fav could change either depending on mood etc.................and sometimes I revisit my lists from previous years and think - jeez u know what, my fav album from that year I haven't played for 12 months but album no 8 in the list I still play all the time...........go figure eh.

 

So in summary, I think I would always reach for album no 1 in your post and just skip over the fillers.

[Geoff]

No doubt it's all bollocks. I remember the year that Shy released their last album, I kept playing my favourite songs from that album over and over and over again, but I think it didn't even crack my top 10 list.

 

Ratings are separate to personal preference, no doubt. But I started the rating thing as it is and have done something like 5000+ albums with it now, and it is what is is, and I plan to stick with it. Definitely not changing now! lol. And I don't want to. It does what I set out for it to do, and that's how we roll.

[Glen]

No doubt it's all bollocks. I remember the year that Shy released their last album, I kept playing my favourite songs from that album over and over and over again, but I think it didn't even crack my top 10 list.

 

Ratings are separate to personal preference, no doubt. But I started the rating thing as it is and have done something like 5000+ albums with it now, and it is what is is, and I plan to stick with it. Definitely not changing now! lol. And I don't want to. It does what I set out for it to do, and that's how we roll.

 

But therein lies the problem..........that is a good assessment actually - my list from last year was my 'personal preference' - but surely this is what people want to see in your end of year list no??

 

Weird to say the best album of 2017 is going to be Harem Sca...........ooops I mean album 'X' when actually album 'Y' a few notches down is actually your favourite one

[Geoff]

If I'm not mistaken, I remember one year I posted my Top Rated list, and then about a month or so later, I posted my most played / favoured albums in a top 5 list. It was the year Steel Panther released 'All you can eat,' which I'm pretty sure was the same year Shy released that album.

 

But I definitely acknowledge if I post a top rated, or personal favourite list when I do it. But these days, as I did with last year's list, I tend to make sure my ratings reflect what is actually the album I keep coming back to. No doubt there are / have been flaws in the ratings I do, but like I said, I'm definitely not doing it all again so I'll live with what I've got.

 

One album from last year that sticks out for me, that I acknowledged as such, was the Simple Plan album. I loved a big handful of songs from that, and played them very often. But jeez there were some shitty fillers which dragged the overall score down. I can't ignore stuff like that, compared to albums that are great from start to end, but it doesn't mean that - especially in the age of the MP3 - I don't enjoy the heck out of great songs lifted and separated from an otherwise average album.

[AlphaMale]

New U.D.O. disc in 2017

[mrbandwidth]

To close the topic of ratings, what you're discussing is in fact an old math/statistics point: mean vs median vs mode,

 

http://daranjjohnson.com/2017/01/31/averages-are-means/

 

And the Glen's method is called a 'trimmed mean' (in his case he trims only the lowest score values).

 

But there's no perfect way in fact, as any of those kind of averages show different things of the dataset (the tracks' ratings in this case).

 

Let's move on.

[Nightrain]

Just to chip in an opinion, but of course it's all down to everybody's personal style.

 

There's a logical explanation on why we should only rate the best 12 tracks (and I think not 10 like Glen did).

 

First of all, if you take random sampling of any 20-30 albums anywhere in the world, you'll see that only 2-3 albums that will have more than 12 tracks, and sometimes out of those 2 or 3, the extra tracks are actually only 35 seconds intro, any instrumental tracks less than 2 minutes, or just an acoustic take/re-mix of a same song which we can skip/ignore, and means that it's only fair to judge a maximum of 12 tracks because that's what statistic concluded about any given regular studio album.

 

A good way to see this random example is to go to our mainsite, pick the band started from letter A, B, or C, and just pick the first 20-30 bands, and sort out each of their albums, i bet mostly will have around 9-12 tracks and not more.

 

Second of all, if we agree that the majority of studio albums are 12 tracks or less, then i think it's only fair to judge like what the majority offered, which is only 12 tracks. And beside, since a band will spend more time, effort, and money in studio to record the extra 2 or more tracks while we don't spend extra penny to buy that album, we have to appreciate this, and not punish them like Glen stated and thus leaving out 2 'worst' tracks in a 14-tracks album is the sensible way, and unlike playing the old tape, we don't need to break a sweat to skip a bad track when playing a CD or MP3, it's only a click away that cost us less than 2 seconds.

[CureTheSane]

As I've said before, I think the rating system is pretty silly and one dimensional, and gives a warped perspective of any album.

Having said that, it seems well extra stupid to leave tracks out when rating an album.

30 second intro? just write n/a

Instrumental? n/alive track? n/a

Acoustic version? n/a

 

But if there's full 14 songs, they all should be scored.

Chances are a few will be shit, and if they put shit songs on, that's what they get.

Not rating a couple of tracks to life the overall score of the album is counter productive.

Just as is rating a greatest hits album....

[AlphaMale]

I agree Cure. If you are taking out the worst 2 tracks, then shouldn't the best 2 be removed also for a fair score?

 

Nah? Didnt think so.

[Stefan]

Let's get this thread back on track...


Adrenaline Mob - We The People (June 2)



Tracks:

“King Of The Ring”
“We The People”
“The Killer's Inside”
“Bleeding Hands”
“Chasing Dragons”
“Til The Head Explodes”
“What You're Made Of”
“Raise 'Em Up”
“Ignorance & Greed”
“Blind Leading The Blind”
“Violent State Of Mind”
“Lords Of Thunder”
“Rebel Yell”




Diablo Blvd - Zero Hour (September 22/Nuclear Blast)



Tracks:


1. Animal
2. Sing From The Gallows
3. Life Amounts To Nothing
4. God in the machine
5. You Are All You Love
6. The Song is Over
7. 00:00
8. Like Rats
9. Demonize
10. The Future Will Do What It's Told
11. Summer Has Gone





Shadowman - Secrets And Lies (May 19/Escape Music)



Tracks:

1. Gravity
2. Automatic
3. Put It All On Love
4. Contagious
5. Broken Bones
6. Best Things In Life
7. Face The Night
8. No Smoke Without Fire
9. Good Times, Bad Times
10. Be True To yourself
11. Secrets And Lies
12. Stand Up And Be Counted




Mastercastle - Wine Of Heaven (May 19/Scarlet Records)









Rhapsody Of Fire - Legendary Years (May 26)



Tracks:

“Dawn Of Victory”
“Knightrider Of Doom”
“Flames Of Revenge”
“Beyond The Gates Of Infinity”
“Land Of Immortals”
“Emerald Sword”
“Legendary Tales”
“Dargor, Shadowlord Of The Black Mountain”
“When Demons Awake”
“Wings Of Destiny”
“Riding The Winds Of Eternity”
“The Dark Tower Of Abyss”
“Holy Thunderforce”
“Rain Of A Thousand Flames”

[Geoff]

I agree Cure. If you are taking out the worst 2 tracks, then shouldn't the best 2 be removed also for a fair score?

 

Nah? Didnt think so.

 

Definitely agree with you guys, just lastly, on this silly subject. Why is it the two worst tracks are removed? If you're being serious about removing tracks (and I still think it's silly) you should be taking out the best and the worst song. Not the two worst, or alternatively, the two best. It's got to be one from each side of the spectrum.

 

But anyway, it's just really silly either way. Because you have different rules for different albums and it's just not consistent. And it's confusing.

 

And as I said earlier, that went unanswered, what happens with your 9 track albums? Or 8? Or 10 or 11 track albums if you only rate 12 songs? It's always different, and such an inconsistent way to do it.

[Glen]

 

I agree Cure. If you are taking out the worst 2 tracks, then shouldn't the best 2 be removed also for a fair score?

 

Nah? Didnt think so.

Definitely agree with you guys, just lastly, on this silly subject. Why is it the two worst tracks are removed? If you're being serious about removing tracks (and I still think it's silly) you should be taking out the best and the worst song. Not the two worst, or alternatively, the two best. It's got to be one from each side of the spectrum.

 

But anyway, it's just really silly either way. Because you have different rules for different albums and it's just not consistent. And it's confusing.

 

And as I said earlier, that went unanswered, what happens with your 9 track albums? Or 8? Or 10 or 11 track albums if you only rate 12 songs? It's always different, and such an inconsistent way to do it.

 

What are you guys on about????

 

God, I really thought this has been discussed about 100 times already...still people are arguing about it.

 

How many times do I need to re-iterate the fact that this whole discussion (to me) is about bands who offer value for money with loads of music on offer.

 

Firstly, when have I said I only rate the first 10????? - that was only in respect of Geoff's specific case above to prove a point.

 

If you go back to any thread on this subject you will see the staple I go on is a 12 track album.....and if a band offers more than 12 tracks, I honestly don't see why you would penalise an album for giving you more music. Go on, give me one reason?????

 

You guys can do whatever you like, but dragging an album down cos the 13th and 14th tracks are weak is f crazy to me when other albums might only offer 9 or 10 tracks......but hey you continue to do whatever you like.

 

Just live with the fact that your concept is flawed

[Glen]

And just one final point.............12 tracks encompasses probably 95% of albums in any one year. so its only a handful of albums which benefit from this very unsilly and completely just action.

 

Over and out.

[Glen]

 

Second of all, if we agree that the majority of studio albums are 12 tracks or less, then i think it's only fair to judge like what the majority offered, which is only 12 tracks. And beside, since a band will spend more time, effort, and money in studio to record the extra 2 or more tracks while we don't spend extra penny to buy that album, we have to appreciate this, and not punish them like Glen stated and thus leaving out 2 'worst' tracks in a 14-tracks album is the sensible way, and unlike playing the old tape, we don't need to break a sweat to skip a bad track when playing a CD or MP3, it's only a click away that cost us less than 2 seconds.

 

This!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Surely you guys get this???? No?

[mrbandwidth]

Lol,

 

When we do any kind of average over a dataset (the tracks' ratings in this case), we're 'summarizing' the whole dataset with just one number (or 2 if we also take the variance of the dataset), being this number an arithmetic mean, geometric mean, trimmed mean, weighted mean, the median, the mode, etc... Whatever method you choose the fact is that you're 'simplifying' the full sample, hence losing info, period. You can choose how to lose that info the way you want. And there are variety of methods to do it because there's no perfect one (neither better than the rest).

 

Glen, you say that your method (trimmed mean on the lowest values) avoids to penalize for extra music, ok, but one could argue that is biased in favor of albums with lots of short songs, as you will 'forgive' their worst tracks systematically, so these kind of albums will be in average overrated over albums of similar level but with <= 12 tracks, because the worst songs on these ones won't be 'forgiven' at all. Then an album with 16 tracks where 5 songs are crap will have very possibly better rating than an album with 12 songs with only 1 song crap because in the first one you eliminate their 4 weakest so the one that remains is the less crap of the 5. The 12 tracks album has no chance instead. Is it fair that 5/16 > 1/12 ?

 

Of course, you will say that there are few albums with 16+ tracks, but the bias effect will also happen for any with > 12 tracks.

 

There is no perfect way of averaging.

 

Would be better to keep on with the thread topic...

[Glen]

Lol,

 

When we do any kind of average over a dataset (the tracks' ratings in this case), we're 'summarizing' the whole dataset with just one number (or 2 if we also take the variance of the dataset), being this number an arithmetic mean, geometric mean, trimmed mean, weighted mean, the median, the mode, etc... Whatever method you choose the fact is that you're 'simplifying' the full sample, hence losing info, period. You can choose how to lose that info the way you want. And there are variety of methods to do it because there's no perfect one (neither better than the rest).

 

Glen, you say that your method (trimmed mean on the lowest values) avoids to penalize for extra music, ok, but one could argue that is biased in favor of albums with lots of short songs, as you will 'forgive' their worst tracks systematically, so these kind of albums will be in average overrated over albums of similar level but with <= 12 tracks, because the worst songs on these ones won't be 'forgiven' at all. Then an album with 16 tracks where 5 songs are crap will have very possibly better rating than an album with 12 songs with only 1 song crap because in the first one you eliminate their 4 weakest so the one that remains is the less crap of the 5. The 12 tracks album has no chance instead. Is it fair that 5/16 > 1/12 ?

 

Of course, you will say that there are few albums with 16+ tracks, but the bias effect will also happen for any with > 12 tracks.

 

There is no perfect way of averaging.

 

Would be better to keep on with the thread topic...

 

For the record, I wasn't the one who started it up again, it was Alpha and Geoff

As I said, I don't give a monkeys what anyone does, but at least Nightrain understands logic.

 

The only way a long album is going to be better, is if the first 12 songs are actually good enough.......capiche?

 

Cos then it's already matched the output offered by a 9/10/11/12 song album.

 

The rest of the tracks to me are therefore superfluous......they could be covers of the birdie song for all I care.

 

It's just my way of ensuring fairness.

 

Over and out...................again (for good this time on this topic).

[AlphaMale]

 

Lol,

 

When we do any kind of average over a dataset (the tracks' ratings in this case), we're 'summarizing' the whole dataset with just one number (or 2 if we also take the variance of the dataset), being this number an arithmetic mean, geometric mean, trimmed mean, weighted mean, the median, the mode, etc... Whatever method you choose the fact is that you're 'simplifying' the full sample, hence losing info, period. You can choose how to lose that info the way you want. And there are variety of methods to do it because there's no perfect one (neither better than the rest).

 

Glen, you say that your method (trimmed mean on the lowest values) avoids to penalize for extra music, ok, but one could argue that is biased in favor of albums with lots of short songs, as you will 'forgive' their worst tracks systematically, so these kind of albums will be in average overrated over albums of similar level but with <= 12 tracks, because the worst songs on these ones won't be 'forgiven' at all. Then an album with 16 tracks where 5 songs are crap will have very possibly better rating than an album with 12 songs with only 1 song crap because in the first one you eliminate their 4 weakest so the one that remains is the less crap of the 5. The 12 tracks album has no chance instead. Is it fair that 5/16 > 1/12 ?

 

Of course, you will say that there are few albums with 16+ tracks, but the bias effect will also happen for any with > 12 tracks.

 

There is no perfect way of averaging.

 

Would be better to keep on with the thread topic...

 

For the record, I wasn't the one who started it up again, it was Alpha and Geoff

As I said, I don't give a monkeys what anyone does, but at least Nightrain understands logic.

 

The only way a long album is going to be better, is if the first 12 songs are actually good enough.......capiche?

 

Cos then it's already matched the output offered by a 9/10/11/12 song album.

 

The rest of the tracks to me are therefore superfluous......they could be covers of the birdie song for all I care.

 

It's just my way of ensuring fairness.

 

Over and out...................again (for good this time on this topic).

 

 

So you're saying your "system" is also flawed.

[Glen]

No i am not....anyway, move on mate.

[AlphaMale]

No i am not....anyway, move on mate.

 

[Darkstone]

Can't wait for Adrenaline Mob.

[phaffas]

 

 

 

 

Love that Edguy cover, fantastic stuff !

Yeah I dig it but I think it's a trend. Their covers have been getting better but the albums worse!

Nothing has been in the same stratosphere as "Hellfire Club" for me. A few songs here and there but nothing even close to that masterpiece.

Apart from Rocketride of course which is far better

 

 

Out of curiosity, you guys haven't rated their albums, hey? I did, and shocked my balls off with the results. FYI;

 

1. Tinnitus Sanctus - 76%

2. Rocket Ride - 74%

3. Space Police - Defenders Of The Crown - 73%

4. Age Of The Joker - 65%

5. Hellfire Club - 64%

6. Mandrake - 48%

The thing with them, is their fillers are so shit and they have very few truly ball-cracking tracks. So nothing rates really high, but the fillers are so shit that it's basically impossible to rate one of their albums too high.

The thing with 'Tinnitus Sanctus,' though, is there is no terrible filler on it... unlike their other albums. Hence it escaped with the highest score. Hardly a glowing endorsement, as in my mind I think 'Rocket Ride' has their best tunes... but I guess as an entire album, consistently, 'Tinnitus Sanctus' is their best... allegedly.

 

Basically you are wrong.

[phaffas]

 

Here's my breakdown, for what it's worth;

 

Rocket Ride;

 

01. Sacrifice - 7

02. Rocket Ride - 6

03. Wasted Time - 9.25

04. Matrix - 7.25

05. Return to the Tribe - 4

06. The Asylum - 8.5

07. Save Me - 8.75

08. Catch of the Century - 8

09. Out of Vogue - 6.5

10. Superheroes - 8.5

11. Trinidad - 7

12. Fucking With Fire - 8.75

13. Land Of The Miracle - 7.25

Total - 74%

Titinhis Anus;

01. Ministry Of Saints - 7

02. Sex Fire Religion - 7.25

03. The Pride Of Creation - 7.75

04. Nine Lives - 8.25

05. Wake Up Dreaming Black - 7.5

06. Dragonfly - 7.25

07. Thorn Without A Rose - 9

08. 929 - 8

09. Speedhoven - 6.5

10. Dead Or Rock - 7.5

Total - 76%

I think maybe it's not so much that 'Titinhis Anus' is such a great album... its more so that when it's broken down, 'Rocket Ride' isn't as great as I also thought it was too. And of two solid but not amazing albums, apparently I prefer the anus one.

 

How do you give something 7.25 compared to a 7 or 7.5? Freak.

[CureTheSane]

I may be at a disadvantage as I was likely asleep when most of this was posted, but I'm gonna make a comment regardless of whether the discussion is over or not.

I really don't care how you guys rate an album.

I pay zero attention to 1. how you choose to use percentages, and 2. what other people think of music.

If I see an album highly regarded by many, I'll try it out. Or I may choose to listen to some samples and decide not to.

12 tracks may be the 'normal' amount. Personally I find 11 to be ideal. 10 is good if they're all great, and 12 is good if some of the fillers make the others stand out

Let's compare Slippery When Wet to Hysteria.

I rate both of these albums a 10

They both have tracks I don't like, but as I said, I don't use your rating system.

 

10 songs vs 12

1 average song, 1 crappy song vs 2 average songs, 1 crappy song

 

Would leaving Excitable off the album help it? For me yes, but for others no.
If Def Lep chose to put 14 songs on that album, and the 2 extras were average or crappy, would it be seen as any less good? Not by me,.

I hate the thought of either of those albums being dragged down by the songs I don't really like.
But these are iconic albums.

 

Bands that add too many songs are faced with the add-ins dragging the album down. (think Jack Russell and the acapella song

[Glen]

Its the music that counts guys. Time to move on.

 

Now if im not mistaken theres a few albums out today

 

Exciting times.