(Copied from the first post on my tumblr)
I suppose that if I’m going to post music reviews here, I should come up with a system for grading what I’m reviewing. I don’t see grades or scores as necessary all the time, but I know that some people want something quantifiable to discuss, so I’ll create a system for it. This system that I’ll post here as a guide is taken from the great music critic Robert Christgau’s marking system and modified by myself to suit the way that I like to review music.
>Albums that I consider to be “good” in some way will be given a mark from a B- (lowest) to A+ (highest). These marks will be accompanied by full reviews of varying lengths.
>Albums that I think have potential to be good but are too limited in their reach or are held back by some sort of flaw will be given an O. O albums will have shorter reviews, often simply an explanation of what was attempted and how it could have been better. An O album isn’t necessarily bad, but I don’t believe it could be enjoyed as much as those marked from B- to A+. I will generally include a recommended song that stands out from the album at the end of the review.
>Some albums may be mediocre at best, maybe even bad, but will ultimately have little impact on listeners besides maybe wasting their time. These albums will be given an X and a shorter review, similar to the O reviews, but explaining why it’s not enjoyable instead.
>The lowest grade given is a Z. A Z album is bad, and there’s no way around it. It doesn’t have much potential, or if it does, the artist responsible for it seems to take great delight in wasting it. It’s difficult to ignore and will likely attempt to leave some sort of impression, often misguided. Avoid these if you can. Unlike O or X albums, Z albums do get full reviews in an attempt to dissuade people from listening to them or explain just what might have gone wrong.
There you have it, my not-particularly original reviewing system. Refer to this when necessary.