Album rankings per person
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Re: 1980-2003 - album rankings per person
Hmm. I don't think my numbers for Dance of Death are accurate. Well they are, but you didn't average in the actual score for Paschendale, which is 1865/10.
Hmm. I don't think my numbers for Dance of Death are accurate. Well they are, but you didn't average in the actual score for Paschendale, which is 1865/10.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: 1980-2003 - album rankings per person
1865 was the birthyear of
Erich Ludendorff, who was from August 1916 appointed as Generalquartiermeister, which made him joint head (with von Hindenburg) of Germany's war effort. From this point on he ran Germany's war effort in World War I until his resignation in October 1918. Together with Max von Gallwitz, Ludendorff was in command for the German Empire in the Battle of Passchendaele.
John Monash, the Australian military commander in the First World War, involved in many actions, including the First Battle of Passchendaele.
1865 was the birthyear of
Erich Ludendorff, who was from August 1916 appointed as Generalquartiermeister, which made him joint head (with von Hindenburg) of Germany's war effort. From this point on he ran Germany's war effort in World War I until his resignation in October 1918. Together with Max von Gallwitz, Ludendorff was in command for the German Empire in the Battle of Passchendaele.
John Monash, the Australian military commander in the First World War, involved in many actions, including the First Battle of Passchendaele.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Re: 1980-2003 - album rankings per person
After completing AMOLAD I realise that the average song ratings are giving an order quite different from the one I've given in the album ratings thread. AMOLAD is going in third, ahead of Powerslave which goes down to fourth, and Brave New World holds a firm grip on the 2nd place. Virtual XI did much better when averaging the individual song ratings. This, to me, illustrates that there's more to an album than the quality of the individual songs.
After completing AMOLAD I realise that the average song ratings are giving an order quite different from the one I've given in the album ratings thread. AMOLAD is going in third, ahead of Powerslave which goes down to fourth, and Brave New World holds a firm grip on the 2nd place. Virtual XI did much better when averaging the individual song ratings. This, to me, illustrates that there's more to an album than the quality of the individual songs.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: 1980-2003 - album rankings per person
I don't get this (sorry for being ignorant).
Average song ratings? Album ratings thread? Which thread was that?
Would you explain me exactly what you mean (with links?) Thanks in advance.
I hope the following can be seen as a neutral post, but I am very satisfied with my own album order in this topic (I'm writing in now
). Especially the bottom two are nailing my feelings exactly. I often doubt which album I find the least good and this is actually confirmed by the small difference.
There might be more but there's not less. This is an album judgement without leaving out skipped tracks. In a way I see it as a well balanced system, rid of bias. One which makes the bad songs as much important as the good ones. In this topic I explain it better (I hope).
I don't get this (sorry for being ignorant).
Average song ratings? Album ratings thread? Which thread was that?
Would you explain me exactly what you mean (with links?) Thanks in advance.
I hope the following can be seen as a neutral post, but I am very satisfied with my own album order in this topic (I'm writing in now
). Especially the bottom two are nailing my feelings exactly. I often doubt which album I find the least good and this is actually confirmed by the small difference.Eddies Wingman said:
There might be more but there's not less. This is an album judgement without leaving out skipped tracks. In a way I see it as a well balanced system, rid of bias. One which makes the bad songs as much important as the good ones. In this topic I explain it better (I hope).
Re: 1980-2003 - album rankings per person
The most glaring weakness of average song rating system for ranking albums is that it doesn't take the length of the songs into account. This matter little for Maiden albums, but it does become a problem with albums like Animals, where the two "Pigs on the Wing" combine for 40% of the songs but only 7% of the running time.
The most glaring weakness of average song rating system for ranking albums is that it doesn't take the length of the songs into account. This matter little for Maiden albums, but it does become a problem with albums like Animals, where the two "Pigs on the Wing" combine for 40% of the songs but only 7% of the running time.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: 1980-2003 - album rankings per person
Well, we judge an amount of songs (we do that as good as we can), and that amount of songs and their well weighed quality will be more important in the final album ranking than the amount of seconds. We don't judge song seconds, so the "problem" is non-existent imo.
I'd say length itself does not mean if a song is good or bad, it's the substance within that length (whatever the length is) which decides on the matter.
But when people give a grade to a song I assume they do take its length into account, e.g. in this way: When a song feels too long (because of various reasons) I'll mention that and it can be seen in my song ranking (which is the basis of all this). Some people find TAATG too repetitive. Why do they find it repetitive? Because it's a relatively long song. Thus this effects the ranking.
So, in a way, it's a combination. The lengths of the songs are taken into account. But not in a way that longer songs should have more weight in the ranking. This is about how much people like a songs, and not about automatic rankings, based on length.
Short songs can be as important as long ones. It just depends on how one looks at it. The Ides of March might be short, but is that alone a reason to give a lower grade? I wouldn't do that myself, because there's a lot of (and beautiful!) stuff going on in that period of time. Quality is important.
edit: I thought this over and indeed: when one album e.g. consists out of one huge song and 2 very small ones, and the huge one would be loved very much and the small ones very little, then indeed the album ranking would give a strange representation. Forgive me for misunderstanding your words, last night, Shadow, I am of clearer mind right now.
Well, we judge an amount of songs (we do that as good as we can), and that amount of songs and their well weighed quality will be more important in the final album ranking than the amount of seconds. We don't judge song seconds, so the "problem" is non-existent imo.
I'd say length itself does not mean if a song is good or bad, it's the substance within that length (whatever the length is) which decides on the matter.
But when people give a grade to a song I assume they do take its length into account, e.g. in this way: When a song feels too long (because of various reasons) I'll mention that and it can be seen in my song ranking (which is the basis of all this). Some people find TAATG too repetitive. Why do they find it repetitive? Because it's a relatively long song. Thus this effects the ranking.
So, in a way, it's a combination. The lengths of the songs are taken into account. But not in a way that longer songs should have more weight in the ranking. This is about how much people like a songs, and not about automatic rankings, based on length.
Shadow said:
Short songs can be as important as long ones. It just depends on how one looks at it. The Ides of March might be short, but is that alone a reason to give a lower grade? I wouldn't do that myself, because there's a lot of (and beautiful!) stuff going on in that period of time. Quality is important.
edit: I thought this over and indeed: when one album e.g. consists out of one huge song and 2 very small ones, and the huge one would be loved very much and the small ones very little, then indeed the album ranking would give a strange representation. Forgive me for misunderstanding your words, last night, Shadow, I am of clearer mind right now.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: 1980-2006 - album rankings per person
Your 6 for Different World and 5 for The Pilgrim didn't help much, and it's possible that you pay more heed to the strong tracks and take less into account with the weaker ones. Still, a 8,4 is a mighty fine grade. I gave it the same and at this point it's my nr. 4 album.
Your 6 for Different World and 5 for The Pilgrim didn't help much, and it's possible that you pay more heed to the strong tracks and take less into account with the weaker ones. Still, a 8,4 is a mighty fine grade. I gave it the same and at this point it's my nr. 4 album.
Re: 1980-2006 - album rankings per person
I finally got around to voting for the rest of the VXI songs. My comments are very shallow, but you have to forgive me. You guys know those energy bars that go from green to yellow, orange and red? Mine is closing in on black, currently.
I finally got around to voting for the rest of the VXI songs. My comments are very shallow, but you have to forgive me. You guys know those energy bars that go from green to yellow, orange and red? Mine is closing in on black, currently.
Re: 1980-2006 - album rankings per person
Oh shit! I better get you a potion.
Oh shit! I better get you a potion.
Re: 1980-2006 - album rankings per person
Yea I don't like those songs too much. I thought TFF would overthrow it in my rankings but so far it hasn't, AMOLAD is still No.3. However I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out higher in the album ratings thread.Forostar said: