Help about christgau ratings

[lagire]

Hi everybody,

i don't understand very well english, and i don't understand the ratings of robert christgau, especially those since 1990.
http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bk-cg ... es-90s.php

those from 1969 to 1990 no problem of course.
but those with " *** " and " ** " and " * ", etc ... i don't understand.

what i like, it's a scale out of 10 of those ratings.
I mean:
A+ > 10
A > 9.5
A- > 9
etc ...

Thanks for your responses.

[Live in Phoenix]

My two cents:

Since anything with a regular “B” is considered a turkey or a bomb (heaven knows why since it’s not such a low grade) I assume that these honorable mention albums essentially amount to a B+ rating. These are just passable positive reviews, and his review is only a sentence or a clause long because he reviews like a million albums a year and honorable mentions are basically not worth the time to write a full-length review, unless he feels like it. For another redundant rating, see also: "What distinguishes a [Turkey] from a [bomb] is that it's reviewed and graded."

The "[Neither] emoticon face" rating is frankly confusing, and I don't think he uses it anymore. If a "B" is a turkey/bomb, than it seems a "Neither" might as well be a turkey/bomb.

Why he feels the need to distinguish between his honorable mentions with little 1 star/2 star/3 star ratings, and barely different descriptions ("a worthy/likable/enjoyable effort"), I don’t really know.
(For that matter, how he can give an “A” to a Pink album or a latter-day Liz Phair album, and meanwhile trash Suzanne Vega and Joanna Newsom, or say Crowded House and Black Sabbath and U2, is one of life’s little mysteries. Well anyone who writes 7 billion reviews is bound to tick you off some time or other.)

[irreduciblekoan]

I've always wanted to be sure what those asterisks meant as well, and how they figure into the AM rankings. My thoughts were that they were recommendations for people who like that genre of music or that artist. Good albums "for that style" but also niche. So a *** would be a high recommendation for fans of that style of music, while a * would mean it's worth a listen if you like that style.

After reading through his Grade Guide again, it seems that those "stars" are in between B+s and Neithers, and also above Turkeys.

That's what I thought anyway.

[Henrik]

Since anything with a regular “B” is considered a turkey or a bomb

What?

Edit: I saw it now. Weird.
"I'm aware of no {Tu} lower than D, and a few even get a B"

[Live in Phoenix]

He started equating a "B" with a "Dud" [bomb icon] in the '90s. Supposedly with all the new releases out there, a new standard had to be applied. The Turkey icon is in his '90s book, although I think it and the Turkey Shoot column have been discontinued. Nowadays, I'm not sure he even bothers to rate a "Dud" or "B" for anything, instead sticking with reviewing Honorable Mentions, B PLUS albums, and higher.

Here's an example of a Dud of the Month from a Nov. 16, 2004 column (in his Writings: CG Columns section).
(What is quite confusing, though, is that it is not listed as a Dud under his Consumer Guide Index by Grade. This despite the fact that "Grades 1990-" is still the most current grade system listed, and he has not changed his grade for this album, when he's been known to change his grade for some albums.)
http://robertchristgau.com/xg/cg/cgv1004-04.php

Dud of the Month
LEONARD COHEN: Dear Heather (Columbia) I know it's hard to get a grip on, kids, but people keep getting older. They don't just reach some inconceivable benchmark--50 or, God, 60--and stop, Old in some absolute sense. The bones, the joints, the genitals, the juices, the delivery systems, and eventually the mind continue to break down, at an unpredictable pace in unpredictable ways. Leonard Cohen has had No Voice since he began recording at 33. But he has more No Voice today, at 70, than he did on Ten New Songs, at 67--the tenderness in his husky whisper of 2001, tenderness the way steak is tender, has dried up in his whispered husk of 2004, rendering his traditional dependence on the female backups who love him more grotesque. Nor does noblesse oblige underlie all the adaptations and settings--Lord Byron, Patti Page, a Quebecois folk song, various dead Canadian poets, himself. Rather they reflect the same diminished inspiration that makes you wonder whether his 9/11 song is enigmatic or merely inconclusive. Not only do I like the guy, I'm Old enough to identify with him. But I doubt I'll ever be Old enough to identify with this. On her deathbed, my 96-year-old mother-in-law was still relying on Willie Nelson's Stardust. That's more like it. B

[lagire]

Ok, Thanks, but it's always confused to me.
I supposed also that it's difficult to build a rating system (scale) out of 10, with those ratings?

[Live in Phoenix]

I'm not sure how much he archives his website. If he rated something a Dud, with no written review whatsoever, it should show up in his Dud section in the Consumer Guide Index by Grade. Otherwise, a "B"-rated album may simply be found in the "B" drop-down menu, i.e. no Turkey option to choose from, which I believe was Leonard Cohen's "other rating" for the album listed above.

You might want to check http://www.metacritic.com/music for a useful, though maybe not definitive, attempt to turn grades (or even non-rated reviews by critics) into numbered ratings.

[lagire]

Ok but they don't take into account *** , ** and other emoticons

[Live in Phoenix]

This is from his Users' Guide to the Consumer Guide article, as part of his introduction to MSN. I guess "star" albums are low B plusses? I agree with irreduciblekoan that the Guide suggests that you'd like a "star" album if you like that genre or artist. The simple fact of the matter is that these ratings are a little vague and I can't do anything about it! I don't even see Duds or B albums on his Expert Witness column anymore, but he definitely still has B PLUS and Honorable Mentions, so they seem to make the grade.

On a different note, I've always equated an A with a 9, and an A- with an 8.

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=243434

By 1990, however, I'd had it with calibrating the not-so-hot. That was for critics, I reasoned -- consumers were just looking for records to buy. So I'd limit myself to what I refer to as "A records," meaning those rated A plus (very rare, three a year is a lot and zero not uncommon, mostly because prolonged enjoyment is so tricky to predict), A (annually there are a dozen or 15 of those), and A minus (in a good year I find 60 or 70). Then there'd be a few "high B plusses" (which I agonize over so long I figure they have something but not quite enough). Only I soon decided there'd be other records I couldn't overlook altogether. At first there were maybe half a dozen of these "Honorable Mentions." But as album production increased tenfold in the '90s, so that twice as many hours of music were recorded annually than there were hours in a year, Honorable Mentions mushroomed. Engaged competence with flashes of inspiration became the essence of our musical condition. I'd changed formats just in time.

Duds simply list records unworthy of further comment. I also maintain an unpublished file called Neither for twixt-Dud-and-Honorable-Mention entries.