Martintox Presents: Disorder Reviews
----
THE DISORDER REVIEWS RATING SYSTEM
I have a new album and a new Disorder Reviews blog.
----
THE DISORDER REVIEWS RATING SYSTEM
Creator: Martintox
Date of conception: 2013-2014
----
The concept of the rating system is just as contentious as the principle behind its use: it implies that the quality of art can, in some way, be quantified according to an objective criterion. The idea is not a recent invention, yet even the most common of ranking formats are subject to heated debate. For instance, take the nearly ubiquitous scale from 1 to 10: does it make sense to rate something a 10/10? Few as they may be, there is a genuine contingent of people who believe that a 10/10 doesn't exist, as it implies perfection, which is supposedly unattainable. A 7/10 from IGN is read very differently from a standard person's 7/10, due to many factors beyond the review itself; such cases demonstrate that the significance of a rating system also has a direct relation to the way through which it is utilized. As another example, music critic Piero Scaruffi has attained a certain notoriety for his extremely conservative use of the higher echelons of the 1-10 scale. Most records will receive something between 4 and 6, but when he gives an album an 8/10, it's perceived as particularly significant. Therefore, putting aside the arguments of objectivity and subjectivity, the process of rating media is ultimately comparative, with significance inversely proportional to quantity. If a film critic gives a movie the rank of 10/10, it holds much more significance if they have given this distinction to only a few others, as opposed to nearly a hundred of them.
Another major issue comes into play in regards to low ratings. There are many professional critics who have a certain obligation to consume media to completion and offer their thoughts, no matter how unpleasant the experience may be; however, nothing prevents an amateur music reviewer from stopping an album 3 songs in and switching to something else if they don't think it's worth the time investment. The end result is an extremely lopsided rating distribution, where anything 5/10 and below is increasingly rare due to the critic's understandable use of their self-preservation instincts. Many unconventional rankings have been devised to overcome some of these issues (the Gnosis rating system uses 15 points to further distinguish good albums between one another), yet none has sought to address all of them comprehensively, all while taking in account the ambiguity of subjective and objective quality. It was for this purpose that the Disorder Reviews rating system came to be; Martintox proclaims that it is "the result of years of reflection to build the ultimate method of ranking the quality of media".
This being said, it is more appropriate to call it a combination of two rating systems rather than a singular one. The first (known as the Subjective Star Rating System) uses a standard 5-star scale twice over: one is the "Personal Rating", the other is the "Recommendation Rating". The former is meant solely as an indication of the critic's own appreciation of a work, and is arguably used in the same way as most other rating systems in circulation. The latter is where things get interesting, as the point there is to indicate to what degree the author believes a reader should acquire and consume this work. Thus, there is an important distinction between the critic's enjoyment and the audience's enjoyment. Let us take, as an innocuous example, the Neon Genesis Evangelion visual novel Girlfriend of Steel. While someone with particular admiration for the franchise may thoroughly enjoy this video game, whether or not a reader should seek it out about many others is not a clear-cut matter. Is this title essential to a neophyte, or is it instead meant for dedicated fans? Does it assume that you have prior knowledge of other works? Is it representative of the overall series? Depending on the answers, it would be preferable to give such a title a lower recommendation rating, as a way to indicate that it is preferable for newcomers to seek out more accessible venues beforehand. This can be of pertinence for not only media franchises, but the catalogues of specific musicians, directors, and so on. After all, if someone came up to you and asked for the best way to get into Martin Scorcese, you would much more likely recommend The Last Temptation of Christ as opposed to Shark Tale, wouldn't you?
These two star-based ratings consequently work in symbiosis, offering insight into the critic's thoughts without forgetting that their tastes do not necessarily reflect those of their audience. It is here that the Lettered Rating System comes into play. Its goal is to bring these separate pieces of information into synthesis, as it purports to indicate what the critic believes to be the objective quality of a work of media. It is not merely a matter of personal appreciation; the rating also assesses the originality and/or historical importance of the work in the context of a genre, franchise, or artist's overall career. Even if the author has reservations about a video game such as Half-Life, they may deem it appropriate to give it a higher ranking than it would otherwise receive because they believe it merits its reputation as a landmark in the genre of first-person shooters. Thus, the Lettered Rating is a hybrid of sorts, taking in account the criteria of both star ranks.
Also notable is the large selection of grades: more of them are positive than negative, as a way to account for the possible bias towards reviewing high-quality titles. However, only two (Omega and A+) can be considered as marks of perfection. Indeed, even "great" is still a long way from "perfect"; as few flaws as there may be in a masterpiece, it is precisely their scarcity that makes them easier to ascertain, and allows for insightful comparison of two or more works of similar quality. If an album is mediocre, only the most dedicated of fans would care to break down its qualities and flaws to such an extent, let alone debate in what ways it is superior or inferior to a different mediocre album. It is through this specific distribution that a critic can offer a more precise assessment of yet another great movie, game, album, book, what have you; otherwise, an endless row of 9/10s would only become meaningless with time. It is clear that Martintox has given this system a lot of thought, but there is a critical flaw that I feel he has neglected to take in account. You see, in the time that it would take to try and understand what all these ratings signify, I can just as easily read the review that comes with it and understand the nuances of his opinions without having to worry about how that translates into a bunch of stars and letters.
----
PERSONAL RATING: *½
RECOMMENDATION RATING: *
LETTERED RATING: D
----
PERSONAL RATING: *½
RECOMMENDATION RATING: *
LETTERED RATING: D
----
