What does your ratings system look like?

The "vocalist" in that band is stealing a living.

Your negative feedback on that Disillusion record made me feel a little better about my less than favorable opinion on that record as well so thanks for that Vinny!

My rating system is quite simple actually. There tends to be a lot of overlap between close ratings, so it is my final judgement in the end based on how much I see myself return to a project that determines its final score.

5: Perfect record. Can be heard at any time in full without question. Reserved only for an elite few records

4.5: A near flawless record with a few quibbles, but even they don't deter the albums quality.

4: A great album with a few quibbles, but these issues are prominent enough to hold it back from the elite.

3.5: Either a solidly consistent record with no real standout moments, or a good album in which quality alternates between great to just okay

3: A good album in which quality alternates between good to just okay or flat out bad. 

2.5: Literally middle of the road. An album that might sound good or have a cool concept, but is as quickly forgotten about as when it entered my ears.

2: A record in which the artist might show some promise, but is severely misguided in its delivery.

1.5: A record in which the artist might show some promise/potential, but is delivered in horrendous fashion.

1: A record in which the artist cannot be bothered to create something of quality. In a word: worthless.

0.5: Where the artist in question are actively attempting to insult my intelligence and I start to question whether or not they just learned what music was. Reserved for special, dubious occasions.

So my question is, what are your conscious or unconscious biases when rating albums - and please don't tell me you don't have any, because if you think that's the case then, sorry, you do, you just don't recognise any of them!

It's tricky determining the difference between a bias and personal taste. I suppose a bias I have is that it might be hard for me to enjoy music made by a terrible person. I wouldn't consciously lower ratings due to that, but if it genuinely makes me enjoy the song less knowing about it, then obviously my rating will be affected. I'm usually pretty good with seperating art from artist, but if (for example) I hate listening to a vocalist say anything because I know they suck, and therefore I hate listening to the song, I'm not gonna hold back in giving it a bad rating.

I have a very simple methodology to my rating & reviewing system that ensures that there is minimal subconscious bias involved. I simply listen to each release at least three or four times before a rate them & that includes releases that clearly don't appeal to my taste on my first visit. The first listen is purely to clear my expectations & take in the music. I never make an attempt to think about how I might rate the music during that initial listen as it will clearly be slanted by my feelings on where the release sits in comparison to my expectations going into it. On the second listen I will start to form my opinions on what the music offers now that I know what I should expect. It's only on the third listen that I'll commit to a rating & I make a very conscious effort to remove myself from any bias & to focus completely on the sounds coming out of those speakers, especially since we started the Metal Academy podcast as I quickly realised that we had taken on a greater level of responsibility with regards to presenting an unbiased & accurate account of each release. If I'm on the fence between two ratings then I'll give the release a fourth listen which will resolve my conflict 99% of the time. In the rare case that it doesn't then I'll listen to what that little voice inside me is telling me as far as what I really WANT the score to be. I know some people can have their feelings diluted by things like cover artwork, lyrical content or their thoughts on the artist as a person but I've never had a problem with separating myself from those things. Perhaps it's my background as a musician that sees me more easily able to focus purely on the music.

To summerize, I honestly don't think think you can accurately rate or review a release on a single listen (or even two actually) but I know that some of you disagree with me on this so each to their own. 

I think you can rate on one listen because, to be honest, ratings can often be quite fluid anyway. I do agree though that it is impossible to review an album in any meaningful way without several listens as to do so without delving into it further does the music (and the artist) a great disservice. This is often why I will submit a rating initially but not a review, the rating acting as a placeholder until I get round to giving the album the attention it deserves. If I can't be bothered to go back to it for whatever reason, then I am plenty happy enough for the rating to stand. For this reason I view unsubstantiated ratings as more of a rough idea of how an album is considered, whereas a review is far more relevant as to how a listener considers a release.

To return to my original point, maybe not everyone does have a subconscious bias, but I still think it is a very special critic who can put all internal biases to one side when passing judgement on something as subjective as music. Maybe I feel this because I have no musical ability whatsoever so the technical aspect of music is as impenetrable to me as quantum mechanics (which some dickheads say is why I listen to so much metal) and for this reason I have to judge a release on how it affects me personally and that will always inevitably butt up against personal bias.