5.0 stars ("Monumental"): My absolute favorites. No record is perfect, but it would be unreasonable to expect anything significantly better from these albums. Every track on these records is excellent, and I repeatedly come back to them despite years of listening. 5.0 star and 4.5 star albums are all essential classics in my book, with 5.0 star records distinguishing themselves primarily via their importance in my personal musical landscape. In short, these are records that transcend their genre AND have played a vital role in my musical development. I would enthusiastically recommend these albums to anybody on RYM.

4.5 stars ("Classic"): Classic albums that, although not in my revered circle of personal favorites, are timeless examples of musical greatness. As with 5.0 star records, they are absolutely essential for fans of their given genre. I would recommend these releases to anyone on RYM, and they differentiate themselves from lower-rated releases in that you shouldn't need to be a fan of their particular genre to enjoy them.

4.0 stars ("Excellent"): Impressive examples within their genre that fall short of being essential acquisitions. I like to think of 4.0 star releases as "can't go wrong" acquisitions for any dedicated fan of their genre, even if I wouldn't fault more casual fans for not making time. Although my 4.0/4.5 star distinction is a very big one, the 3.5/4.0 star split is probably the weakest in my entire rating system. There isn't a fundamental difference between 3.5 and 4.0 star albums: I'd recommend them to all of the same people, and 4.0 stars releases are just ones that I personally appreciate a little bit more.

3.5 stars ("Very Good"): Slightly less significant albums that I still enjoy listening to on at least a semi-regular basis. One concrete way that I distinguish 3.5 star albums from lower-rated releases is whether I would recommend the album to a "casual fan" of the given genre: someone who hasn't explored beyond the classics, yet likely isn't familiar with the rest of the group's discography. So if you're perusing my RYM page and wondering what I would recommend to you, simply consider everything (within your comfort zone) that's at 3.5 stars or above!

3.0 stars ("Decent-to-Good"): Here is where things start to get a bit dicy. I still enjoy these records, and they have more highlights than lowlights, but I'm not compelled to listen to them on at least a semi-regular basis. They're still a valued part of my collection, and the primary way that I distinguish 3.0 star albums from lower releases is whether I'd be willing to pick up a physical copy for a moderate fee ($3-4). As far as recommendations go, I would heartily recommend these records to an established fan of the band but would hesitate recommending them to the general listener.

2.5 stars ("Mediocre"): Albums that fail to impact me positively or negatively, as well as wildly inconsistent albums that have too many duds to warrant anything higher. I very rarely feel the need to listen to these albums, although I don't consider acquiring them to have been a waste of time/money. 2.5 star records distinguish themselves from inferior releases via the fact that I don't mind using the requisite hard drive space to store a digital copy of them on my computer. I still would only recommend these albums to big-time fans of the given artist/genre.

2.0 stars ("Sub-Par"): Records that I'd describe as "kind of boring" or "kind of bad": not particularly offensive but certainly not providing enough entertainment to justify their place in my collection. A lot of the albums that end up here are either consistently decent without any standout moments, or have a bunch of inexcusable filler surrounding a few worthwhile tracks. What separates 2.0 star records from even worse releases is that I can still listen through an entire 2.0 star album without feeling like it was a complete chore. They're also the worst records where I can understand how someone (with similar tastes to myself) could seriously enjoy, as well as the worst records that I wouldn't explicitly warn people against.

1.5 stars ("Very Poor"): Here is where the music gets seriously hard to listen through. 1.5 star albums may have a few interesting moments, and this is what distinguishes them from even lower-rated releases, but there definitely isn't enough here to justify the overwhelming amount of garbage/monotony. It was definitely a mistake to acquire these albums, and I would advise others against obtaining them if given the opportunity. Most of the 1.5 stars albums that I've rated are embarrassingly poor releases from artists who have done far better. Completism and brand loyalty are the only legitimate releases to seek out these records.

1.0 stars ("Horrible"): A complete waste of time and money. These records may not be as insulting as 0.5 star releases, but they should be avoided just as carefully. I consider every 1.0 star rating to be a personal failure- having spent enough time with the record to rate/review it was a huge mistake. I'm perplexed as to how anyone could enjoy these records, even if they're from a genre that I largely dislike.

0.5 stars ("Unlistenable"): Reserved for the absolute worst. There's utterly nothing here that piques my interest and, although vaguely identifiable as music, I'm confused as to why this album was released. Everything here has to be a piss-poor example within its genre, even if I dislike most of that genre.