I rate albums by averaging the ratings of each song on a 0-10 scale. The final reviews are then divided by 2 to accommodate to rateyourmusic's scale of 0-5. I also always curve each album by rounding a score up. The reason for this is that I feel I am tough on albums simply because I average the score of the songs. Through this method, a pure 10/10 album is pretty much impossible because that would mean every song would have to get a 10/10. The curve is for some leniency because if an album reaches into the 8's or the 9's I still view it as a remarkable piece of work and still worthy of a full 5/5 or 4.5 at least.

9-10 = Masterpiece! I love this!
8-9 = Slightly Flawed but still amazing
7-8 = Great
6-7 = Good
5-6 = Above Average
4-5 = Below Average
3-4 = Poor
2-3 = Terrible
1-2 = I hate this
0-1 = Unlistenable

Essentially when broken down to rateyourmusic's 5 star standard it equals:

5 = masterpiece
4.5 = flawed but still amazing
4 = great
3.5 = good
3 = above average
2.5 = average
2 = below average
1.5 = poor
1 = terrible
.5 = unlistenable

If a rating has a + or -, it means that I deemed the song to be simply an interlude/prelude etc. and it only helps or hurts the final score by a small amount. I would rather judge an album mostly by the songs and minimally by its interludes or preludes etc. I also like to add bonus tracks to my overall score but I usually avoid rating demos or live versions because they already most likely appear on the release in a studio form. My rating system is not perfect but I have considered many options and I think this is the most accurate I can get to translate how I judge a piece of work from an artist.

Another aspect I judge is how much I enjoy the release. I do not add outside information to my judgement. For example, just because a release is historically significant or groundbreaking or pioneering in music, I don't hold any of these considerations in my grading. There is plenty of Rolling Stone reviews for the classics and I am strictly focused on how much I, myself, enjoys listening to the music. This means that I might trash on a classic record but I can still appreciate it for its history but not enjoy listening to it. This also means that some "lowbrow" music may score higher than "highbrow" music. It is purely subjective.

I also like to review everything that I rate so as to give a explanation or meaning to the ratings. My ratings can slightly change over time because I sometimes can hear something upon a later listen that I did not discover before and will increase or decrease the overall rating of an album.

I also like to include bonus tracks for albums. These are songs that were maybe recorded at the same time but however were not included on the first release (studio decisions, cohesion problems etc.). Some of these could be singles that were released around the same time but however were skipped when the album landed, so I like to include these songs to the overall experience when listening. In this way, I am mostly reviewing albums of what they may have been instead of what they are. You can call it my version of fantasy football for imaginary albums.

My reviews are twofold: The written section is my small attempt at trying to explain my thoughts through highly subjective means. The other review is the numbers at the end which is my attempt to quantify my enjoyment.

There is lots of music that I have not heard and I would appreciate recommendations and insight into new bands or artists! Thanks.