We live in the age of iPods, auxiliary cords, and mass music downloading. It’s been years since I remember walking down the aisles of Best Buy and choosing CDs or cassette tapes to play through my sleek silver boom box. And though these memories bring back a sense of nostalgia, searching for music via Internet is revolutionary and one of my very favorite things to do. The seemingly infinite space of the Internet contains a similarly seemingly infinite selection of music. From iTunes to SoundCloud to lesser-known IndieShuffleMusicBlog, there is constantly a world of music waiting to be explored. However, infinity can be overwhelming, and in the search for music many turn to music blogs and journalists to find communities with similar taste, find new artists, and learn about what’s relevant in the industry. These analyses help to point us readers in interesting directions in terms of what we decide to listen to next.

 

As stated in an article by the American Press Institute, “The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, [and] their societies…” According to this definition, music criticism as a branch of journalism must embody the information, insights, and suggestive analysis necessary for readers to be able to make their own informed opinions about each subject post-read. I’ve tried my hand at writing promotional-style reviews and know that this is a tough job. Writing one brief review involved the necessary steps of listening to the same songs over and over, consulting multiple sources, and struggling to find the best choice of words to describe the unique sound of that particular band.

 

The point I’m trying to make is that music reviews are powerful and complex. They can give a voice to the artist, invoke peoples’ interest, and move music in new directions, engaging niche audiences. Music writing influences peoples’ opinions so should be held to a high standard in the comprehensiveness of its content and analysis. However, this standard is completely opposed by the rating system that is prevalent in music journalism today.

 

The analytics of music can be broken down into infinite categories: lyrical imagery, relatable messages, difficult instrumental solos, originality, general popularity, the list goes on. It is impossible to address every facet of a song/album/artist, so music reviewers must pick and choose. Reframed, music reviews are mere highlights of what a writer finds worthy of conversation. Music reviewers write with inherent bias—we all do, especially when interpreting something like music or art, which can be interpreted different ways. This is not to say that this is a bad thing. Sharing your perspective to provide inspiration and thought in others is what music journalism is meant to do, as long as it does not appear to claim concrete truths or establish purely factual comparison.

 

“Along the way, the long, 19-song album offers its share of groaners, missteps and songs more indebted to trendy production than solid craft.” 4/5 Stars – Jim Farber, New York Daily News

 

“Even on its surface, though, it’s the meatiest set he’s produced in years” 3/5 Stars – Christopher Weingarten, Rolling Stone

 

“Music is the real joy for Drake, and If You’re Reading This It’s Too Late is best enjoyed as an exercise in the casual excellence of the artist as rhymer and purveyor of hooks.” 8.3/10 – Craig Jenkins, Pitchfork.com

 

Above are excerpts from three music articles whose words say one thing but whose accompanied ratings say another. As an example, let’s look deeper into the last one. Craig Jenkins wrote this review for ultra-famous rapper Drake’s surprise release album, “If You’re Reading This It’s Too Late.” Pitchfork is a popular music website and surely knew the article would see a lot of traffic. Jenkins was most certainly chosen for a reason, and I infer that he is a respected, well-versed writer and music analyst. Jenkins covers Drake’s style, the messages foreshadowed in his lyrics, and his evolution as a musician. It is a thoughtfully written and well-researched review that draws strong positive attention to Drake. For this reason, the rating of 8.3/10 slapped next to it looks extremely out of place. Jenkins does not explicitly state anything negative about “If You’re Reading This It’s Too Late,” and the rating is not referenced one time. As a reader, I question why not a 10/10? In Jenkins’ review, the 8.3 is not positioned as an argument to be expanded upon, but a seemingly random label. And Jenkins is not alone. This phenomenon plagues music journalism, undermining the analysis of reviews with randomness and presumption.

 

I recently conducted an interview with music critic Nick Boyd who writes for the Michigan Daily. Nick has written for the Daily for over a year, covering albums, singles, music videos, and local concerts. Though he expressed that he too finds ratings difficult to assign and somewhat irrelevant, he shared an interesting perspective: “The rating system is almost just a way to stir the pot, to inspire interest. I don’t think the rating system is of much value and if I’m just writing on my own I’m not going to give something an F, but I think mainly it’s a way to create dialogue and I think if you look at it from that perspective it’s not always a terrible thing.” In saying this, Nick presented an interesting point. Maybe the rating system is merely in place to attract people to read the substantive articles. If they serve this important purpose, then can be all that bad?

 

Yes. Yes they can.

 

If labels are what people need to sort through what’s worth the read, there are ways to mark albums or artists more accurately without portraying something as concrete as a numbered rating. Instead of articles titled, “Top Albums of 2014” ordered by subjective rating, how about “Most Commented On Albums of 2014,” “Most Popular Songs This Summer,” or “15 Up & Coming Indie Rockers.” There are ways to acceptably quantify music and entice readers without deeming some better than others and subverting peoples’ ability to form an opinion by a rating that appears mathematical and final. During our conversation, Nick Boyd said himself that, “…disagreement in taste is part of what makes music interesting. As a music critic I’m just trying to inform more than condemn or anything like that.” If this is so, numbered ratings give off the opposite impression.

 

On a similar plane, music award shows have long been criticized for their arbitrary nature. Many people scoff at The Grammys, which is criticized for its ambiguous voting process, neglect to recognize deserving artists, inability to understand hip-hop, and profitable motivations. The Grammys website admits that to achieve “Voting Member” status, one must be in “good dues standing” in the Academy, which further highlights the elite and monotonous nature of the group. Artists from Jay-Z to Bon Iver have posed the question, how can one group of people really understand what music is all about and then pick a winner out of countless deserving artists?

 

Especially now that we live in a digital age in which infinite genres and potential artist roam, classifying and sorting music is more difficult than it has ever been. There are subgenres popping up from “Alternative R&B” to “Tropical House.” With the rapid expansion of music selection and large-scale downloading abilities, nobody is an expert. Who is to say what deserves 5/5 stars or a Grammy? It’s time to rid music articles, which are rich with opportunity for discussion, from arbitrary numbers that falsely depict certitude.

 

In the comments of an article about music journalism in the digital age, a user wrote, “What do readers want? What do I want? A good read. Honesty, I hope. Freshness. Passion. Something real. A Yaz record. Something smart. Something that doesn’t reek of corporate interests” (Eddy). This commenter, Kev Eddy, embodies the archetype of readers music journalism should entertain. We want spirit. We want conversation and compelling analysis. We want the opportunity to think for ourselves and add our own two cents to the discussion. Ratings give off the impression that music writers are judges with a scorecard, but they aren’t. The job they inhibit as journalists is to interpret, analyze, and share ideas. Rating systems in music writing clash with the inherent values of journalism and art. It’s time to consider letting them go.