Toward a consistent rating system

Now that I’m semi-regularly writing reviews for the Okazu site, I thought I should be a little more systematic in the way I rate things. I happened to stumble across the rating systems Robert Christgau has used for his consumer guides to music — one for music prior to 1990 and a second for music since then — and thought they might be worth adapting my own purposes.

Below is my attempt to harmonize these two schemes and adapt them to a 10-point scale. As always, any score I give will be a personal opinion expressed in the moment of my reviewing something. Howver, my goal is to score works such that when I look back at a given work, having reviewed more new works in the meantime, I would adjust my previous score by no more than one point either way.¹

In the list below I’ve included in parentheses the corresponding ratings that Christgau employs in his earlier and later reviews. Most of the phrasing is Christgau’s, modified to be more general.

• 10 (A+ / A+). A masterpiece of sustained beauty, power, and insight that should be experienced at least once by anyone even vaguely interested in the medium, and can be revisited repeatedly with pleasure by fans of it.

  I have not given a score of 10 to anything I’ve reviewed for Okazu, and I would be both surprised and delighted if in future I found something that deserved it.

• 9 (A / A), A great work that offers enduring pleasure and surprise with minimal moments of dullness or drops in quality; anyone who calls themselves a fan should experience it.

  I gave an overall score of 9 to volume 2 of Monthly in the Garden with My Landlord. I vacillated between an 8 and a 9, but ultimately decided on a 9 because the manga is consistently excellent.

• 8 (A- / A-). A very good work, at least half of which provides intense and consistent satisfaction to anyone open to its aesthetic.

  I gave overall scores of 8 to season 2 of Blank: The Series and to 23.5: The Series; both have issues here and there, but for the most part are very good.

• 7 (B+ / B+), A good work that is remarkable and of lasting interest in parts but also flirts with the humdrum or the half-assed.

  I gave overall scores of 7 to season 1 of Blank: The Series and to Chaser Game W; the former I marked down for the subtitles (among other things) and the latter for the rushed and somewhat unsatisfying ending.

• 6 (B / ***Honorable Mention). An enjoyable work that fans of the particular style or artists may treasure.

  I haven’t rated anything 6, 5, or 4, but will likely do so in future reviews.

• 5 (B- / **Honorable Mention). A competent or mildly interesting work that fans of the particular style or artists may enjoy.

• 4 (C+ / *Honorable Mention). A possible failed experiment or pleasant piece of hackwork that fans of the particular style or artist(s) may still like.

• 3 (C / Neither). A work that may impress in one or two parts with consistent craft or an arresting moment, but not elsewhere.

  I gave an overall score of 3 to the six episodes of Show Me Love that I watched. Heidi Amanda Jensen’s scenes were the only interesting parts of that show to me.

• 2 (C- / Choice Cut). A work worth consuming only in the form of an isolated scene on YouTube or a humorous meme.

• 1 (D+ / Dud). A work so bad that it’s not worth more than a moment’s thought, and then only to emphasize how bad it is.

Christgau’s first scheme includes even lower ratings, for example for works that “are frequently cited as proof that there is no God.” But I am not a cruel person, and I doubt I would ever review something that I’d score lower than 3.