|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Paulie PeanutsPaulie Peanuts Date: Jan 23, 2007 08:28
I've always had a pretty good idea about how strong each year is for
music, among the years that I am mainly interested in (late 40s to
early 70s), but I wanted to get a more precise idea, so I devised a
formula based on my rating system for songs.
RATING - POINTS
10 = 5 points
9 = 3 points
8 = 2 points
7 = 1 point
6 = 1/2 point
Any song that rates below a 6 is average or worse in my system and gets
no points here.
Here are the top 20 years for me. The "SONGS" column indicates how many
songs from that year got a rating of 6 or better.
RANK YEAR SONGS TOTAL POINTS
1 1956 785 1283.5
2 1955 719 1204
3 1957 642 1027.5
4 1954 628...
|
| Show full article (1.50Kb) |
|
| | 33 Comments |
|
|
Author: ScarlottiScarlotti Date: Jan 23, 2007 10:18
Paulie Peanuts wrote:
> I've always had a pretty good idea about how strong each year is for
> music, among the years that I am mainly interested in (late 40s to
> early 70s), but I wanted to get a more precise idea, so I devised a
> formula based on my rating system for songs.
>
>
> RATING - POINTS
> 10 = 5 points
> 9 = 3 points
> 8 = 2 points
> 7 = 1 point
> 6 = 1/2 point
>
> Any song that rates below a 6 is average or worse in my system and gets
> no points here.
>
> Here are the top 20 years for me. The "SONGS" column indicates how many
> songs from that year got a rating of 6 or better.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.67Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: curtjester1curtjester1 Date: Jan 23, 2007 10:38
Paulie Peanuts wrote:
> I've always had a pretty good idea about how strong each year is for
> music, among the years that I am mainly interested in (late 40s to
> early 70s), but I wanted to get a more precise idea, so I devised a
> formula based on my rating system for songs.
>
>
> RATING - POINTS
> 10 = 5 points
> 9 = 3 points
> 8 = 2 points
> 7 = 1 point
> 6 = 1/2 point
>
> Any song that rates below a 6 is average or worse in my system and gets
> no points here.
>
> Here are the top 20 years for me. The "SONGS" column indicates how many
> songs from that year got a rating of 6 or better.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.71Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Dean F.Dean F. Date: Jan 23, 2007 13:38
Though I've never initiated a Bruce-like point system, I can tell you that
two of my all-time favorite years for music are 1956 and 1965.
|
| |
| 21 Comments |
|
|
Author: yougotlucky215yougotlucky215 Date: Jan 23, 2007 14:38
Dean F. wrote:
> Though I've never initiated a Bruce-like point system, I can tell you that
> two of my all-time favorite years for music are 1956 and 1965.
My favorite years are 1966, 1963, 1970 and 1960.
Larry
|
| |
| 17 Comments |
|
|
Author: yougotlucky215yougotlucky215 Date: Jan 23, 2007 14:45
Mike G wrote:
> "Paulie Peanuts" aol.com> wrote:
>
> Gee, what a shocker to open this post and find more pitifully nerdy
> lists and numbers.
>>> RATING - POINTS
>> 10 = 5 points
>> 9 = 3 points
>> 8 = 2 points
>> 7 = 1 point
>> 6 = 1/2 point
>
> Oh sweet jesus. Goofy, unsubstantiated ratings, TWO abstraction
> levels deep. This doesn't even make any sense by your internal
> standards. Either your 6-10 ratings are illegitimate or your 1/2-5
> ratings are illegitimate, but they can't BOTH be "accurate." Is a
> "10" song 66%% better than a "9" song, or only 11%% better? Is a "9"
> song 50%% better than a "8," or only 12.5%% better?
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: xpenenyxxpenenyx Date: Jan 23, 2007 15:09
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:55:34 GMT, Mike G aol.com> wrote:
>"Paulie Peanuts" aol.com> wrote:
>
>Gee, what a shocker to open this post and find more pitifully nerdy
>lists and numbers.
|
| Show full article (0.78Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
Author: InthewayIntheway Date: Jan 23, 2007 15:26
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
Author: InthewayIntheway Date: Jan 23, 2007 15:31
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Paulie PeanutsPaulie Peanuts Date: Jan 23, 2007 16:23
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
