Hi and hello, everyone. Anthony Fantano here, the internet's busiest music nerd.

What's in a score? A grade, a numerical evaluation. Apparently a lot, or at least there can be, because internet music reviewing pioneers, Pitchfork, pitchforkmedia.co? You know who they are. They have seen fit to release a series of explanations for what certain grades within their 10 out of 10 decimal scale mean verbally and what they say in terms of the quality of the album that they're reviewing. It's also been a while since I've talked about this very topic myself, so I thought it might be worth revisiting because obviously, there are still people here and there who will take certain grades certain ways, even though I'm not necessarily intending for them to take away from maybe a seven out of 10 review that this is one of the worst, most garbage albums I've ever heard in my life.

But before I get into Pitchfork's explanations, let me just say grading systems these days are kind of all the same. While over the years, and all my time writing and reading reviews, I have seen a handful of novel grading systems here and there that might be based on color or something like that. For the most part, whatever website or critic you are reading, if they are going to be giving some grade or evaluation of a project, they're pretty much working off a zero to 10 scale to one degree or another. Because what is an 'A-', if not a 9. 0? What is a five out of 10 if not a two and a half stars?

Of course, there are some exceptions and nuance to these grading scales and the differences between them, but at least in my opinion, their major functions are all the same, and which one you're using all depends upon your style and maybe the vibe you want to give off. With that being said, let's look at Pitchfork's various score ranges here and see how much of these explanations line up with what I'm trying to when I give a certain score.

Okay, first off, 0. 0 – 0. 9, "worthless." Just, "worthless." Okay, while I guess I do agree with that in a sense, this is one of the more scant explanations of any of their score ranges. And if you are going to slap something with a zero out of 10, I would think that you might have a little bit more to convey about it by giving it that score. Like, for example, if I am going to give something a zero out of 10, a decent zero, a strong zero, maybe even the lightest of ones, I am pretty much communicating that this is going to be one of the worst things, in my opinion, that you will ever hear, or at the very least, we'll hear this year.

So while, yes, in one sense, an album getting that score could be worthless, it's also so terrible that it's nearly shocking. And I will say scores within this range aren't necessarily all bad because some albums this terrible can actually be so awful that they're entertaining to some degree. A so bad, it's good situation, which I think very much works in music as it does in film, at least for me. I know there are some people that can't stand bad music regardless of how funny it may come across in some contexts. But yeah, around the zero out of 10 range, you're talking like deep levels of awful. So bad, you almost can't look away.

Then from here, Pitchfork says 1. 0 – 1. 9, "terrible and symptomatic of some larger problem in music or the world." Which is like such a broad definition. And how large does this problem need to be in order for it to earn this score? Tell me on the scale from Gen Z eating Tide Pods to international armed conflict. Yeah, personally, in order for me to give an album a one, I don't know if it needs to have necessarily destroyed lives. Certainly that could help sour my opinion on a record. But for a record landing in this range, yes, in my opinion, it is awful. I absolutely find it annoying, cannot even stand it in the slightest. I foresee myself never, ever listening to it again in my life. In fact, even if somebody put a song from it on at a party, I might snicker or be rude about it, which honestly, as much as people stereotype me as being that guy, rarely am I. For the most part, I don't give a fuck what people play at parties or DJ sets or whatever. But still, to be in this range, truly terrible, truly awful, annoying album, there could be a few bright spots here and there in the tracklist, but for the most part, this is a very hopeless experience.

Okay, Pitchfork says, from 2. 0 – 2. 9, "terrible." Okay, so we're going from "terrible and it's harming the world in some way" to just "terrible." This is just terrible without any greater consequences outside of its artistic borders. Personally, I would apply a lot of what I said to the last segment of scores to this one as well. It's just like degrees of awfulness. Because, yeah, in the grander scheme of things, there's not that much separation between a decent two and a decent one. Both pretty terrible, terrible projects, in my opinion.

Now, moving up in the Pitchfork scale, things are getting a bit brighter. 3. 0 – 3. 9, "really bad, incompetent, and thoughtless." Now, for me personally, if I'm giving something a light three, a strong three, something in that range, you're just barely on the cusp of the numbers where things are not going to be red [flannel] anymore. So while it's terrible and it's awful, and I never want to listen to it again for the most part, there could be maybe a track or two that are worth revisiting on this. And maybe the sound, the style, fits really snuggly within a trend going on in music, either a current one or a classic one. There's some level of focus to what's going on on the record. There is a vision, but the execution is incredibly poor. Maybe there's a level of coherence there, but there's far better compared to what you're going to hear on this that you could be listening to instead.

Now, moving on from there, 4. 0 – 4. 9. Pitchfork says, "Pretty bad." I would mostly echo this, but also add in addition to this, yeah, this is a bad project to me. This is a project I don't like overall. But considering that I do usually take into account how many songs across an album are appealing to me, there could be at least a few songs, three, four tops that I think are okay. Not great, not amazing, just alright. And even though I don't like this project, there are most likely going to be some people out there who this will appeal to. So sometimes reviews that are landing in that four, light four, strong four range, it could very much be like a, 'it's just very much not for me' sort of thing, which I mean, after doing this for years and covering so many records, I do have a pretty strong sense of when certain things are truly terrible, truly awful, literally have almost no redeeming value culturally, and when something just simply isn't working for me, either because of my personal preferences for one sound or another, or maybe because of just the process under which I am listening and consuming and pulling certain things apart, maybe my expectations are too high, higher than that of your average Spotify consumers just sauntering into a random playlist or something.

From 5. 0 – 5. 5, Pitchfork says, "Not very Good, but not a total disaster."

Then from 5. 6 – 5. 9, "decent record, a few things going for it, but a handful of major issues overwhelm the experience." I don't entirely disagree, but I would say, especially anything landing in that decent five to light five range, to me, as far as an overall experience, I'm not trying to communicate the record is like, garbage and terrible and absolutely worthless. I'm not liking it. I'm not disliking it. It's just there. It's really a void of a reaction, I suppose you could say. When it comes to the idea of a "decent album," as Pitchfork just mentioned there, I save that more for like anything in the six range. This is where I'm essentially saying my overall experience of this album, even if I'm not crazy about it, head over heels about it, was pretty much positive. There are definitely highlights here, elements of style that are admirable, maybe a few bangers and highlights that I see myself playing here and there throughout the year. But also there are some low points, too. And as an overall project, maybe it doesn't come together all that well. Could be all over the place, could be a mess, could also be very one-dimensional, too. And that's the thing. There are numerous reasons why albums within these ranges can earn these scores. It's not always the same reasoning, the same criteria all the time. I do think there are some people that don't really reckon with that fact.

But Pitchfork says in terms of the 6. 0 – 6. 5 range, "pretty good, not great, some unavoidable issues, but interesting. Fans of the band or genre will get the most out of it," which I think is something worth communicating about any album in this style, too. Might be more something for diehards, that thing.

Then moving on to 6.6 – 6. 9. "Good record. A few issues, but worth your attention if you're into the band or genre. Maybe starts strong and fades a little by the end. Includes a few songs that don't move the needle, but also has a handful of outstanding moments." This is also a score, a range that I tend to work in when I'm talking about an album, when I am approaching a band or an artist who I think maybe from here had some cool ideas, but maybe they're early on in their career and they're incubating things a little bit still. Meaning this is a score I will throw down when I'm feeling like this is okay, but I see a lot of potential in the future for this, possibly.

Going to 7. 0 – 7. 5. "Very good record. Recommend checking it out. Hardly a dull moment, a great hang. Maybe plays it safe but executes everything very well. Maybe takes some risks, but doesn't land everything perfectly." For me, this is a project that overall might have several weak spots on it. Four songs that are either super bland or maybe even terrible to some degree, maybe even runs pretty consistent for the most part, but has a super weak start or a super weak finish, doesn't nail the landing. But there's still some great moments, and if you squint hard enough, you can see what it's going for. You don't really need to alter the concept or the idea of the album too much in your head to see what could potentially improve it. It's not like a mess strewn about the ground or anything like that. It's mostly a coherent vision. This is a record that has focus and heart and energy to it. What's holding it back essentially is just a bit of inconsistency and maybe even a lack of a distinct style or sound. And while they are listenable and they are consistent and enjoyable while they're on, maybe there's not really a whole lot about them that calls me back to it because they don't stand out.

All right, moving up to 7. 6 – 7. 9. "Excellent record, highly recommended, best in class for a genre, not a bad song on it," which I mean, love that energy, love that praise, love that positivity. For those kinds of categorizations and comments, I would usually save those for something that's a little bit higher, like "best in genre," either for the year or for a longer span of time, I'm thinking more like in the 8 – 9 range.

So now moving on to 8. 0 – 8. 5, "essential listening, among the best records of the year, shows a mastery of craft or taps into the sublime, feels a part of the zeitgeist, steps out of its genre, takes big risks that pay off," which some of that I do echo if I were to give something like a light eight to a decent eight. But I don't know. I don't think a record needs to step super broadly outside of its respective style or aesthetic focus in order for it to land in this range. It just needs to do that particular thing super duper, duper well. Like, really excel at it in comparison to its competitors.

But I find it interesting that Pitchfork is incorporating commentary here about something feeling like it's a part of the zeitgeist, which can be something that's very difficult to gauge upon the release of an album. I mean, for sure, there are certain musical trends, eras, and cycles that come in with a lot of hype. It certainly feels like there's something going on there when the album drops. A moment is occurring, but sometimes that can just serve as a distraction and ends up petering out very quickly down the road once all the hype is dead. Then you've really done nothing more other than just invest in a stock that ended up just crashing six months later. Sometimes what truly does become the zeitgeist, that takes years to actually build up in terms of influence. While there are publications that are well within their right to make those kinds of calls and guesses, and sometimes I've had those feelings myself, of course, I have a hard time reckoning with the idea of working that into my scores in some way.

For example, when I reviewed Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp a Butterfly, and I gave it a 10, did I love it? Did I think it was a mind-blowing album? And in addition to that, did I also feel like on some level this album was going to have some major, significant, cultural impact in the near future? Yes, I did. But also simultaneously, when I gave Lingua Ignota's Sinner Get Ready a 10 out of 10, I was in no way trying to communicate, 'Yeah, this album is going to have the same commercial run T-Pab is.' No, I did that and I said that because I thought it was a really emotionally powerful experience, well-produced, well-composed, incredibly written, incredibly performed. I would absolutely slap another record that I felt those same things about with the same score, regardless of how much hype it was generating prior to its release or in the aftermath.

8. 6 – 9. 0. "A major statement worthy of your time and energy, no matter your taste. Transcends genre, claims new ground, a total and intentional work of art, possesses an aura that makes it vital to its genre, its era, or the artist's career." Yeah, I mean, within this score range from giving something a strong 8, light 9, we are talking about at least one of the best albums in a certain artist's discography, and at the very least, one of the records you're going to hear within that year for a certain style. May also be, in fact, a record that I find myself coming back to years down the road. To me, that album is what is landing in this range. The entire tracklist, for the most part, is fucking fire, maybe save for a song or two that is just okay. In terms of being charitable, an album I'm giving a light eight to can even have a song on it that maybe I don't like really at all, like a single skip, a single possible skip.

But from this 8. 6 – 9. 0 range, we're talking absolutely no skips whatsoever. Even the tracks that you're not crazy about are at the very least listenable, enjoyable. It's not just an assembly of tracks. It's a body of fucking work that either through a concept or just a lot of cohesion, aesthetically and musically, just comes together very well.

Because, again, keep in mind, when we are reviewing albums and we our scoring albums, we're talking about the listening experience of hearing that album as a body of work. We're not just talking about whether or not we like a bunch of tracks within this 35-song slopfest that some random artist threw together on an entire project and just pooped out into the world. That's not to say long albums can't be good. Certainly they can. There are a lot of long albums I love to death. But often those albums, while still being long, are also very carefully curated and have a very precise, well thought-out flow to make sure that two or even three hour listen sometimes is not a daunting one. But yeah, I would also echo sentiments here that something landing in this range is often so good for whatever it's doing, I think music fans broadly should be trying it out, even if it's in a sound or a style or from an artist that you're not super familiar with, because often these are the kinds of albums that end up being like, they're really great big gateway projects.

And getting closer to the top here, obviously, 9. 1 – 9. 9, "a monument, an instant classic, sounds ahead of its time, sounds timeless, immediately belongs in the canon. Entire genres could be created in its wake." Okay, that's insane. There's so many records I would score in this range that did not have entire genres built off of their sound, nor did I expect that. Either way, at least for me personally, a record that I am talking about in this range, like a light nine to strong nine range, when it comes to a year-end list that is undoubtedly a top 10 record for me. If I haven't given something a 10 out of 10 within that year, this is the album that, for me personally, has the potential to be an album of the year. This is the release that when I hear it, I'm thinking, this is one of the best albums I've heard from this artist. This is one of the best albums I've heard in this style in years. This is the album that I could see people going back to 5, 10 years from now and thinking, 'holy shit, this is really holding up as some great stuff.' Maybe not a record that is ahead of the curve or a record that is going to be broadly influential, but an album that I personally foresee is like, it's going to retain its listening value, regardless of whether or not that's the record I would just listen to casually, while I'm driving around or doing whatever, or one of those deep, intense, headphone listens where you really need to be giving it your undivided attention.

The kinds of albums that immediately whip me up emotionally and pull me into their world, are impeccably consistent, unique, and creative. Standout sound, style, production, quality writing throughout. Not a weak moment on it for the most part. Maybe there's a little something about how the flow or the greater vision of the record comes together that leaves something to be desired. But for the most part, anything I'm giving a nine, anything I'm slapping with a score in this range, to my ears, is excellence. Just impressive on all fronts, and I'm not sure if there's much more to say than that.

Then there's Pitchfork saying that a 10 essentially stands for, "a masterpiece, one of the best albums of all time, will be culturally and aesthetically important many years from now in some way," which, again, as I said earlier, that's a really tough call to make. I mean, even in the case of Pitchfork, they have given tens to albums that did not really go on to make much of a cultural impact down the road. And honestly, at the end of the day, I don't think an album needs to be perfect or great as an album experience for it to be super influential or for it to be culturally or aesthetically important. Still, though, a 10 for sure to me is like a masterpiece album. Over my years of reviewing and having covered thousands of albums at this point, I haven't even given out 10, 10 out of 10s. It's not something that happens that often. I think that alone says just how rare it is that you run across an album of that quality in terms of every song being necessary, incredible, overall flow of the project being consistent.

Typically, projects that are this good to me have at least some x-factor, something that truly makes it a unique listen and experience, something you really cannot get anywhere else, even from other artists or records within that lane. It's just something very specific to this album in terms of how it sounds or the message it conveys or its performances. And pretty much every positive thing I had to say about records that land in the light nine to strong nine range also apply to this, too. But even more so, of course. And there you go. That's pretty much the rundown of my scores, Pitchforks as well.

Are scores even necessary at this point? You'll have to let me know. And if all of you in the comments say, 'No, they're not,' I will stop scoring albums forever. But only if it's something that all of you agree on, not a single person can disagree.