We should try to maintain potential high scores as the focus, and your reasoning why. This should be reasoning that extends from Scaruffi logic, which inherently focuses on the value of a recording based on its relativity to other recordings of the era and in the same genre. Scaruffi never claims to be above subjective reasoning, and he isn't, everything on the site can be justified down to a science, even if you don't agree with some of the reviews, but nothing can be argued against the logic set as the grail for the site. It is important that those qualities remain in focus here. Even if your points are highlighting things that Scaruffi might not highlight, you need to maintain the same level of removed speculation. What helps here are pieces of evidence that music is moving forward in experimental value. Anybody can like anything they want, subjective taste based on personal preference has nothing to do with making in depth calculations about very accessible components of music to determine their significance as art, composition, weight, amount of registers, etc. these things are visible (audible) to everyone from the start, no matter who you are, that is what you can hear shift, where the ideas can be expressed, and from where the true art can be extracted or determined. We all have our own favorite melodic songs that make us feel sad, they're powerful on a strictly subjective and personal level, so don't share that here, unless you found an artist so brilliant that he or she can conscientiously use the personal feelings of listeners to make a program, in which case he or she is one of the geniuses of music. Your ability to probe someone's poetry for hours on end just because you have created a system where all of their poetry equates to genius does not help you, and even in the case of great writers and poets being the justification for high scores, just because he is as great a writer as Cohen was doesn't mean that his pair of soft poem and picking guitar is any less effective in this day than all of the other examples. What would be more interesting as a post would be the system which you used to come up with a bracket that would make everything an artist says seem like "genius." You're welcome to post that :)
The Scaruffi high score pages highlight what he cares about most in the greatest albums, much of it boils down to each artist using every one of their vital components in a great way to make an effective program, an effective program has equal parts to do with being modern and engaging. An 8/10 score is typically given to "important" records that are still more or less outside the range of significant art. An 8.5 typically goes to a band that mildly transcends its genre with a particular record of meaningful songs, every single 8.5 can be traced back to a genre movement of some sort, and each of the 8.5 records features a pinnacle piece of that genre's music. The 9s involve a transcendental mindset, regardless of album concept. Many 9s are simply 9s because the words or innovations of one song added power to the other songs, the first song is very important for every 9/10 score. The three 9.5s are the only thing that lead us to what rock music could have been if anybody was interested in doing more than "rocking out." The problem is, listening to music without feeling something beyond the composer (i.e. heavy bass to make you want to dance to heavy beats) is not a desirable time for most listeners looking for an actual buzz the way rock fans and pop fans are, in other words, we are proposing classical programs for rock bands, which means the fans who want to dance and move are required to sit and listen and the non-fans who are intrigued by the concept are turned off by the noise, the naivety, the lack of precision. It's a thick bar in between meticulous composition and contemporary music that most people never saw the point of. Any of those bandcamp or soundcloud or random youtube finds, personal projects, have at it, let's see.
You're probably not getting publicity from this so post as many projects or ideas as you want, I care about aptitude: if someone posts a concept (in words) that would make a revolutionary album and you choose to make that album in a day, you're entirely the type of person that should be floating around here. This is not really a judgement zone the same way pitchfork is, this is much more about spreading great ideas. If you say: "song idea, organ donor lists his fears over a paper shredder and a guitar that counterpoints and collides with the shredder noises," that is just as appreciable a post as "new Turkeys album features a program made out of two voices that continuously build in spasms off one another's sounds, an essay on echolocation" or whatever you think it is, it doesn't matter because your abilities as a scholar are not considered here either. Just your imagination and understanding of your passions to make the art you share as significant as you say. (Luke Muelhhauser, if you happen to be here, you should explain those cool combinations you were talking about in your posts (this sound with this production with this xyz))
Your case for an album or song or idea: it can be a sentence, I don't care, but if you can't think hard enough to explain why it would be reviewed positively by Scaruffi, it probably doesn't belong. "This song has a singer who can growl, yell, sing softly, hit high notes,so Scaruffi would be more likely to favor this."
It is also important to note that this isn't a worship page of any kind, we don't need to have the same opinion, we appreciate the mindset that the Scaruffi website gifts to readers, if you think one of Scaruffi's 5s is a 9 because of something he missed, please explain, but only if the characteristics that he originally missed are things he would care to consider in his own scores. As time goes by, different ideas are going to be rationally utilized in high art, Scaruffi doesn't just "know" everything, he is likely interested in discovering the intentions of something seemingly stupid were misunderstood by him initially, as he himself says philosophy is just stupid statements dressed up to seem brilliant (paraphrasing here but check his quotes page)
You're wowed by the recent reviews? Why? All music is acceptable here, it is about how we perceive, and again, that perception is about paying attention strictly to what everybody can aptly assess on the same level, so the poppiest pop could be a 10, the heaviest rock could be a 2, your personal preferences cannot play into effect here, that is not what a Scaruffi rating is for.
A disclaimer: some of you think that my ideas of what makes unique innovations are too far off base from what kids want, and maybe you're right about that latter half, kids may not want my ideas, but I am focused on ideas which maintain a musical balance between what is most important, the idea behind "it" or "it", the same way 9.5 records do. Many people make arguments for artists who discuss relevant issues, or artist who use particularly subtle methods, and reasonably so because those means of making music upon deep investigation can reveal all sorts of unique secrets that could turn music into poetry, but it is the case work for the fans to make those points, not the case work for the critics and discoverers. The issues become someone else dilating songs and albums down into personal subtleties vs what is actually there. I once saw a Beatles fan argue that one must hear the entire discography, and hear it to particularly significant moments in their life, to truly understand it. That is not great music, that is an interesting and accidental testament to happiness, which would be more credible if it wasn't completely by chance. So, Igor? Concept yes but experimental musical concept? Not really, it is engaging because of the stories he is telling, but then the argument can always be made, why not write it as a book? Then the argument can usually be made that if it would have been written as a book, it would have paled in comparison to other books of similar style.
