Painting's he's PAINTED. He's a PAINTER. I've made that clear as I called him a painter. I fail how to see how that wasn't obvious, or at least how you didn't even think about what I was saying.

I know it wasn't the best example, but say I was talking about "Things to rate that I've rated."

A painter who paints only one great painting and nothing else is a skilled painter. A painter who paints a million and a half ****e paintings is not a skilled painter. I fail to see how that isn't obvious, or at least how you didn't even consider that your analogy might not be perfect.

You mean like an art critic? If an art critic told me how many paintings he'd seen I'd assume he was a shallow, pretentious ****.

It's just called recognizing the things you do better than other things you do. And I even flat-out said it wasn't the best analogy.

OK, I'll let you decide. How good or bad of a critic do you think I am? Am I decent? Does the 100 system annoy you or interest you? Have I improved since I first got here?

Doesn't Pitchfork rate albums this way?

But I do agree, I find immense rating systems to be pretty useless. The point of "ratings" (imo at least) is to place an album into a general tier, which fragmenting them into decimals sort of takes away from. Even if intuitively (or god forbid: mathematically) you figured "Album X is a 92", it means nothing to most people when they're comparing that to your 91s or 94s. It's the ballpark you're aiming for, not the bullseye.

This, I totally get.

If I read one of your reviews I usually skip to the end cause you tend to bloviate.

I'll try tro tone down on the bloviating then.

You like a lot of crap so you're a bad critic.

Says the guy who admits his own music is ****. :P