Sarah Andrews' RARB scoring

Okay. Here are my closest approximations to scoring criteria. I have friends who judge homebrew beer competitions, and when they go to a competition all the judges have to taste a "control" beer, rate it, and make sure that all of the judges are within a 3 or 5 point (can't exactly remember) span of each other (on a 50 point scale). I don't think this could work for a cappella, nor do I think we should even try.

For one thing, every reviewer has their own taste. I may be really interested in arrangements, while another reviewer may be really picky about tuning, while another really thinks the solo should carry the show. I mean, everybody should be taking all those things (and more) into account, but everybody has priorities and preferences, and it's better to celebrate those differences than to make us all reviewing clones. That's where the comments come in — what did I focus on in giving a song a certain score? I think the numbers are useful, and the comments are useful, and add up to a more informative review.

Also, as long as a reviewer is consistent to his or her own system, it doesn't matter what the other people are giving an album. I'm not saying a person's tastes or criteria can't evolve over time - the more exposure and experience you have with something, the more nuances you notice and the more specific your preferences become. But as long as you try to keep your criteria as consistent as possible from one album to the next, the people reading the reviews will have a better idea of where you're coming from, and any more gradual changes will seem natural within the span of your reviews.

Anyway, to the criteria:

1

I can't even imagine giving a 1. A 1 is a song (or god forbid, an album) that should never have been recorded. Even the soloist's mom hates a 1. It has no redeeming qualities.

2

This would be hard to listen to without wincing. It has significant flaws in several areas — tuning, rhythm, arrangement, dynamics, solo. But there's something there to redeem it -a decent solo or staying in tune, for example.

3

Still not that pleasant to listen to. It has more of a structure to it, and fewer areas are out of whack or just to a lesser degree.

4

I can make it through the song but I'm in no hurry to put it back in the CD player. Still some noticeable flaws but also just the fact that there is no reason to listen to it. So they recorded this particular song — so what?

5

A serious case of giving me no reason to listen to this song. Listenable, but you wish the group had spent a little more time rehearsing or thinking about how to make the song better.

6

Listenable, even enjoyable in parts. But either flaws still remain or it is simply uninteresting. You may see hints of where a group wanted to go with the song, but they never got there.

7

This is above-average a cappella. There are only a few problems detracting from the rest of the song. Enjoyable, worth repeat listens, but no big "wow."

8

This is a really good song. I'd buy a CD if I'd heard only this song from it. There are only some minor flaws, or a little lack of vibrancy, keeping this song from being a 9 or 10.

9

It doesn't get much better than this. Almost always the best version of this song I've heard. Any flaws are because you looked for them, not because they stood out. I'd play it for a friend who is an a cappella skeptic, just to say I told them so.

10

Everything that 9 is, plus the big "wow" factor. Something really unique, never-before-seen in a cappella sort of thing. I could listen to it all day.

Sarah's Bio | RARB Home

Last modified: Fri Jun 20 15:08:05 PDT 1997