How many **rated** tracks do you have?

[twinbee]

Af few months ago, we had a thread asking how many tracks people had in their collection:
http://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewto ... 11&t=26265

Perhaps more interesting though in a way is how many *rated* tracks people have. This shows that they take an interest in the music collection rather than just having it archived (of course, there are good reasons for just archiving, especially if you're a DJ )

To find the number of rated tracks, go to: Library -> Files to Edit -> Unknown Rating
The number will appear in the bottom left of the screen (just above the Windows Start menu on my PC).
Subtract the number of "Unknown Rating" tracks from from the total number of tracks you have, and voila!

I have 1665 rated so far (out of 4682 total), and counting

*EDIT* If no-one objects, then those with autoranking scipts are currently excluded from this poll. That would artifically raise the number of rated tracks. And as much as I think the idea of autoranking would be nice and efficient, I'm not convinced the current state of the art is (or even can be) sufficient enough. If you must still vote, then try to estimate those you have manually ranked yourself.

[Eyal]

In my case this value means nothing because I have used a few auto-rating scripts, which finally did not satisfy my needs.

[MusicBringer]

None of my music collection is rated.
I cannot understand the importance you attach to this function.
Am I missing something...

My collection is 50,000+ tracks and carefully tagged.

[Nebbin]

None of my music collection is rated.
I cannot understand the importance you attach to this function.
Am I missing something...

If it's not a function that's important to you, then you probably don't need to worry about it. Sometimes it seems people want very different things out of their libraries - each to their own. Since you've already properly tagged all your tracks, maybe that's all you need.

Personally I find ratings fairly useful:
- for sorting preferred versions / remakes etc of the same song;
- for use as memory flags for songs which have been a major part of the "soundtrack of my life" kinda thing;
- to create fast-access, random, auto-playlists of loved songs; and
- for simply sifting out the dross on an album from what I'd actually like to listen to again. Fifty thousand tracks is a lot to do it all by memory...

Obviously though, the biggest problems for rating music in a large library are:
- the huge investment in time required; and
- that the purely subjective basis for such a system has difficulty taking into account the ever-changing nature of one's feelings towards a track over time /mood swing / over-exposure;
- any rating system tends to "creep" out of sync (ie. tracks you give 3 stars to when you initially start rating, may only be rated to 2 stars or maybe 4 stars if you were to review it 12 months later.) I try to get around this by creating "reference" tracks and keyword lists for each star to help understand more objectively where a track may fall. Still, it's not always obvious where a track should sit...

or is that being too anal? lol

Anyway, I like Twinbee's interesting idea for this poll (even if it doesn't work for everyone across the board), as it's true that many people just collect without another thought as to what they have. It also shows just how tedious / frustrating it can be to try and rate your complete database.

(EDIT: As an indication, I've only rated 11,563 tracks out of 51,344. All, with the exception of about 3,000, have been otherwise tagged to my satisfaction.)

[Eyal]

In my opinion, this mad "rating" matter should not exist at all. It's just a waste of time. Human taste is constantly changing and what does it give to know how a song was liked in a certain period? If a song is so good why don't we just listen to it time after time, day after day, for years and years? Because music is nothing if we take it out from its context, the thoughts and feelings we have each time we listen to it.

Do not apply it only to MediaMonkey, it's a general behaviour in a "modern civilized democratic consumer society". Many persons will go see a good rated movie, read a good rated book, listen to top rated music (etc.) only because it is good rated.

But it's like it is.
It takes all sorts to make a world.

[twinbee]

It also shows just how tedious / frustrating it can be to try and rate your complete database.

To reduce the tedium, I concentrate on rating those (on the spot) which are rated higher than say 2 or 3. Either that, or when I'm in a rating mood (course, they don't all have to be done at once).

- that the purely subjective basis for such a system has difficulty taking into account the ever-changing nature of one's feelings towards a track over time /mood swing / over-exposure;

Ah, yes over-exposure. This can seriously bias a track towards a lower rating if one's not careful. That's why I always try to give a score that would reflect my initial reaction to the tune (or more accurately, the estimated average amount of pleasure/enjoyment that the piece has given me (/will give me) over time).

- any rating system tends to "creep" out of sync (ie. tracks you give 3 stars to when you initially start rating, may only be rated to 2 stars or maybe 4 stars if you were to review it 12 months later.) I try to get around this by creating "reference" tracks

Good idea! However, you may be adjusting the scores so as to allow more 'room' for higher ratings etc. This is why I wish MM would allow more levels of scores (in fact the internal MM database allows 0 to 100 - perhaps they intend to extend the functionality in future).

(EDIT: As an indication, I've only rated 11,563 tracks out of 51,344.

Seriously impressive - congrats ;D

In my opinion, this mad "rating" matter should not exist at all. It's just a waste of time. Human taste is constantly changing

It's changing in the sense we naturally grow bored of a tune over time, but some grow more boring quicker than others. Other tunes have lasted surprisingly long. Some tunes start off great, and get crap quite quick. Other tunes, it's the reverse. We have to figure out the estimated average. Tricky stuff, but it's rewarding, and there are many benefits to ranking music...

Also, as Nebbin said, it's great for filtering out the dross (I tend to delete the unlistenable tunes rather than keep it, but I have quite a few 'limbo' tunes which I'd rarely want to listen to again, but are not worth deleting forever).

and what does it give to know how a song was liked in a certain period? If a song is so good why don't we just listen to it time after time, day after day, for years and years?

Good question. All songs (apart from maybe the VERY top cream, which haven't been composed yet), deteriorate over time, but for newcomers to that music, it will obviously be as good as new. People can compare favourites, and find others with similar tastes much more easily. Also, I find that if I leave a tune for a while, it's more fun to listen to later (almost reaching its original level of subjective quality).

Because music is nothing if we take it out from its context, the thoughts and feelings we have each time we listen to it.

I happen to believe that even outside of subjective human opinion, music has an 'absolute' quality (probably multi-dimensional, but we can still sum these up to make an overall score). Even if this isn't true, then it's still worth ranking music for your own benefit so that you can enjoy your own music more (and for the other reasons listed above).

[Peke]

31765 tracks have some sort of Rating 25329 Bombed = 57094 tracks.

[Lowlander]

Rating is essential for me in combination with Auto-Playlists. As I prefer to keep complete albums even if many songs basically suck this is a quick method of creating Auto-Playlists with songs I'd like to listen to. The other key ingredient for my Auto-Playlists is genre.

As for fading tastes, I tend to know what I like and that holds true for the long future in most cases. And the occasional song I start to dislike I can always rate down.

Rating might not seem to make sense for a small library or those that only keep the songs they like, but on larger libraries it can become an essential tag.

[Nebbin]

It's true, a lot of tracks do slowly lose their gloss over time, and thus as Eyal stated, we don't listen to them over and over again. Pop music is especially dominated by this trend, and I find this more so the case in recent years. Often I find a song, which I may enjoy when first released, dates very quickly, and if heard again (even 6-12 months later) it subsequently rates very poorly - and unfortunately this makes any rating system almost a joke. For this reason I also use other methods to track this type of music, such as noting in MM which songs were released as singles from an album, and collecting my country's "top 50" singles and albums charts every week.

However, there is still a lot of music that lasts - including tracks from a loved artist, or certain 'special' tracks regardless of age (sadly, it seems I can't stop enjoying an assortment of music from the '80s ), and a lot of classical interpretations can retain their high rankings for many decades (Glenn Gould anyone?). For these I find a rating system works very well.

Since many of us try to keep whole albums together rather than just storing the preferred tracks, I've found a rating system is very useful. (BTW, Peke - Crikey, that's a lot of 'bomb' rated songs - especially as a percentage of your whole DB )

[Nebbin]

... on larger libraries it can become an essential tag.

It would be soooo much more useful too, if only I could complete the task lol

[spacefish]

Sorry, I answered your poll before I read your post. The nature of polls, I guess. I do use an auto-rate script and wouldn't think of using anything else. As I'm 44 years old now, much of my taste has changed over the years, and thus so have my ratings. I neither have the will nor the patience to rate every single track by hand only to find out weeks or months later that something I thought was really ace is now just blah. I certainly don't want to constantly RErate all my tracks. I'm very glad for Big Berny's AutoRateAccurate which uses a bunch of criteria to rate my tracks. I'm thoroughly satisfied with its functionality now and I've only been using it for about 6 months. From experience, I can only expect that it will be even more accurate over time, changing ratings with my mood without me having to lift a finger. Love for the lazy.

[twinbee]

Sorry, I answered your poll before I read your post. The nature of polls, I guess.

Oh no you've ruined the poll Oh well, I'll let you off this time

I'm guessing that these kind of autorating scripts check to see whether the tune has been played all the way through to see if you didn't skip it. But as I see it, the problem comes when you're away, or someone else is playing your music (like at a party etc.). Crap tracks will get lifted up this way...

Often I find a song, which I may enjoy when first released, dates very quickly, and if heard again (even 6-12 months later) it subsequently rates very poorly - and unfortunately this makes any rating system almost a joke.

Well in a sense the piece stays at the same quality, and although it's time which can make a piece more subjectively boring, one can easily make a DJ type script to take into account both rating and playcount/lastTimePlayed to play that piece less often.

[spacefish]

I'm guessing that these kind of autorating scripts check to see whether the tune has been played all the way through to see if you didn't skip it.

Yes, there is skip detection, and several formulas in Big Berny's script you can choose from to fit your listening style.

But as I see it, the problem comes when you're away, or someone else is playing your music (like at a party etc.). Crap tracks will get lifted up this way...

No one except me EVER plays my music. Period. Heck, my husband thinks most of my tracks are crap anyway.

[nynaevelan]

No one except me EVER plays my music. Period. Heck, my husband thinks all my tracks are crap anyway.

Exactly , I have my 'puter set up to self-destruct if anyone besides me touches it.

Nyn

[spacefish]

Haha, Nyn. Yeah, that's how mine is, too. I have Vista though so fortunately that tends to keep hubs off my machine. He's still on XP. I did decide I had to edit my post though. Hubs does actually like some of my music but it'll be a cold day in hell before he just waltzes in and starts playing something on my rig. He's much more apt to burn a cd for himself to play in the car.