My rating system is based of years of magazine reading and looking around other rating criteria.
As such, mine is probably a decent blend of objectivity & respect for fans.
The system as follows:
5 stars: Fans must add this to their collection, while non fans should also do the same. This work on an artistic level takes the artiste to another level and probably advances their standing.
4 stars: It's a should-have addition for fans, while non fans could give this a listen. The work on an artistic level provided new and positive insights to the artiste and production quality, and might attract some new fans.
3 stars: Fans could consider this in their collection, and would enjoy it. Non fans though could find some things appealing about the work, though it has its flaws that might not make it a must have in his/her music collection. This work on an artistic level only maintains the insights I have had on said artiste and production quality.
2 stars: The work still does have it's appeal, but it would only be to a minority of non-fans. Fans are also encouraged to thread carefully when listening, as they may be disappointed. This work on an artistic level left me a bit disappointed on the artiste and production quality.
1 star: The work struggled to appeal on any level, and both fans and non-fans should avoid it.
I do use the tilt system to bump up or move down the score by 1/2 a star. If tilt is employed, I will state which parts I prefered that upped the overall score, or which parts i hated that moved it down.
For short spins, it would be ridiculous to give star ratings based on less comprehensive listens, so a different system applies:
YAY: Take a listen, it's good!
MAY: Listen if you have the time, you might like it, you might not...
NAY: Skip it, it's a busy week, and leave the time for better songs.
