The Nightman Scoring System (c) – For Sale

Remember the Nightman Scoring System ©? My system for reviewing music as fairly as possible, an attempt to remove as much inherent bias as possible? That system where I break up an album into twenty evenly weighted categories so that when you score each one out of five, trying to base the score as much on fact as on opinion, you get a fair total out of 100? It’s the best scoring system in the world and you should use it. So should I in fact, hence this post. Anyway, if you want to read the rules about the system click this link and it will reveal all. There’s one for movies too, at this link. Check them both out – I say with absolutely no hyperbole that it will unquestionably change your life, make you an astonishingly brilliant human being, and also get you the ladies (regardless of your gender or orientation).

Beatlemania was at a peak and the band simply couldn’t cope with the constant touring, writing, and recording. Hence this album which saw a return to the inclusion of multiple covers. The fame was beginning to impact the band’s writing and we see the first true examples of breaking out from the cutesy love-based pop hits upon which they made their name.

Sales: 5 (Another smash hit)

Chart: 5 (Another smash hit)

Critical: 4 (Seen as a step back towards the first two albums with the unfortunate inclusion of the covers, some strong, some weak, but this was largely done to meet the demand of pumping out album after album. The more mature writing style of the originals though is singled out for praise. 4-5 are acceptable, 3 would seem cruel).

Originality: 4 (Those covers hold the album’s originality back, but the original songs are strong enough to more than counter this. The sound hasn’t necessarily evolved but the newer influences on the band have been merged into a new style of pop song. Once again, 4-5 seems right).

Influence: 4 (One of the least influential albums thanks to those covers, but again the original songs have spawned a host of imitators. I’m tempted to go with a 3, but 4 feels more accurate).

Musical Ability: 4 (Similar to the previous albums, with less progression, but still high amounts of skill. 3-5 would be understandable).

Lyrics: 4 (Those darker songs have some great lyrics, finally showing that Lennon in particular was branching out, while the remaining Beatlemania tracks have enough fresh perspectives to keep them from becoming derivative. 3-4 sounds okay).

Melody: 4 (Luckily even the weaker covers have decent melodies and the original tracks are still highly effective. I’m happy with people going 5, but 4 suits me).

Emotion: 4 (There is a darker tone throughout, though a fair amount of this is diluted by the covers. The covers have their moments, but some are too plain and I think hold this back from being a 5).

Resilience: 5 (Once again we’re still discussing it 50 years later, and actively listening to it on technology that didn’t even exist at the time of release. This has less popular songs and a smaller chance of people listening to the whole thing, but given the sheer amount of time which has passed, it has to be a 5).

Vocals: 4 (Some of the strain and tiredness is beginning to show and have a negative impact, but the harmonies remain strong, giving a freshness to the covers, and there are enough moments of brilliance to keep the score well above average).

Coherence: 4 (This is a strange one, because some of the songs hold together brilliantly in mood, tone, sound, style, yet they are interrupted by tracks which feel brash. 3-4 seem reasonable).

Mood: 4 (Similar to above, the mood is mostly dark, but then there are infrequent outbursts which take the focus away).

Production: 4 (Nothing out of the ordinary but still high quality stuff).

Effort: 3 (The covers drive this category down, though I appreciate the fact that there was so much going on at the time. I don’t think you can go higher than 4).

Relationship: 3 (It’s difficult to find a relationship between the covers as some are rockers, some are more left field, and they don’t fit well with the rest of the album. The originals mostly relate well to everything which the band has done to this point, as well as showing the progression in content which would be more prevalent in later releases).

Genre Relation: 4 (The covers ironically help here, as many other bands were doing the same thing and the range of styles blend well with the masters of each genre).

Authenticity: 4 (The originals and the overall tone, even including the covers, lend an authenticity – even though there are 6 covers the band are aware of this, hence the album title which makes an ironic joke of the necessity of their inclusion).

Personal: 4 (Obviously a lesser album than A Hard Day’s Night due to the rushing, scheduling, covers etc, but still an album most would be proud of).

Miscellaneous: 3 (A sombre album cover, a difficult recording process overcome, not much else to mention).

Total: 80/100

Another high scoring album from the band though a step back in most regards from the previous album, with the overall score reflecting as much. Let us know in the comments how you rate the album!

The Nightman Scoring System © – Please Please Me!

 

February is music month for The Spac Hole, for no reason other than I’ve written a crapload of posts about music and what to clean out my drafts section. As it’s music month, I’m going to post a few of these. Remember the Nightman Scoring System ©? My system for reviewing music as fairly as possible, an attempt to remove as much inherent bias as possible? That system where I break up an album into twenty evenly weighted categories so that when you score each one out of five, trying to base the score as much on fact as on opinion, you get a fair total out of 100? It’s the best scoring system in the world and you should use it. So should I in fact, hence this post. Anyway, if you want to read the rules about the system click this link and it will reveal all. There’s one for movies too, at this link. Check them both out – I say with absolutely no hyperbole that it will unquestionably change your life, make you an astonishingly brilliant human being, and also get you the ladies (regardless of your gender or orientation).

This time I’m doing the first album by those purveyors of peace, The B Sharps, and their first album Please Please Me. If you want to check out my actual review of their album – check this link. We start with The Beatles because – everyone knows them, and they are kind of the benchmark for all modern music and for the album as a format. Every band is measured against The Beatles in terms of success and acclaim, so if I can score all of their albums we can see how everyone else competes. As for my score, based on the system, read on my friend.

Sales: 5 (Like most Beatles albums this sold roughly a bazillion copies, and while it may not have sold as well as their others, I don’t think you can score this less than a 5).

Chart: 5 (Like most Beatles albums, this went to Number 1 in roughly a bazillion countries, at least where the concept of charts existed. Again, no way you can score this less than a 5).

Critical: 5 (Although later releases garnered much greater critical success, this was lauded at the time, and is still praised now, 50 years later, so it can’t really be any less than a 5. If you’re being very strict and comparing it to their other work in terms of critical consensus, then maybe you can go with a 4).

Originality: 3 (The band, even on their debut, were experimenting with what it meant to record, release, and BE an album, but still the old tropes of including covers to bump up the number of tracks were used. The idea of a band writing all their own tracks and playing own instruments was not quite there yet, but we can see the beginnings here. As for the songs, there isn’t a huge much of originality. I can see people going higher than a 3, but in truth this echoed much of fifties rock, albeit with a new sensibility).

Influence: 4 (The first Beatles albums were released in such quick succession, so it’s difficult to determine which album truly was the most influential. Nevertheless, the whole idea of the band, the recording, the playing style etc etc is on display here and primarily went on to influence a whole host of local and international imitators. People who think their stronger influences came later may go lower).

Musical Ability: 4 (While there isn’t anything terribly difficult or complex here, the playing is almost brutal in its energy, showing an extreme ease and comfort to the playing – signs that they could do a lot more if called for, even if it was not called for here. I can see hardcore musicians going lower on this, and general fans who may not have a technical background going higher).

Lyrics: 3 (The original songs are mostly a collection of love songs, either highlighting the joys, pitfalls, or depressions of the feeling. The lyrical genius was still brewing, but there are moments which show what was around the corner. Not to sound condescending, but those with less of a literary background or who don’t usually pay attention to lyrics may go higher, likewise snobs may go lower).

Melody: 4 (With neat twists on the covers, and a solid run of infectious originals, the melodies are strong, but not yet reaching the peaks which would come later. I imagine most will go four or five here, I don’t think you could go lower than three).

Emotion: 3 (There isn’t a great amount of emotional content here, most of the focus being on raw energy and the sheer joy of playing, but again there are moments of cynicism and tenderness. The soppy and the big fans or those with nostalgia will go higher, but 3-4 seems the most accurate).

Resilience: 5 (I’ve changed the name of this category – basically means how long does the music last over time – do we still care one or five years later? Fifty years on we are still listening to it, and although it doesn’t hold up as well as some other Beatles albums, how many other fifty year old albums do so many people still listen to? If you’re being harsh and saying most people only listen to a handful of songs rather than the whole album, you could go with four but I can’t see anyone going lower).

Vocals: 4 (There are a few tame, lame moments here, but on the whole this is powerful stuff, from McCartney’s stonking opener, to Lennon’s growling closer. The harmonies work well, still a work in progress, but all the hallmarks of their best moments are on display. Hardcore fans will likely go five regardless, and I doubt anyone would go less than four).

Coherence: 4 (Whilst not yet an album as an art form, this is definitely more than just a collection of hits and covers largely held together by the group’s energy and synergy – having played and toured together for some time, these songs roll out of the studio easily and almost feel like a set list. While some of the covers can sound out of place, it is the original hits which pull the album together, highlighting a growing writing partnership. This category will be difficult for some to understand and could garner some anomalies, but three to five should be the norm).

Mood: 3 (I don’t think the band set out to create one mood or style with their debut, again that would come later, but most of the tracks succeed in what they want to achieve – the rockers make us want to rock, the pop ones make us sing along, while the more downbeat tracks are the weaker link, leaving us uncertain).

Production: 4 (Again this feels loose, almost like a live record, and the little touches and ‘mistakes’ left in lend a charming quality where they would normally grate. The frenetic pace of the album soaks through, partly down to the lightning fast recording of the album. Nothing is drowned out, and this feels like one of the first true, raw, rock albums, leaving behind the crooners of the past. Like some of the categories, Production can be reliant on personal taste so the scores here could vary).

Effort: 4 (Most of the effort which went into the making of this album came in the preceding months and years of touring and perfecting their craft, meaning that the recording, while fast and frantic, was largely problem free. Then again, the schedule was frantic, and the band were able to decide upon the likes of Twist And Shout as new entries for the album. This one is a difficult one to gauge without a lot of investigation so people will most likely go with gut feeling and what info they have).

Relationship: 4 (This is the atypical early Beatles album, and the surrounding releases are in the same vein. Being born two decades after it was released means it’s not the easiest thing to relate to, but for those around at the time, this was symbolic of the spirit of swinging 60s Liverpool and of the many bands who were plying their trade in the clubs and pubs around the Mersey. Four or five seem the most obvious votes).

Genre Relation: 4 (Many merseybeat bands were trying to make it big around the time this was released, and while many had regular gigs, fans, and the occasional hit single, Please Please Me took the genre to the next level. It is a merge of pop, rock, and blues, combining a variety of styles to create what would become one of the first true rock albums. The Beatles would continue to improve upon this with each release, and many people took this as their inspiration to start a ‘rock band’).

Authenticity: 5 (Possibly the most authentic album in the Beatles catalogue, this is the true sound of a band eager to make an impact, to make it big, and to play for the love of playing. They take no prisoners with their style, the ‘mistakes’ mentioned earlier are left in to give a more true account of what it is to be an artist. It would look unreasonable to give this less than a 5).

Personal: 4 (This is unlikely to be picked by many as the best Beatles album, but as a debut there are few better, or with such an impact. If only some of the lesser covers had been replaced by some of the stronger original material which was left off, this would have been a 5 in my eyes. I do skip quite a few songs when I listen, so it can’t be a five for me).

Misc: 4 (Memorable album cover, interesting liner notes, a lot of history and background, make me give a 4 in the vague, miscellaneous category. I imagine this category will be used by most as an additional personal category/cheat and an excuse to bump up an album they love or hold back one they don’t.)

Total: 81/100

There we have it – our first baseline – the first album by the band most consider as the best ever, gets an 81. I think I’ve been fair and logical in my assessments and while 81 sounds low, I think it is valid. If we break down our score into standard even A-E grades, 81-100 would be classed as an A, or an overall 5/5. I personally think it’s only a B grade Album, both in terms of their own work and music in general, and that most scores are inflated by the band’s significance, an 81 or A grade is fine. They just scraped in. Of course with this hitting the highest grade, I imagine my scores for most of the subsequent albums will also fall within this tier, with probably two or three falling slightly lower.

What do you think of the album? What do you think of the system? How do you grade, and how many minutes will it take you to realise the error of your ways and adopt my system instead? Let us know in the comments!

The Nightman Scoring System (c) Movie Edition

Six years ago I unleashed the Nightman Scoring System (c) upon the world and since then it has been a huge success; a grand total of zero people have used it for reviewing albums. Rather than quit while I’m ahead, I’ve decided to present a movie edition of the system. It’s like a movie edition of Trivial Pursuit, but with less arguments and headbutting your Grandmother. Go read the original post first for some lengthy reasoning. If not, here’s a short recap; I don’t like giving scores in reviews, but if I absolutely had to I would cut up the most important components of the Product into equal parts and score each part individually thereby giving a more credible, less partisan overall rating. I split the Product into 20 parts, each part has a total possible 5 points, giving a total possible score of 100 – nice for percentages. While personal preference will still come into play, it will be further balanced by other components – you may love something which was a commercial flop so you can’t possibly give it a high rating in a Sales category. Furthermore, you may hate something which sold millions, but you are forced to give it a high score in a Sales category. This loose rigidity should further keep things fair in preventing the most staunch, anti-genre critics from giving high or low ratings in certain categories.

So, what makes a movie and how do we break it down into components? A lot of people are involved in movie making, and handily they are essentially already split into different parts – wardrobe, editing, directing, music, acting etc. You can look to existing Award ceremonies or other reviewers and critics to see which pieces of movies are most discussed. The below 20 categories are my choices – most of them you can’t argue with, but I’m sure I’ve missed a few which you think are important or which could replace some which I have given. You can switch those out, remove some, or add some, but you must remember that each category must have equal rating – you cannot change that. Sales are NOT more important that critical consensus. Music is NOT more important than wardrobe. You will have your preferences – I sure as hell do – but to give a fair score everything must be weighted equally. I do think there is room here for 25 components, giving each a weighting of four points, but I’ll stick with 20 for now. Lets check out my components and some description and ‘rules’ around each.

Sales: We begin with the easy components. You can’t get away from sales. Money is what makes the Business work. Your indie/arthouse/foreign/not commercial movie might be awesome, but if it doesn’t sell, then it isn’t successful. With all these categories there are variants – a movie with a budget of $10,000 which goes on to make $10 million would be seen as a huge success. A movie with a $50 million budget which makes $55 million would not be a success – but it still hit $55 million. A film might get strong sales in its home country, but weak sales worldwide – what were its targets before release? Do you factor in DVD/home sales? Basically there is a little wriggle room in here for what you think gets a high score – something like Paranormal Activity or Avatar gets a 5, while something like Heaven’s Gate would be a flop. A good way of thinking about it is if it loses money on its budget, it can’t get higher than a score of 3, if it exceeds its budget, it can’t get less than 3.

Chart: Chart and Sales are different. A film may reach number 1 in Charts in various countries, but drop out of the top 10 the following week. On the flip side, a film may not reach the top 5 in the US but not fall out of the top 10 for a number of weeks.

Critical Consensus: This is where Rotten Tomatoes etc come in. You should not only look at critical reviews, but fan reviews too. If a film gets rave critical reviews, but muted fan response it can’t get a 5. Likewise, a film could be a strong fan favourite but get a ‘meh’ from critics – can’t get a 5. A 5 is reserved for movies which are loved by fans and critics, a 1 is where most in both groups give the movie a bad review.

Director: Self explanatory – how good is the Direction? This is subjective, but try to be objective. If the director wins or is nominated for awards for the movie, chances are it deserves a high score. If the director is merely competent, takes chances, if it’s a first movie versus a veteran director, all of these things should be considered.

Performances: Self explanatory – how good are the performances? Possibly you could divide this category in two – lead performances and everything else. Again it is subjective – I’m not a huge Kevin Spacey fan in that I find his performances limited and samey, but I’m in the vast minority there. Again you look to award wins and nominations, but for the most part if you know and watch enough movies, you’ll know if a performance is good, terrific, average, bad, or awful.

Music: How good is the score? Did you buy or download the soundtrack or does a particular piece infiltrate your sub-conscious? When you hear the soundtrack do you automatically think of the movie or if someone talks about the movie can you hear the music in your head? Does the music compliment the mood, tone, theme? This is more than just ‘I hate jazz, the soundtrack is jazz, so it gets a score of 1’ and it is more than ‘it has a single important song so automatically gets a score of 5’.

Cinematography: How good does the movie look? Look for unique shots, beautiful camera work and framing. Is it distinct? A bad movie can look breathtaking. A great or entertaining movie can have bland or by the numbers cinematography.

Writing: It doesn’t matter if the screenplay is adapted or original as long as it’s good. Is it over-burdened with description and exposition? Does the plot makes sense, or does it takes leaps of logic? Is it consistent or overly simplistic? Is the dialogue authentic, quotable, interesting? Do you believe the characters would do and say what they do and say? Everything from quips to speeches to plot to background text (posters, advertisements and other written text you see on screen – think of Simpsons gags like store names) should be considered under writing.

Wardrobe: Clothes. I don’t know much about them. I wear them to cover my nuts and that’s about it. But costumes and wardrobe are important for movies – they make the characters leap off the screen and heighten performances – what would Vader look like without his mask and cape? Well, Jedi spoiled that for us. Are the costumes authentic when they need to be? Is the care and dedication into costume clear or do they seem like an afterthought?

Editing: A film with bad editing can be a mess. It can destroy consistency, ruin plot, and cause the timing off the film to be off. Editing is part of the overall style and when done right can be immediately noticeable or not noticeable at all.

Make up and Hair: Another piece I don’t pay much attention too and I was almost going to merge it with Costume. Make-up however is where it’s at for me – I couldn’t care less about hair. Make-up though – The Elephant Man, Nightmare On Elm Street… need I say more? I think only something truly iconic or groundbreaking should ever get a 5 here, while on the flipper only something with zero effort or disastrously awful should get a 1.

Effects: Special effects, visual effects, practical effects, digital effects, into the pot you go. Again, look at how groundbreaking they are and look at the time they were made – something groundbreaking in 1980 will look like muck today so consider time’s whorish saunter too. Also consider if the effects add anything to the film or take anything away – does an effect suddenly pull you out of the narrative, does it look fake, or are the effects so conjoined to plot that the film would fail without them?

Art and Set: The opposing side of cinematography, how impressive are the sets? Care, love, dedication, skill, realism, imagination and all the rest of it should be thought of before giving a score.

Sound: I was almost going to get rid of this one entirely and replace it with something like plot, separated from writing. As much as I don’t care about Sound, or really notice it, it is nevertheless an important part of a movie. Editing, mixing, volume, coherence, consistency, realism, ingenuity, all go towards creating the soundscape of a movie.

Cultural Significance: How much impact does a film have on the general public? Not every film can have the impact of a Casablanca or a Star Wars. Also, it is difficult to gauge that level of significance upon release – partly why I wait a while after release before reviewing a film. You could look at hype up to and at the time of a release, and that is important, but you can also look at the number of sequels a film generates, the amount of fan-fiction or buzz or blogging that goes on afterwards. Does the dialogue seep into everyday conversations? Is the movie referenced in other works? Does a particular moment or style or character or device crafted in the movie get used again in later movies? How much are people still talking about it in 1 or 10 or 50 years time?

Accomplishment: To score this you need to understand the movie’s goals. If it’s a horror movie did it scare you? Did it scare others? If a comedy, how much laughter did it generate? Did you cry when you were supposed to? How successful was the movie in doing what it set out to do?

Stunts: Some people might replace this component with something else. Almost every film, if not every film has some sort of stunt. Even the most bland drama will have some element of stunt work or stunt performance. If it doesn’t, then feel free to exclude this category and put something else in its place. More importantly – what are you doing watching a film with no stunts, you big weirdo? With stunts we generally think of the biggest and best. That is definitely something to think about, especially in movies where action is heavy. You may think this category then is biased towards a certain type of movie – that’s kind of fair enough but it’s probably likely that stunt heavy movies will fall down in other categories that stunt-lite movies will not.

Originality: When we think about originality, we’re not only talking about being the first movie in a particular genre. Movies can show originality in most of the above categories and more. A new camera technique, a new type of squib, a new brand of performance, an original script, hell even something new like an original viral advertising is all part and parcel of things. If the film does nothing new, copies other better or more successful movies, or just seems like a cash-in, then it’s probably going to get a low score here.

Miscellaneous: Like my Nightman Music System, this is for anything else you think I have missed, or that you may have missed. Any smaller components which still make up the final package – a nifty poster, a trailer, animal performers (which along with voice work should be considered in the performance category), I don’t know. Again, replace this one with another category entirely if you feel something major has been missed.

Personal: This is your own personal score, just for your bias – even if a film does reasonably well in most of the above categories but you still hate it, go ahead and pop a 1 in here. If your favourite movie of all time happens to be Police Academy 7, feel free to slap a fat 5 here.

There you have it. Try to review a few films using this system. Even better, get a group of your friends, fellow bloggers, or film geeks to choose a film at random – a new release, or an old movie you haven’t watched yet, and each review it to see how you compare in each category and how close or far apart your overall scores are. Like any good review it should act as a discussion point – friends gathering around a few pints (not coffee…. never coffee) and argue over each component and try to find common ground to use when reviewing in the future. Let me know in the comments what you think of this flawless system and if there is anything you would change. Happy watching and talking!