MOG

I have no empirical evidence from Pitchfork or similar review sites, but it struck me that 7.9 seems to me the best rating for an album. Sitting between the mediocrity of the 7s and the greatness of the 8s, and well below the hyperbole of the 9s, 7.9 feels like a special rating. The kind that a reviewer gives to an album that is clearly better than the ordinary (otherwise it might get a 7.5 or so), but the reviewer is holding it back from the glowing acclaim an 8.0 or above. It's a greedy rating essentially In essence you can proclaim your love of the album but hold it back from the more casual observers. It's in that sweet spot where you know you love an album but you don't feel like you have to share, just to let people know that you think it's pretty darn good.

Gravenhurst's Fires In Distant Buildings comes to mind as a good example. It's not the worlds most inviting album by any stretch but just one of those albums I feel very personal about. And the more I think about it Isan feels like a 7.9 kind of artist. They're music is immensely enjoyable to me but I would never say they're pushing boundaries, they just make charming melodic IDM.

I'm curious what kind of albums people hold in that sort of regard. Perhaps they're guilty pleasures, perhaps their bands that you play alone all the time but never feel quite right playing it for your friends.

Also, after seeing the Pitchfork rating for the new Bloc Party, perhaps 7.5 is the worst of ratings. It's a cop out of a rating, a poker face instead of an opinion. It's hard to imagine Sonic Your getting a 7.5, they may get a 6.2 or a 4.1 or an 8.8, but you can't not form a strong opinion about each of their albums.