contact urbansmarts
 

 
overall
0 - 18: unbearable;    19 - 39: wack;    40 - 59: aight;    60 - 80: dope;    81 - 99: genius;    100 - epic / monumental
our rating system is based on three main categories:
1) lyrics; 2) beats; 3) originality.
these main categories are further split up in sub-categories:
lyrics is split up in a) flow; b) content.
beats are split up in a) 'musical' quality / relevance; b) usage of samples and/or instruments; c) overall dopeness.
 
 
originality is not split up.

only the total of the sub-categories of 1) lyrics; 2) beats; 3) originality are shown with the review

unbearable is pretty much self explanatory; wack: well, if it's wack it's wack; aight: that means the record is cool and is worth to check out. it's fun playing it. you will not go: "damn, what's that crap", when you hear it, it's solid, it gets your head nodding, it's just not much better than that; dope: this album has some real quality about it. this is stuff that has the thump and has the lyrics; genius: aight, this is a dime piece. this is hot, this is butter, off the snowman, and then some; epic / monumental: maybe the wrong word to put here, but it's the maximum, reached very rarely, so if your record is a classic, then you deserve the max. no doubt.

lyrics
possible points in total: 40
in total: 0 - unbearable; 8 - wack; 16 - aight; 24 - dope; 32 - genius; 40 - epic / monumental
some criteria we are looking for in flow is:
- has the artist a standard flow or a completely different flow?
- how much actually 'flowing' is he?
- how is his delivery: confident, insecure?
- how does he use his voice, acts with his voice?
- abc rhyme or some whole new patterns?
possible points: 20
0 - unbearable; 4 - wack; 8 - aight; 12 - dope; 16 - genius; 20 - epic / monumental
some criteria we are looking for in content are:
- what is he saying anyways?
- have we heard that before?
- is there a thread of thought througout the song or is it just babbling?
- is there a theme to the song?
- is it funny, enlightening, boring, complex, etc. etc.?
possible points: 20
0 - unbearable; 4 - wack; 8 - aight; 12 - dope; 16 - genius; 20 - epic / monumental
beats
possible points in total: 40
in total: 0 - unbearable; 8 - wack; 16 - aight; 24 - dope; 32 - genius; 40 - epic / monumental
some criteria we are looking for in 'musical' quality / relevance:
- how is this to judge in the context of music?
- are there musical things to the tracks like a bridge, breaks, etc. or is it just rhyme, hook, rhyme hook?
- can this be influencial beyond hip hop?
- is this composed much rather than just thrown together?
- is the beat monotone?
possible points: 10
0 - unbearable; 2 - wack; 4 - aight; 6 - dope; 8 - genius; 10 - epic / monumental
some criteria we are looking for in usage of samples and/or instruments:
- how are the instruments and/or samples used?
- looped or chopped up? one guitar lick, repeated or switched?
- are there any hidden samples, instrumentation?
- are there any sound and voice effects, cinematic effects?
- how are the means used?
possible points: 12
0 - unbearable; 2 - wack; 5 - aight; 7 - dope; 10 - genius; 12 - epic / monumental
some criteria we are looking for in overall dopeness:
- is the track banging or not?
- any dope scratching in here?
possible points: 18
0 - unbearable; 3 - wack; 7 - aight; 11 - dope; 15 - genius; 18 - epic / monumental

there are some albums and some tracks that are not really musical, they don't have the best use of samples or instruments, but the tracks are still dope. if that's the case, the track will score in the overall dopeness category.

originality
possible points: 20
0 - unbearable; 4 - wack; 8 - aight; 12 - dope; 16 - genius; 20 - epic / monumental
some criteria we are looking for in originality:
- have we heard that stuff before?
- is this some true innovation?
overall
0 - 18: unbearable;    19 - 39: wack;    40 - 59: aight;    60 - 80: dope;    81 - 99: genius;    100 - epic / monumental
 
   
  » back to top
  : .    2000 - 2012.08 by urban smarts | contact