Because of the complexity inherent in Scaler, a ‘full’ rating system is probably very complex, IMHO. In Scaler 2.3, there were 528 songs/ artists / community progressions. Quite few to audition and apply ratings to.
But any of these progressions can have over 1000 expressions applied to them, so that’s over half a million combinations of musical snippets. However, as Davide pointed out, you have still only just started at that point (!)
So let’s say you give ‘Timeless’ by one D Carbone a good score (I happen to be working on it now ) will that sound good with every one of those 1000 expressions ?? Answer it might, but with more complex chords, probably not.
You might be able to rate expression separately, say against a harmonised Ionian. But does that mean a 9 rated expression will sound good with a 9 rated progression ? It might do, but I have no way of telling.
The fact is that options in Scaler are mind-blowingly large, and the concept of how to rate them seems to me to require a lot of thought.
The encouraging element is that we know that this application is in day to day use in commercial activities by those driving Scaler development, so if anybody can figure that out, it will be them. Over to Davide and co !
In my daydream moments in the garden with a glass of wine I thought that since everything is digital, there might be a way to run through all the permutations (by computer of course) comparing the notes in the chord with the expression notes and flagging potential dissonances, for example, as maybe a first pass that Scaler could offer.
Anyway, a numerical rating against progressions would be a good start.
For near orgasmic joy however, (not sure what Google Translate will make of that ***) it would be for the system to prompt for a rating and some text notes to get dumped into the state file.
*** Per una gioia quasi orgasmica, apparently .@claudioporcellana does that sound ritght ?