Which means more on an album: the highs or the consistency?

[paladisiac]

So as i'm re-rating all of my album favorites to more accurately rank them, i come across "ties" once'n' a while. I definite a "tie" as two (or more, but let's stick to two for this discussion) albums that i equally like. (I'm basically basing the album rating on the average song rating.) Obviously i can't reflect a tie within BEA, so i have to come up with some tie-breaker. Often it comes down to a case where one album has 1-or-more songs that beat anything on either of the tied albums, while the other album delivers quality songs on a more consistent basis. The question i often pose to myself is, "do i go with the album with the higher highs (and lower lows) or the one that's pretty strong throughout?"

That's the question i pose to all y'alls. Of course, there are a few other factors that come into the decision, like sentimental value and how much i generally like/love an artist, but most of the time ties are often decided by the above choice.

So what do you think? How do you break so-called "ties" for your own lists? (This might've been brought up before, but i thought i'd ask anyway.)
_________________
fav artists NOW | ALL-TIME favs | i listen 2 more music than u so u don't have 2!

[Grzywa]

I'll go for consistency, especially here. Higher highs would work better at Best Ever Singles website.

Looking at my top 10 or 20, I don't find there any real lows.
_________________
Always shouts out something obscene

[denmarkman]

Consistency. A single low can ruin an album for me if it's low enough.

[sp4cetiger]

I would like to say consistency, but I may be lying to myself.

[Mdemauri]

Good question. To me it's all about consistency. If the highs are really high, it makes the lows seem even lower in comparison and tends to drag down an album (for me anyway.)

But in today's music world, I think it's harder to make a really consistent, strong album. Back in the vinyl days you had 10-12 songs on an album with a 45 minute time limit. Once CDs came along, some artists would fill it up with about 70 minutes worth of music that necessarily didn't make the album any better. It was just longer, that's all.

So to judge today's music, the same way as 60s, 70s, and 80s music for consistency, is not really easy. How's that for a helpful answer?

[Necharsian]

[paladisiac]

i feel i haven't been consistent, sometimes leaning toward the album with the huge song(s) and sometimes placing more value in a whole-album artistic vision. i find it's often a tough decision.
_________________
fav artists NOW | ALL-TIME favs | i listen 2 more music than u so u don't have 2!

[Puncture Repair]

[Antonio-Pedro]

I guess consistency, see: I love "a Day In The Life" and "with a little help from my friends" and "Sgt pepper's lonely hearts club band" but I really can't put the album in my chart, the high are amazing IMO, but the rest of the songs are most of lows for me not that the album is bad is just that I rally can't enjoy the other songs, That's why I prefer revolver, that for me can stand all that musical atmosphere of the album without let it dying. Consistence is the most important thing in the album... like "hello master" that was my number one, It had no big highs but most of songs were entertaining and fast without losing the aggressiveness, and that's what makes for me a perfect album.
_________________
Top 100 Hits you must hear before the u... of beauty

[samistake2ice]

This is a really great question.

My instinct is to say consistency, especially because when I rate albums a factor that I always consider is whether I would by the album on vinyl. Constancy is key where that is concerned due to the inconvenience of skipping tracks.

That being said, Having a few or even one great track will certainly raise the personal value of an entire album.
_________________

Kiki wrote:

You're chart is sooooooooo american. It's like a diner in here.

Check out my new review/pop-culture site MAD DISTRACTION