Best Ever Albums

Re: The proper amount of time

CA Dreamin — Sun, 15 May 2016 14:03:07 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 05/15/2016 18:03

Based on these responses, it seems many of us agree there is no proper amount of time to give an album a final rating or judgement because our reactions can change listen to listen and over the course of time. Which is why Romanelli's comment struck a chord with me:

Romanelli wrote:

I believe it takes time, and that we sometimes get into an unnecessary hurry to get our opinions out there. And when something first comes out, we WANT it to be good...sometimes we want it to be better than it actually ends up being.

This got me again thinking about the current hype on A Moon Shaped Pool, so I did a little digging and this is what I found here on BEA. This is a rating/comment from A Moon Shaped Pool's album page http://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?a=97640:

LAF2 wrote:

Rating: 90/100From LAF2 05/08/2016 18:26
A quick timeline.

1. Album released
*6 hours later*
2. Top rated album on BEA

Jokes aside, I've heard side one and will listen to the rest in a few minutes. I'm impressed.

Now I looked at the dates and times of his rating and comment, and saw that LAF2 made the comment on 5/08, and rated the album 90/100 the next day. But on the surface, if you only looked at the comment above, it kind of appears as though LAF2 rated A Moon Shaped Pool before he even finished listening to it. Obviously we agree rating an album before completing one listen is unfair, and not the proper amount of time. But that isn't what happened, and there's nothing wrong with what LAF2 did. But consider this, his comment, which says very little about A Moon Shaped Pool, is as of now the most liked/most helpful comment on the album's page. And if you look at the other comments with numerous likes/helpfuls, they're in the same vein. They're either addressing the A Moon Shaped Pool's inflated current rating, or they're glorifying it as OK Computer reborn. It ties back in with Romanelli's statement.

Romanelli wrote:

Re: The proper amount of time

RoundTheBend — Sun, 15 May 2016 01:04:49 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 05/15/2016 05:04

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

Midnite Vultures by Beck

This is a perfect album that took me a bit to get into.

Looks like I rated it as a 65 back in 2011... I'm now re-rating it today as 86.3

I somehow in the mean time came back to this album and fell in love with it.

I saw it first as gimmicky, but then realized this is Beck taking gimmicky things into genius. Kinda like U2 and the Pop album... people didn't get it (although I'll admit this album is probably better than Pop... but who has an album release party at K-Mart?).

Re: The proper amount of time

RoundTheBend — Sat, 14 May 2016 17:42:54 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 05/14/2016 21:42

meccalecca wrote:

Romanelli wrote:

Ever notice that in publications like the RS Album Guide and MusicHound, that the albums that were new at the time of publication are almost always rated a bit too high? I believe it takes time, and that we sometimes get into an unneccesary hurry to get our opinions out there. And when something first comes out, we WANT it to be good...sometimes we want it to be better than it actually ends up being.

I agree for the most part. But I think you can argue that public consensus often sways the opinions of publications over time. They push an album as mediocre, only to find that record gain an overwhelming cult following that drives up the rating over time (when a reissue is released)

Yup... I 've seen both of these occur.

Re: The proper amount of time

RoundTheBend — Sat, 14 May 2016 17:42:04 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 05/14/2016 21:42

I've listened to albums 10 times... and still hated it (Oasis). And I've waited 15 years and still hated it (Oasis).

But then there's been albums I've listened to a couple times, then decided they were average... then I came back a year later and realized they were great.

Then there's albums that I thought were great for 5 years and then I got older and realized they were just ok.

I don't think there's a way to really quantify what is the correct amount.

Re: The proper amount of time

meccalecca — Sat, 14 May 2016 12:53:30 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/14/2016 16:53

Romanelli wrote:

Re: The proper amount of time

meccalecca — Sat, 14 May 2016 12:49:07 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/14/2016 16:49

AlexZangari wrote:

(does anyone even remember me? :P).

Of course. Your avatar will always be a favorite!

I agree with you though. It's difficult for many of us to rate or critique something with that air of certainty. I specifically find it much harder to negatively criticize an album on just a listen or too, because someone (usually) put a lot of time and energy into it. Liking something has no negative impact on the artist, so it's easier to come out and say "this is great" than "this sucks ass"

Re: The proper amount of time

AlexZangari — Sat, 14 May 2016 12:05:49 GMT

Author: AlexZangari

Posted: 05/14/2016 16:05

This is a question that really has no purpose to me. No matter how many times I listen to an album, I can never say I have a solidified judgment. I suppose most people are like that to at least some extent. However, it's likely that this site and RYM are probably built heavily on the type of listener that are the least like that, since it must take some degree of certainty to regularly rank/rate music. For me, after so long on this site I kinda just realised that ranking my favourite albums really isn't something I can do with any degree of certainty, hence my departure from frequent visits (does anyone even remember me? :P).

Re: The proper amount of time

Lowkey — Sat, 14 May 2016 10:36:35 GMT

Author: Lowkey

Posted: 05/14/2016 14:36

i usually don't listen to albums more than once or twice, like out of the ~4.5k that i've heard i've probably listened to ~1k more than twice and i feel like i have a satisfactory grasp on my opinion(s) on each album

Re: The proper amount of time

CA Dreamin — Fri, 13 May 2016 22:39:05 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 05/14/2016 02:39

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I don't know if there is a "proper" amount of time, but I would say at least a couple focused listens.

But even then, I've had times where I've listened to an album multiple times, didn't like it, then when I listened to it a year or two later, I loved it. Judgments often change.

Certainly true. I've had that happen to me too. And also the other way around, where I found an album enchanting at first but not so much several years later. With The Police, this happened to me in a cycle. I first got into The Police back in 2008; I loved listening to all their albums, and regularly revisited them for a couple years. But around 2011-2012ish, they stopped doing it for me. I don't know why I wasn't moved by their music anymore, but I didn't get rid of their CDs. How could I after I loved them so much? But then last fall, after not listening to any of their CDs in nearly three years, I randomly popped one in my stereo and it was amazing again, and so were all the others when I relistened to them shortly thereafter. How does one explain that?

I think albums should be judged based on how they make you feel. If an album makes you feel great after one listen, I wouldn't rate it right away. Same goes if an album does nothing for you. Listen to it three or four times to see if your reaction changes. But be aware that some albums and bands may turn a 180 on you over the course of time. Or in my case with The Police, a complete 360.

So to answer the question of this thread, you can tell if an album is good or bad after a few listens. But a "proper judgement" may be unattainable. RockyRacoon is right; Album judgements often change. And I would take it step further and say they're never carved in stone, which brings me to Romanelli's comment:

Romanelli wrote:

For me, it's album to album...it's never the same. Each album is different, and it could be that the number of times you hear albums before you're really sure about them can differ from one to another.

Ever notice that in publications like the RS Album Guide and MusicHound, that the albums that were new at the time of publication are almost always rated a bit too high? I believe it takes time, and that we sometimes get into an unnecessary hurry to get our opinions out there. And when something first comes out, we WANT it to be good...sometimes we want it to be better than it actually ends up being.

An unnecessary hurry indeed.

Right now, thousands of music fans are listening to A Moon-Shaped Pool on repeat, rating it extremely high, and writing glorious fan reviews of it. Now listening to an album on repeat and giving it a perfect rating are totally fine, but most initial fan reviews are bullshit. And that's not exclusive to A Moon-Shaped Pool but everything cultural with high anticipation from albums to movies to books to episodes of The Walking Dead. First off, many early fan reviews are selfish...They just want to have their opinion published as soon as possible to increase the chances of likes and comments. And they'll attract plenty of likes and comments if they give something either the best possible rating or the worst. Is that a fair and "proper" judgement? As for A Moon-Shaped Pool, it may be enchanting to listen to for many fans, but I think some of those fans are just as, if not more enchanted by the mere release of a new Radiohead album than they are by the album itself. There's no way anybody can know how the album will hold up in one month, one year, five years, ten years, etc. But we all want things with high anticipation to be great and hold up over time, so we glorify them when they're new and exciting. Yeah that really panned out well for The Phantom Menace (Some of you may be too young to remember, but that movie got plenty of love and praise when it was first released.).

The point is the proper amount of time to judge something is more than immediately after one listen, one read, or one watch. You'll know when it feels right to give something the "proper judgement." But even then, you may find yourself surprised years later.

Re: The proper amount of time

Romanelli — Wed, 11 May 2016 18:25:21 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 05/11/2016 22:25

Allabaster wrote:

Could one then say that picking the amount of time to listen is an art, or some part of a larger artistic pursuit?

I say it's whatever feels comfortable for you. And for me, it's album to album...it's never the same. Each album is different, and it could be that the number of times you hear albums before you're really sure about them can differ from one to another.

Ever notice that in publications like the RS Album Guide and MusicHound, that the albums that were new at the time of publication are almost always rated a bit too high? I believe it takes time, and that we sometimes get into an unneccesary hurry to get our opinions out there. And when something first comes out, we WANT it to be good...sometimes we want it to be better than it actually ends up being.

I say take your time. But that's just me...

Re: The proper amount of time

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2016 17:58:59 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/11/2016 21:58

Romanelli wrote:

It's different for everyone. And how different it is for everyone should be respected. If you want to be "that guy", fine. If you don't, that's fine, too. But respect it whether you agree with it or not. You may get it in one, four, twenty listens. For me, there's no set number. But it mostly takes years before I start charting an album, which is why my 2010's charts have so many vacancies. My way may not work for you, and I don't expect it to. And the other way around as well..

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

You see sieving is not meant to be an entirely rational action; it's a pragmatic decision informed by prejudices, past experiences, whim, limited resources etc.

Could one then say that picking the amount of time to listen is an art, or some part of a larger artistic pursuit?

Re: The proper amount of time

Muslim-Bigfoot — Wed, 11 May 2016 17:11:41 GMT

Author: Muslim-Bigfoot

Posted: 05/11/2016 21:11

You see sieving is not meant to be an entirely rational action; it's a pragmatic decision informed by prejudices, past experiences, whim, limited resources etc.

Re: The proper amount of time

JOSweetHeart — Wed, 11 May 2016 17:10:10 GMT

Author: JOSweetHeart

Posted: 05/11/2016 21:10

RockyRaccoon wrote:

I second this. One of my favorite albums from country trio SheDaisy didn't finally sink in until months later.

God bless you and them always!!! 😄 😄 😄

Holly

P.S. Sweet Right Here is the name of the album. 😄 😄 😄

Re: The proper amount of time

Skinny — Wed, 11 May 2016 16:31:51 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 05/11/2016 20:31

Allabaster wrote:

And you feel that the former is always possible?

Nothing in that post implies this.

Re: The proper amount of time

Anonymous — Wed, 11 May 2016 16:10:43 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/11/2016 20:10

Necharsian wrote:

There's a difference between deciding something is not worth more than one listen and being able to make a near absolute (or at least structured) judgment.

And you feel that the former is always possible?

Re: The proper amount of time

Romanelli — Wed, 11 May 2016 16:09:38 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 05/11/2016 20:09

It's different for everyone. And how different it is for everyone should be respected. If you want to be "that guy", fine. If you don't, that's fine, too. But respect it whether you agree with it or not. You may get it in one, four, twenty listens. For me, there's no set number. But it mostly takes years before I start charting an album, which is why my 2010's charts have so many vacancies. My way may not work for you, and I don't expect it to. And the other way around as well.

The only number that I can't be supportive of is zero. If you haven't heard it, you shouldn't rate it.

Re: The proper amount of time

Skinny — Wed, 11 May 2016 16:00:50 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 05/11/2016 20:00

Necharsian wrote:

There's a difference between deciding something is not worth more than one listen and being able to make a near absolute (or at least structured) judgment.

This is the most sensible thing said ITT.

Re: The proper amount of time

Necharsian — Wed, 11 May 2016 15:56:52 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 05/11/2016 19:56

There's a difference between deciding something is not worth more than one listen and being able to make a near absolute (or at least structured) judgment.

Re: The proper amount of time

Anti — Wed, 11 May 2016 15:54:09 GMT

Author: Anti

Posted: 05/11/2016 19:54

Not so much about the amount of time it takes to listen to an album, but I'm still a strong believer in listening to an album with the proper setting. For example, I'm not going to listen to a bright, summertime vibes album on a dark wintry night. I feel like that really influences one's judgement of an album. I know you can't always make the perfect setting when listening to an album, but I still try to make it as close as possible.

Re: The proper amount of time

meccalecca — Wed, 11 May 2016 15:35:07 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/11/2016 19:35

Applerill wrote:

There's nothing inherently wrong with listening to everything four times before forming an opinion (though it obviously limits the bredth of what you can listen to in a given period of time). The problem is when you act like you're superior to everyone because of that, and assume that they're "musicking wrong" because they dislike something you like after one listen. This is especially annoying if all you've rated on RYM are super-boring Britpop albums, since this is almost exactly like the 15-year-old who thinks he's better than you because he's listening to OK Computer and you're listening to Britney Spears.

It's possible that I only looked long enough to judge the surface value of what he said, but I didn't get the impression that he was acting totally out of superiority. Maybe you've spent more time with what he said, to draw a deeper understanding of it.

I think there's certainly a point to be made. It's difficult to judge fairly one time through. We're totally in our rights to judge as we see fit. But does rapid and often knee jerk judgement cycle have certain undesired effects over what succeeds?