Posting an album review/rating before album release - Suggestions

Skinny
birdman_handrub.gif

For me, this is a non-issue. I listen to new (pre-/)releases, older records I've missed, more recent records I've missed, old favourites, old non-favourites that I feel deserve another chance, newer non-favourites I haven't quite made my mind up about yet, random things I find on charts or in threads or via friends' recommendations or books or magazine articles or my local record shops' bargain bins or clued-up blogs. I leave comments/reviews when I feel like it, and pay little attention to comments from people who have never heard the album in question. I'm a little confused as to why this actually bothers anybody, but I guess people will always find stuff to moan about.

A couple of things I will ask; what's the difference between people commenting on an album they haven't heard that hasn't yet been released and an album they haven't heard that's thirty years old, and isn't stopping one and not the other kind of hypocritical? Sometimes, because of the way I consume music, I'm not even aware of a record's release date, and I may have heard it and want to comment on it because I've suddenly thought of something to write that I won't remember later - this could happen with an album released decades ago or an album released next month - is one really less valid than the other? You can't police people commenting on albums they haven't heard, so might it be worth finding something more important to worry about?
_________________
2021 in full effect. Come drop me some recs. Y'all know what I like.

goeie-oko

Gender: Male

Romanelli wrote:

We seem to be in this "we have to be relevant and popular and important" mode around here. I still do not get why every new release has to be immediately devoured and rated and placed on charts. It's not like there's nothing else out there to listen to...you will never hear every album there is. And the new stuff will still be there a month later when (and if) it's actually officially released. Why is it so important to be the first to hear a leaked album? To rate it? To add it to BEA and to your charts?

Why does BEA have to be on top of all new releases? I didn't think the idea of BEA was to have a place to find all of the new music rated and talked about by a few forum regulars. I thought it was a place to determine, individually, what the best albums of all time are.

And we're not talking about just leaks, by the way. There are albums added to the database that haven't been leaked. The track list may have been announced, but there may have been just one or two tracks available to hear. Sometimes nothing at all. People add these. And then there's the rating and comment added by the user who blatantly states that his rating is based on his having NOT heard the unreleased album yet...reminds me of the immature social media ploy of getting the first comment in by typing "first".

AM determined that he didn't want unreleased albums here. he has given in to allow "future releases" (which I disagree with, but not my call). And now, that is being abused. We shouldn't have albums on an album site that are not officially albums yet. And, just my opinion, but I think the constantly growing emphasis on new releases is tiresome. It results in many new albums that are bad being added here just because they are new. Let the "hype" for all of the new stuff be on sites designed for new music. It's gotten almost to the point where all that's talked about here is new material. And to where the majority of albums being added to the site are 2015 albums. I think we'd be better served to not be so focused on all things new, especially when there is still so much out there that is undiscovered. The albums that are new will still be there.

People like new things, that's the way it's always been and always will be. You can say that people can listen to the millions of pieces of music that have already been released, and they can, but people will always be more excited for something that has just come out recently compared to something that has come out 50 or even 5 years ago. People have the desire to stay fresh, to stay relevant, and to hear new stuff. They can listen to old albums anyday, but new ones, they need to listen to those now so they can join with discussing it and talking about it and not being left behind.

And yes, for the benifit of not only us, but this whole site, we do "have to be relevant and popular and important". I don't know why you say this as a bad thing. If this site isn't going to be "relevant" and so on then in a couple of years there's not going to be anyone on the site anymore, people will just get tired of a site that's stuck in the past, which is what I don't want this site to become.

Yes, this site is for a large part about what the best album ever was, but that's not all it's about, otherwise everyone on the site would just listen to OK Computer 24/7, wich is not something (most) people do. There is a reason there this site has a forum. It's there to talk about music, to connect people and yes, to help people discover new music.

A solution could perhaps be locking an album's rating until it's leaked, although I don't really that much of a problem, I mean, how often does this really happen, rating an album before it's release? Not that much I think. The best thing to do is to just give consequences to people who rate albums before their release or leak and be done with it.

I think this site's attitude towards new albums has to change, don't let new albums be something you act like doesn't exist. You see a problem and you want to get rid it, while you should see a problem and think how you could turn this into a solution.

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

Not all people must have new things, and not all people need to feel relevant and hip by having to be at the center of all things new. When you're a teenager, yes. As you get older, that part of you will most certainly change. I used to have to be on top of everything new...then I realized that I was putting myself through more bad music than I needed to, and that my thoughts on albums would change over a period of listens...over a period of years. So there became no rush on new material.

From the time I was devouring all things new, I had more bad albums leave my life, never to return, than I have in all the years since combined. And many of those I initially thought were amazing. They don't always stay that way...they mostly do not.

We do not have to be "relevant and popular and important". Maybe YOU have to feel that way...

Regardless...my opinion is that leaked albums and future releases should not be allowed on BEA. It's not an album until it officially exists...as in released. I think that having them here lessens the quality of the site. It opens the door to abuses, and goes against what I believe the purpose of the site is. I have no problem with new albums...but I think that it shouldn't be all that's here and all that's talked about, and I think that trying to be more "relevant and popular and important" is what kills the best of them.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

sp4cetiger

Romanelli wrote:

We do not have to be "relevant and popular and important".

This is true, it is just a matter of preference. I would personally prefer that the site be attractive to users who are sampling the cutting edge, in addition to those who primarily take in classic albums. Secretdad, for example, was nearly driven away by what he interpreted as an overly conservative policy on EPs. Though the policy didn't turn out to be as conservative as he thought, issues like this will definitely play a big role in who ends up visiting the site.

At the end of the day, however, there's nothing in this issue that prevents you from doing your thing. You can still listen to old music and put it on your charts, regardless of the policy on new music. The only people affected by this are those that spend a lot of time listening to new music (leaked or otherwise). I gather you would prefer those people go elsewhere, and I think that's the point on which I most strongly disagree.

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

So what about albums that are being streamed ahead of their release? They're not officially "released" in that you can purchase them, but you can hear them streaming on some site (Pitchfork or whatever). What defines a "release"?
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

Skinny
birdman_handrub.gif

RockyRaccoon wrote:

What defines a "release"?

Whatever suits one's argument.
_________________
2021 in full effect. Come drop me some recs. Y'all know what I like.

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

Skinny wrote:

Whatever suits one's argument.

That's kinda the feeling I'm getting in this thread
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

goeie-oko

Gender: Male

Romanelli wrote:

Not all people must have new things, and not all people need to feel relevant and hip by having to be at the center of all things new. When you're a teenager, yes. As you get older, that part of you will most certainly change. I used to have to be on top of everything new...then I realized that I was putting myself through more bad music than I needed to, and that my thoughts on albums would change over a period of listens...over a period of years. So there became no rush on new material.

That's very true, but, since a lot of people on this site are teenagers and not a lot of people are older people, I think relevency is still important.

And I certainly didn't mean to say that everybody wants things to be new, I apologize if that's how it came across. I just meant that a lot of people, especially those active on this site like new and relevant stuff.

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

RockyRaccoon wrote:

So what about albums that are being streamed ahead of their release? They're not officially "released" in that you can purchase them, but you can hear them streaming on some site (Pitchfork or whatever). What defines a "release"?

The actual answer is that when an album is announced, it is done so with an official release date. That date can change, but when it is released, regardless of previous availability, the album is announced as having been released. The new Jason Isbell album is available for streaming, but both he and his label have announced an official July 17th date.

That's the release date. The date that the album is officially released.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

sp4cetiger wrote:

Romanelli wrote:

We do not have to be "relevant and popular and important".

This is true, it is just a matter of preference. I would personally prefer that the site be attractive to users who are sampling the cutting edge, in addition to those who primarily take in classic albums. Secretdad, for example, was nearly driven away by what he interpreted as an overly conservative policy on EPs. Though the policy didn't turn out to be as conservative as he thought, issues like this will definitely play a big role in who ends up visiting the site.

At the end of the day, however, there's nothing in this issue that prevents you from doing your thing. You can still listen to old music and put it on your charts, regardless of the policy on new music. The only people affected by this are those that spend a lot of time listening to new music (leaked or otherwise). I gather you would prefer those people go elsewhere, and I think that's the point on which I most strongly disagree.

I don't want anyone to go anywhere. I'm stating my opinion on the matter. And I probably see more of this than any of you...as I do more data moderation than the rest of you. I see albums that have no tracklist. No artwork. Little to no songs released yet...many without the full album available. How can you add an album to your chart if listening to the album is not yet possible? Sometimes, albums are added to the site based solely on an announcement that there will be a release in the future. Sometimes, albums are given a future release date...and then the release never happens. In that way, despite me doing what I do regardless of anyone else, I AM affected by it. Data mod is harder now than it used to be because future albums are hard to find info on...and a lot of people will just add it to their charts without providing any info at all other than the artist and title.

I don't have a problem with people talking about new music, or even future releases. But I don't believe that albums should be on the site until they are official. Given that future releases are already allowed, which I will not stomp my feet and go away over, I believe that ratings, at the very least, should not be allowed until the album is released. Comments, whatever...but ratings are another thing for me. I think it's not right to be able to rate albums that officially don't exist yet. Talk about them all you want...and if they must be on the site, so be it. But I take issue with any album being rated a 5 (or anything else) with a comment stating "I gave it 5 stars and haven't heard it yet". I take issue with people treating BEA like a new youtube video and having to jump in and say "first". I think we're better than that. And I take offense (I have a lot of time and work invested in this site, so I will take offense if I feel I need to) to anyone who treats this site like it was myspace or youtube or facebook.

I hope I'm clear about my stand on this. I don't want people gone, I just want what's right for BEA.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...