How do you review/rate albums?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: I Have A Question For You......?
Forum Description: Ask any question on any subject: if the admin team or any of our members can answer it we will.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=83852
Printed Date: February 24 2025 at 20:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: How do you review/rate albums?
Posted By: Irrgarten
Subject: How do you review/rate albums?
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 13:52
|
I wanna know how you people review/rate albums. Do you just give an album a listen and that's it, or you listen several times to it before ever thinking of forming an opinion? I usually give an album a spin and rate immediately each track from 1 to 5 points, then average for the final album rating.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 14:00
|
I want to let the music sink in, and that means listening to the album over a long period of time. I never quantify music - meaning giving individual tracks ratings and such, which is why I sometimes find it hard to choose what number of stars to give the album. Masterpieces are something I have to listen to over a looong period of time before I pass my judgement, and if the pieces still fit - or indeed they have changed - but for the better, and simply keeps elevating the record to heights unknown, then and only then it deserves that 5th star. I think everyone should at least listen to the given album intently over an unspecified period of time, before writing reviews, but that´s just me. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: Canterzeuhl
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 14:18
| I'd only rate albums like Guldbamsen said, after listening to them for a prolonged period of time. I couldn't give an honest review of an album if I didn't know every note inside out. But also I think it's important to have heard other albums by whichever band first so you can't judge it in relation to others rather than just by itself, whether or not it's an improvement on the previous or whether it's worse in relation to the one after, although that's mainly to give an overall more informative review and I suppose not essential. |
Posted By: dreadpirateroberts
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 19:55
|
Yeah, I give it a while. Months at least whenever possible. Otherwise I feel like I'm reviewing amidst a rush of blood to the head. I never Rate only, that's a bit pointless for me - instead, as a reader looking for where to invest my money, I want an opinion (which is a rating) backed up with reasons (which is generally a review). ------------- We are men of action. Lies do not become us. http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/" rel="nofollow - JazzMusicArchives. |
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 20:10
| I review when I feel like I have something to say about an album. Sometimes that can be after just one listen, sometimes dozens. Although I review much less these days than I once did. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 21:04
|
Well, after you've built up a long history of listening to music there will be certain things out there that are ingrained in your brain, some things freshly released. I try to give something new about a month to settle in. If something has been reviewed ad nauseum on a track by track basis, I like to go off the wall with it. If I am the first to comment then I try to be more objective. I take a more informative approach when it is a lesser known album. If you've developed a formula and you are comfortable sticking with it, fine. Don't be afraid to experiment. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 22:42
|
I've gotten in the habit of reviewing bands, not just single albums. I like to start with a band's first album and listen to all of them in order to get a good picture of how one flows into the next and shows the progression (or regression) of the band or artist. Or sometimes I start with a band's most famous album and then work backward or forward through the rest of their discography to see how they got to that point and what they did to follow up their high water mark. For Triumph albums I wait until I'm in a particularly pissy mood and then whip one of those suckers out and just vent. For 5 star album ratings (of which there are very few), these are usually either records I've owned and listened to for many years and am very familiar with, or they are ones that just instantly clicked and retained their appeal after many playings. Most of the albums I've rated with 5 stars are ones that have very special memories attached to them, which admittedly influences the rating. But album reviewing and rating is a totally subjective process anyway, so that's okay. ------------- "Peace is the only battle worth waging." Albert Camus |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: December 30 2011 at 23:56
|
You have to have years, nay decades, of listening experience to properly and confidently review an unheard album after just a few spins, and even then it doesn't do it justice unless it's outright crap-- and if you're gonna use a mathematic average to rate, then write a review as well, to explain or balance-out the rating. |