Was 2013 really that good?

Ratings are pointless without factoring in the tastes of the rater. That being said, I was surprised by the high quality of albums I have listened to from 2013.

Bonnek wrote: richardh wrote: Horizons wrote: No. I can get through 20 listens in a day. It doesn't matter - it's time that changes your view of an album and really shows it's true value.  I wouldn't want to put a number on the amount of time you need for each "stage" but i would wait a least a month.  so is there a point when your view of an album becomes 'fixed'?  20 listens for any album younger then 3 years is really rare. there's too much new stuff to check and too much old favorites to keep enjoying (so I might be at around 200 listens for certain 70's albums by now ) my view on an album never becomes fixed, i'm a progressing being it's one of the reasons I'm mixed about reviewing now, I wrote a couple of 1000 in a year only to find out 2 years later I sometimes don't agree at all with that older me that did them to review an album it's certainly good to be away from it for a couple of weeks so that the initial surprise has worn off a bit

I wouldn't argue the semantics here too much.  A personal truth (also known as subjective truth as opposed to objective truth) is in the realm of opinion.  To say that something is my truth is commonly synonymous with saying that it is my opinion (though there are often differences in nuance).  Personal truth is about personal perspective as I use it, and what's true to one person need not be true to another.

Logan wrote: I wouldn't argue the semantics here too much.  A personal truth (also known as subjective truth as opposed to objective truth) is in the realm of opinion.  To say that something is my truth is commonly synonymous with saying that it is my opinion (though there are often differences in nuance).  Personal truth is about personal perspective as I use it, and what's true to one person need not be true to another.

bloodnarfer wrote: Polymorphia wrote: Horizons wrote: Polymorphia wrote: Horizons wrote: No. I can get through 20 listens in a day. It doesn't matter - it's time that changes your view of an album and really shows it's true value.  I wouldn't want to put a number on the amount of time you need for each "stage" but i would wait a least a month.  I've reviewed during my first listen (once). My opinion of and thoughts on the album (Laughing Stock) has not changed (which is a rare case). I should say that I listened to it once all the way through, and wrote my thoughts as I listened to the album, and then ping ponged between tracks especially to listen to mood transitions while reading bios and interviews. I was really just testing the approach of writing down my first impressions, and have kept doing that for my other reviews, although with my other reviews I've made sure to listen to the album many more times. Honestly, I don't have a problem with reviewing like that.  First impressions are just as important as last impressions.  I think 20 listens might be overkill, dulling the senses to what made that album so great in the first place, and you forget how strong your feelings were when you first listened to it.  An album that holds up for that long may have the 'classic' quality but IMO there are five star worhty albums that maybe aren't supposed to be listened to that many times.

20 listens for the sake of a review is certainly overkill. Who would want to listen to an album that took 20 listens to like?

Most of the time, my opinion is fully formed by third listen, give or take. I still listen to the albums after that, but I like to let them have some space.

richardh wrote: Horizons wrote: No. I can get through 20 listens in a day. It doesn't matter - it's time that changes your view of an album and really shows it's true value.  I wouldn't want to put a number on the amount of time you need for each "stage" but i would wait a least a month.  so is there a point when your view of an album becomes 'fixed'?

2013 is not that memorable in terms of music but it was better than 2012 as i recall. The list of albums in the best of 2013 are definitely worth listening to even if they may not all be masterpieces.

It was damned good for me, but then I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention in 2012 because I was too busy discovering some older stuff.  A lot of the stuff I discovered in 2013 though was post rock and post metal, which has become a rather important genre for me.  But I really loved quite a few albums from this year.  I had a tie for No. 1 but one of those was not prog.

As for the ratings...from the day I joined this site I found the ratings generally inflated.  Five-star albums should be exceedingly rare beasts but around here they are as common as dirt on the ground.  The no half-star option doesn't help, and I too tend to round up rather than down.  I usually point this out at the start of my review though, if I have done that.

I think I have written only one five-star review.  Quite a few 4-star though, but either they deserved it or they were rounded up from a 3.5.  But I do have 3-star reviews as well.  Anything I think is worse than that...it is unlikely I will muster up the interest to write a review for an album like that. 

2013 was the best year for progressive music in a long time.

Lynx33 wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: I think people forget that 3 stars means a good album.

Edited by Horizons - February 22 2014 at 11:27