"Rewards repeated listening"

Some types of music are love at first sight, others needs repeated listings. To me, Gentle Giant belongs to the second group. It needs at least 3 years and many listenings until they belong to my favorites.

Jethro Tulls A Passion Play really did reward repeated listening i couldn't grasp a hold of the whole thing or concentrate the first few times but i came back to it a couple of weeks ago and gave it my full attention and it was a really great listen and i played it about 4 more times after that over the next few days that was definitely rewarded repeated listening

moshkito wrote: Hi,   A Physics axiom for many of you ...   "Quality is inversely proportional to Quantity"   It really tells the story about "listening" ... but if some people are too stoned and tripping and have to hear something 147 times ... so be it!

The notion that all prog albums need repeated listenings and all albums benefit from this is a perfectly valid opinion.  The key word here being, "opinion".

Personally, after 2 years of listening to an album, I usually don't listen to it anymore (or at least, vary rarely).  I played the 70's Yes albums constantly for two years, now I might pull one of them out once or twice a year, if even that.  Personally, I think that 2 years is about the amount of time it takes for me to get tired of hearing even the most complex and deep albums (assuming I'm listening to them at least once a week).

Also, you can write a review of any album after one listen.  It might not be a good review, but there is no valid reason for someone not to..........other than personal opinions that say otherwise.

For myself, I'm perfectly comfortable with writing a review after 5 or 6 plays......or less, if I feel I can write a good review.  "Rewards repeated listenes" is perfectly valid to use in a review, if the reviewer feels that is the case.  Frankly, not all albums reward repeated listens.  If they do for you, then great.  But I suspect the vast majority of progarchives members will disagree with this notion.  In any genre of music, at least 50% is crap after all (IMO).

Not many albums need repeated listening. When they do it's because you try to find something good in a album that doesn't have a impact on you or because they have such a impact on you that you need to listen to it over again just for your listening pleasure. If you have to do a review of a album that you don't like, i don't think that repeated listening will help brings more positive things. For me, it doesn't take many listening to make my judgement on a album, a progressive rock album, i mean. But as far as make a review of a classical album, it would take me forever, because the complexity of this kind of music is beyond me. 

The first major problem with your theory is that it assumes that all albums are deserving of multiple listens over a long period of time. They're not. I wrote my review to OSI's Free after only about 5 listens, and to Tormon Maxt's The Problem of Pain after 1, on both accounts I dont want to give the albums 2 years and repeated listens, I'm not a masachist. Because you react to each album differently sometimes you know that you have an instant winner, and it stays like that for years. Other times, a seemingly brilliant album will loose its luster after repeated listens, or maybe the opposite will happen. Sometimes you have a steaming turd that you really wish you never bothered with.

00ubermensch wrote: @WalterDigsTunes I agree with your point, but look who's talking about having an annoying avatar. Charlie Sheen?

 

moshkito wrote: Hi,   A Physics axiom for many of you ...   "Quality is inversely proportional to Quantity"   It really tells the story about "listening" ... but if some people are too stoned and tripping and have to hear something 147 times ... so be it!

Some albums simply have many many more things to listen for in my opinion.  

paganinio wrote: I see this phrase in reviews a lot.  X album "invites and rewards repeated listening", as if other albums didn't. Stop using this phrase! Every album rewards repeated listening! You're losing credibility as a critic when you put this phrase in a review! By the way, I really don't like critics who listen to an album only five or six times and then write a review. When they do that, their opinions are horribly immature and uninformed. Unlike video games and movies, music is meant for repeated listenings, over a long period of time.

Every album doesn't reward repeating listening. An album that is total crap (eg. Justin Bieber) does not reward repeated listening.

Also, I have no problem with people who listen to an album only 5 or 6 times and write a review. It all depends on the album. I am almost solely a promo-based reviewer nowadays, but I still will listen to any promo until I've absorbed the music fully. Sometimes the music only requires 3-4 listens, sometimes the music needs 12-13 listens until I understand it. Some music is simply more accessible than other music, and that's something pretty easy to recognize IMO.

For example, Pain of Salvation's Scarsick took me about twenty listens to enjoy, and I rated it 5 stars. On the inverse, I knew Snow by Spock's Beard was a masterpiece the first time I heard it. It all depends on the album and the listener.