"Rewards repeated listening"

paganinio wrote:   why can't you rent CDs? You can rent movies and borrow books, but you can't rent CDs.

You CAN rent CDs, it's just your town/country that doesn't.
You can rent a huge variety of albums in Paris' mediacenters.

thellama73 wrote: Because, unlike movies and books, music always requires (and rewards) repeated listenings over a long period of time, usually more than two years. If you rent it without owning it for a long time, you will get very little out of the music. You can finish a book and return it to the library. You can watch a movie once, and return it to Netflix. You can't do that with music. That's why you can't rent CDs.

Pathetic explanation... trying to pass your quirky theory as a cause for the absence of CD rentals...

CD rentals are not very spread because (among other reasons):
- CDs are the easiest to RIP (DVDs a bit harder, Books much harder)
- For the same reasons as CD sales are down (legal/illegal downloads, storage.....)

And of course, like in an ANY genre, the number of listens required to correctly "appreciate" and album depends solely on the listenner's nature and the feel/understanding he/she gets from the album.

What a pretentious thread....

mono wrote: paganinio wrote:   why can't you rent CDs? You can rent movies and borrow books, but you can't rent CDs. You CAN rent CDs, it's just your town/country that doesn't. You can rent a huge variety of albums in Paris' mediacenters. thellama73 wrote: Because, unlike movies and books, music always requires (and rewards) repeated listenings over a long period of time, usually more than two years. If you rent it without owning it for a long time, you will get very little out of the music. You can finish a book and return it to the library. You can watch a movie once, and return it to Netflix. You can't do that with music. That's why you can't rent CDs. Pathetic explanation... trying to pass your quirky theory as a cause for the absence of CD rentals... CD rentals are not very spread because (among other reasons): - CDs are the easiest to RIP (DVDs a bit harder, Books much harder) - For the same reasons as CD sales are down (legal/illegal downloads, storage.....) And of course, like in an ANY genre, the number of listens required to correctly "appreciate" and album depends solely on the listenner's nature and the feel/understanding he/she gets from the album. What a pretentious thread....

Some albums are impossible to fully appreciate on the first listen...though usually you can tell if it's going to be worth it after the 2nd or 3rd listen. Pat Metheny's The Way Up took me MANY listens.

^ he he  

One of the things I've notice when listening to longer prog or symphonies is that these songs do sound better after repeated listenings.  There is a learning process which for me involves the ability to anticipate the music that follows what I am hearing currently.  Initially a long and complex song with a large number of musical ideas may sound just like a long collection of musical ideas.  But absorbing the lyrics or noticing the patterns, which requires repeated listening, eventually provides context for a given musical passage.  When I begin to anticipate a musical passage for where it will take me after the musical passage that I have just heard then I know I have begun to hear the song as a whole.

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.

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

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!

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

 

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.