saying it's a 4.5 at this stage is arguably just as superficial as the 2.5 the reviewer gave it
why is that? don't get me wrong, i'm not defending his post or anything. but it's a little disconcerting to see those words come from a staff member of the site who i would presume is a tad more open-minded about music opinions...?
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
@Crysis I've had the album for a good week brotha. I just 4.5 it today. It's def my favorite Agalloch album thus far. Just my
opinion. I don't see how someone could see this album as average... Maybe it's cuz I haven't really listened to anything but
"Ashes" and "Marrow" from these guys. Anywhoo, diggin the fuck outta this album. New SWANS is amazing as well.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
why is that? don't get me wrong, i'm not defending his post or anything. but it's a little disconcerting to see those words come from a staff member of the site who i would presume is a tad more open-minded about music opinions...?
I was assuming Decapod had only had this for the ~20 hours it's been streaming, and 20 hours is a very short amount of time to have so firm an opinion of the record. I did not mean it to be a jab at his rating, just the amount of time taken to formulate it.
Since he's had (what I guess is) a promo for a while that kind of negates my original statement.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
Crysis, I love ya brotha. I would never rate an album based off hearing it just a couple times. Gave this one a good amount of time to settle and I love it. I can see why some people would find it boring, or tedious but it's just so well rounded and atmospheric that I just cannot help but love it. Even the song names are rad. This album pulled me away from Ben Frost's new masterpiece 'A U R O R A' and that's saying ALOT, because I'm in love with that album.
|
| |
yeah i hear what you mean, but at the same time let's assume he gave it that rating on the first listen. what's so invalid about that? and sorry i don't mean to attack you specifically Crysis, you're a nice dude. but i just mean in general there seems to be this pervasive mentality on this site that rating something on an initial listen is somehow "wrong." what's wrong with listening to an album and rating it on that listen, and then adjusting your rating as you listen more?
if the album was a 4.5 the first time you heard it, there's absolutely nothing "superficial" or "invalid" about that. if your honest reaction was a 4.5, then why not rate it that and adjust as you listen more. i don't see why rating like that is considered such a forbidden way of approaching the rating system is all.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
@Deca - They've been stingy with promos so hard to say who has one/does not, so my apologies for
assuming. I just wish they continued with the ideas put forth in "The Astral Dialogue" or "Celestial
Effigy", or that "Plateau of the Ages" actually capitalized on its attempt to sound like a darker,
slower "The Hawthorne Passage", but it doesn't. It seems like the best parts of the album are when
they are constantly changing things up, which isn't exactly a surprising find.
yeah i hear what you mean, but at the same time let's assume he gave it that rating on the
first listen. what's so invalid about that?
Nothing is necessarily invalid, it's just that it is hard to ascertain the nuances of an album
(especially one such as this) from a single cursory listen. Even if you were intently listening, it
is quite difficult to draw similarities between moods, instrumentation, or structure, or to make
judgments about segments that your mind has only processed one time. It also sidesteps the longevity
question regarding whether or not the album stands up to your initial assessment down the road,
whether that be 5 days later or 5 years later. Like most art, the layers reveal themselves over time
and with much effort or concentration.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
I agree with, Kubrick's point 100millonth points, pow! I rarely find an album awe inspiring on first listen BUT the first time I heard Tool's "Aenima", and "Lateralus" albums I just knew they were incredible. So, sometimes the initial listen is all it takes to "get hooked". Kubrick... 2001 brotha. Yea... You know what I telepathize about...
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
@Crysis: This album is, to me at least, more about feeling(s) and almost more universal in a way... It's hard to describe. This
one just hit me right, at the right moment, ya know?
P.S. The Krallice avatar is awe-inspiring. Yes, yes it is.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
To me it feels like they've done all of the moods this album conveys before, and done them better.
If I wanted something sorrowful I'd go for Pale Folklore, if I wanted something whimsical or natural
I'd go for The Mantle, and if I wanted something brooding I'd go for Ashes, or if I wanted something
more eccentric I might choose Marrow.
Same can be said about the instrumentation. If I wanted a more black metal tone while still
retaining melody I'd choose Pale Folklore, if I wanted acoustic guitars or instrumentals I'd choose
The Mantle, and if I wanted more unorthodox structures and post-rock vibes I'd choose Ashes. This
album doesn't create it's own unique identity because it seems like itfails to capitalize on the
points it does well.
Things may (and likely will) change but that's how I see things right now.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
So, sometimes the initial listen is all it takes to "get hooked".
At the same time, stuff can appear amazing to you during an initial run-through, but then wear off after additional listens.
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
To me it feels like they've done all of the moods this album conveys before, and done them better. If I wanted something sorrowful I'd go for Pale Folklore, if I wanted something whimsical or natural I'd go for The Mantle, and if I wanted something brooding I'd go for Ashes, or if I wanted something more eccentric I might choose Marrow.
Same can be said about the instrumentation. If I wanted a more black metal tone while still retaining melody I'd choose Pale Folklore, if I wanted acoustic guitars or instrumentals I'd choose The Mantle, and if I wanted more unorthodox structures and post-rock vibes I'd choose Ashes.
Things may (and likely will) change but that's how I see things right now.
Totally understandable, man. There are so many good things out there to listen to right now, that it's nuts. I've been listening to Wovenhand's new one and Swans has been on repeat for the last week and a half, so, when I finally popped "The Serpent" back in to listen again, I heard stuff I didn't initially, and so on, and so forth. Album is heartwarming, and DEF not worthy of a 2.5. Guarantee this rating changes in about a month.
|
| |
Gave this one a good amount of time to settle and I love it.
1 week?
At the same time, stuff can appear amazing to you during an initial run-through, but then wear off after additional listens.
this happens to me a lot
|
| |
@Crysis
Yes, you're absolutely 100% right in everything you've said there. My point is just that ratings are impermanent. Opinions on albums change over time as the album ripens to your ear, and then (in most cases) shrivels up. Every single rating you make is just a label for that album as it exists along that continuum, in that specific moment in time. Why should the very first part of that continuum (ie. the first few listens) any less important?
Your (entirely valid) point is that the beginning of the continuum is the most volatile and the time that is the most subject to change. That's obviously true but the beauty of the rating system is flexibility. You have the freedom to express the entire trajectory of your opinion of an album from the very first listen to the very last just by altering your rating as your opinion changes. In that case you're just treating the rating as exactly what it is - a temporary signifier for your current emotional response to the album. Even if the first listen is obviously the most subject to change - your rating CAN change. So why not just present your initial response and exercise that flexibility as you listen more, adjusting as necessary?
Sorry, I realize I'm going way to far into this. I'm sure I'm not saying anything that you don't already understand - you've been on this site as long as I have haha so we're obviously both passionate about music. But yeah, just felt compelled because there's so many people on this site that seem to feel otherwise (especially in this thread) and it just seems so nonsensical to me.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
Wow this thread..
http://i.imgur.com/7RPHwHw.jpg
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.0
this thread is why ratings are dumb congrats fellas
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
@kubric:
maybe i'm alone in this, but i feel like when i rate an album with a concrete number, subsequent listens are affected by it and i feel like trying to validate said rating instead of just letting it go. i know its a human thing, blah blah but this can be a reason to discourage rating as soon as one listens to an album.
but yeah its kinda unimportant. knee-jerk reaction reviews tho...
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
horrendous review
|
| |
@Asdfp277
Yeah that's an interesting view. You're really just approaching the rating system in a different way. It's a perfectly fine way of doing it.. but yeah inevitably opinions change so it just seems to me like it's much easier to accept that and contour the rating system to fit that change rather than trying to make it rigid. But again, the beauty of the system is flexibility - including the freedom to take a rigid approach haha.
But yeah I totally agree knee-jerk reviews are an entirely different matter. I mean the whole point of a review to discuss an album and give a though-out assessment on it. That's not really something you can do on a single listen (in most cases).
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
I liked some of the guitar melodies in "Plateau of the Ages", think the album could have used a lot more of those though. I've only listened through it twice now, but it didn't seem nearly as memorable as the other Agalloch albums did on the first couple listens.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
Hopefully the album is better than the review.
|
| |
|
|
