There are """people""" on Sup Forums who don't have enough of an attention span to listen to an album all the way...

>there are """people""" on Sup Forums who don't have enough of an attention span to listen to an album all the way through

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/zUHKH5RRz0Y
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>album is a one long song

>there are people on Sup Forums

Bump

>implying all albums are good all the way through
>implying they maintain a stable mood all the way through
>implying

>implying you should listen to shit albums at all

who are these people I fucking want names

>there are people

>there are people on Sup Forums who think a double/triple/etc album absolutely NEEDS to be listened to in one sitting
Why are rockists so stupid?

>there

>there are people who use the term rockist unironically
not one sitting, but not with a completely different album inbetween

Fuck Wisconsin, nigga.

how do you know if an album is shit before listening to it

Look man YOU'RE the one that asked for directions to the nearest starbucks.

There it is. Mozel Tov.

>playing music for ""fun"" and never getting any better at your instrument aside from power chords and """jamming out lol""""

Bump

only albums i listen through end to end are literally great albums

Loveless, Blue

stuff where every single track is great

otherwise meh if i want to turn it off fuck it its probably just kind of boring, just because you choose to sit through 6/10 tracks doesn't make you more enlightened

...

>having fun

You don't know the artist's full intent before listening to the album, so it's best practice to listen to the entire thing in one sitting the first time at least. If the album is any good, it's almost guaranteed there was considerable thought put into the track listing and the order of tracks. The best albums are usually purposefully designed to be listened to in one sitting anyway, so as a rule you should generally listen to albums in order from start to finish.

However if you've listened to an album several times and only want to listen to part of it just do it, who the fuck cares whether or not you're doing it properly every goddamn time you listen to the album. I love Dopesmoker for example, but I don't need to listen to the entire hour every time I feel like listening to it. What really matters is how you listen to the album the first time, and if you aren't listening to it in order or in one sitting the first time you're a pleb.

I believe it's important to listen to a full album at least once or twice at the least

That being said, if you don't like some songs after hearing them multiple times, get fucking rid of them, listen to songs you like not songs you don't like.....not every album is going to be full of songs that appeal to you, in fact, a good album should have a variety of songs and it's only interesting if people have different opinions about which ones are good or not

Only hack artists fill an album with one type of mood, song, tone, style, whatever

In practice, all albums have at least one dud track on them. However, albums are generally of a piece, meaning that a particular song that became a hit single often makes more sense when listened to with the rest of the LP.

That's dogshit. It became a hit because it was a good song by itself, not because of it's relation to every other song on said album

And if it's a RHCP album, all tracks are duds. :^)

>if you don't like some songs after hearing them multiple times get fucking rid of them
This is the worst thing you could possibly do. If you respect the artist in any way you won't butcher their work and will take the entire piece as it is, regardless of whether you like all of it or not.

>Only hack artists fill an album with one type of mood
This is actually the opposite of what a hack artist would do. An album should be thematically and tonally consistent, and the best albums almost always are unless they are intentionally playing with the form and doing the opposite. A good musician will put extreme care and consideration into the pacing of the album and will make sure it's thematically consistent or that it transitions between themes and feelings fluidly. A hack musician would just throw together a random handful of songs, in a random order and call that an album instead.

>This is the worst thing you could possibly do. If you respect the artist in any way you won't butcher their work and will take the entire piece as it is, regardless of whether you like all of it or not.
I like all of Master of Puppets, I like half of St. Anger
I don't care about your pretentious crap, I listen to songs I like because music is a product
If Taco Bell gives me a Box meal and I hate one of the items in it, it's going into the fucking trash, I'm not eating it just because Taco Bell intended me to do so

>This is actually the opposite of what a hack artist would do. An album should be thematically and tonally consistent, and the best albums almost always are unless they are intentionally playing with the form and doing the opposite. A good musician will put extreme care and consideration into the pacing of the album and will make sure it's thematically consistent or that it transitions between themes and feelings fluidly. A hack musician would just throw together a random handful of songs, in a random order and call that an album instead.
No it shouldn't, and I can tell you're some faggot black metal or indie rock fan or something if you thing it's artsy to make an album where every song sounds the fucking same

For example, the early Judas Priest records which are full of weird, dated 70s experiments like power ballads and prog tracks that have little to do with metal. Not until Stained Class did they develop a consistent album, and after that, Hell Bent For Leather still has weird ballads and shit on side two.

MOP really only has three good songs on it (tracks 1, 2, and 8) with everything in between consisting of uninteresting, slow-tempoed filler.

Depends on whether the artist is AOR or singles-oriented. Like most pop singers are strictly about singles and there's no reason to listen to the album-only tracks.

Ok, I disagree...I think every song on it is killer and I love the darker slower songs, in fact I am not a huge fan of Kill Em All because it just seems to lack the maturity of MoP but going by your description of MoP I would imagine you're a bigger fan of that album

See how this works people? I'm not going to chastise this user because he doesn't like the same songs I do, if he only ever listens to three songs from the album for the rest of his life it isn't going to fucking bother me

>comparing a taco bell meal to the work of an artist
>thinking that all music is a product that is meant to be thoughtlessly consumed
>thinking that an album being thematically consistent or well paced is the same as every song sounding the same
>resorting to ad hominem and assuming my personal taste instead of actually refuting my argument in any intelligent way

I suppose I shouldn't expect much more out of /mu,/ but jesus christ this thread has some dumb posts so far. Yes, some music is very much single oriented and made to be a disposable product but any musician who actually cares about the art form wants to make, you know, a piece of art. If the band is album oriented the album is the piece of art and should be taken as a whole. You might as well start removing scenes you don't like from your favorite movies, or start editing paintings so their more to your liking while you're at it.

So then those are terrible albums with a few good songs on each of them. Some albums are just shit and some artists don't care about making good albums.

I think at that point, Priest were still trying to find themselves. Little different from Black Sabbath who clearly knew who they were on the first album.

Christgau said that there's always at least one shitty song on every album, he avoids the temptation to play a favorite track on repeat like some people he's known, and also one track that particularly annoys you can make all the difference between a great and a not so great album.

>>comparing a taco bell meal to the work of an artist
/ck/ here, yeah it's the same thing
As much thought if not more probably goes into the newest Taco Bell item as your favorite bands next song, hate to burst the bubble for you tweenazoid, musicians are in the music BUSINESS

>>thinking that all music is a product that is meant to be thoughtlessly consumed
It is a product, period. I didn't say you had to consume it thoughtlessly...I think it takes thought to listen to an entire album multiple times and determine that you like some songs and don't like others, and also determine that you would rather not listen to the songs you don't like

>>thinking that an album being thematically consistent or well paced is the same as every song sounding the same
If a song has a good variety of songs on it, chances are you won't like some of them, and if a band has any talent they can write in a variety of styles and satisfy a variety of audiences, I don't care about gay little niche bands

> Yes, some music is very much single oriented and made to be a disposable product but any musician who actually cares about the art form wants to make, you know, a piece of art. If the band is album oriented the album is the piece of art and should be taken as a whole. You might as well start removing scenes you don't like from your favorite movies, or start editing paintings so their more to your liking while you're at it.
This is the most pretentious, art faggoty shit ever....I love KISS Destroyer, you'll never find Beth on my playlist for it, sorry. And guess what? I'm also going to remove the album version of Detroit Rock City and replace it with a version from a box set or greatest hits because I don't feel like sitting through an unskipable intro

I listen to music for enjoyment, not because I want to self fellate myself over how "deep" I am about art or to fellate the artists I BOUGHT a PRODUCT from

Enough about "art", most musicians are not high art unless you're 16

>I love KISS Destroyer, you'll never find Beth on my playlist for it

Even Gene Simmons didn't want to include that song.

I had just listened to Get Your Wings and there's no bad songs on it, but S.O.S. Too Bad is the definite showpiece.

Regarding Sin After Sin in particular, it seems a lot of people love Dissident Aggressor and hate Starbreaker but I find it the reverse. DA just doesn't do anything for me while Starbreaker is a fantastic bit of 70s superschlock.

That's because he didn't write it ;^)
But really, I just don't ever need to hear that song again in my life unless it comes on the radio

>musicians are in the music BUSINESS
If you're making music solely for the money your music is probably absolute shit. Music that sells well is usually the most banal and trite shit imaginable. Also, yeah more goes into the Taco Bell item because Taco Bell is a huge fucking corporation and not a group of 4 people trying to make a good album. Musicians are only in the music "business" because it's required to make money to survive in a capitalist society. If you're serious about your art form you should care more about whether or not what you're making is good, or whether or not you're fulfilled by making it than how much money you're going to make.The best and most innovative artists in any medium are almost never the most popular or successful. Being a good artist and moving units are not mutually inclusive -- in many cases it's the exact opposite.

>If a band has any talent they can write a variety of styles and satisfy a variety of audiences
Of course it takes talent to be able to effectively write a variety of different songs, but why are you still equating an album being thematically consistent to every song sounding exactly the same? How does it not take talent to make an album that is well paced and carefully executed to be a complete work from start to finish? This happens outside of whatever you think "gay little niche bands." Pink Floyd comes to mind as an extremely popular band that obviously cared about making albums that stood as consistent works rather than pointless collections of songs.

You guys do know there are music genres in the world other than rawk.

If an album isn't good all the way through, its not a good album. If its not a good album, of course it makes sense to stop listening to it but if your one of those tards who puts his favorite radiohead songs in a playlist and listens to that once a day, you ought to grow up.

No album NEEDS to be listened to in one sitting. Its more about whether you do what normies do which is pick an artists top 5 best songs and add them to their fuckin disease playlist on spotify

>.The best and most innovative artists in any medium are almost never the most popular or successful. Being a good artist and moving units are not mutually inclusive -- in many cases it's the exact opposite.
Bahaha, name some fella

>Pink Floyd comes to mind as an extremely popular band that obviously cared about making albums that stood as consistent works rather than pointless collections of songs.
I like maybe...I don't know, a small handful of Pink Floyd songs. I don't care about listening to their full albums because they're mostly full of songs that don't appeal to me. See how this works?

>If an album isn't good all the way through, its not a good album. If its not a good album, of course it makes sense to stop listening to it but if your one of those tards who puts his favorite radiohead songs in a playlist and listens to that once a day, you ought to grow up.
You ought to grow up if you listen to Radiohead period, what a shit teen band. Radiohead is the musical equivalent of the film Fight Club, it's shit but people like it because it makes them feel counter culture for some odd reason.

In any case, your argument is asinine. An album can be totally great to you, as in you love every single song, but it could also be great to somebody who doesn't like one or two songs, that doesn't make it bad nor does it invalidate their opinion because who the fuck are you? Also, someone is allowed to love say, two or three songs from an album without liking the rest of the songs on it, it doesn't fucking matter you presumptuous pretentious sopping cunt

You don't need to like every song on an album, you don't need to like every song an artist puts out, and you certainly can listen to songs you like by themselves without the rest of the album unless you suffer from fucking autism or OCD or vice versa. And furthermore, I'll stress again that I do think it's important to listen to full albums....you just don't have to keep fucking doing it

>You ought to grow up if you listen to Radiohead period, what a shit teen band
Also pop punk. Nobody older than 14 should listen to that stuff.

See how this works people?
Stop trying too hard.

People are free to do what they want, I was mainly being an ass for shits n' gigs cause the poster I was replying to seemed like an ass too and confrontational, but yeah I'm not fond of babby's first "intellectual" band, nor am I a fan of the pop punk stuff

But who am I to judge? I listen to Hybrid Theory and Meteora every now and again, I'm no better than those fags

you look at the cover

Listen to the next hottest album go hit the streets and be baptised to coolism today
youtu.be/zUHKH5RRz0Y