Boards

this thread is kind of wank, you know?

If I likes an album I likes it, I never fault an album for being catchy and didn't really think other people did either. I don't try to listen to music that's difficult and I think listing any album here would be kind of dumb thing to do because I'm not entirely sure whats being asked of me.

List albums I like?
List albums I like over ones I don't like because they're too hard for me to get into?

Perhaps you can just come out and tell us about these albums you don't rate that others do, and these catchy albums that weren't rated highly enough for your tastes?

There are a LOT of people that post their favorite albums (which always happens to be quite difficult) just because they would be considered cool, but SECRETLY listen to a lot of catchy stuff (but uncool).

e.g. MSP - The Holy Bible vs. Rihanna - [one of her albums]

They give high ratings for albums that they listen once a month/year (perhaps), while not whispering a word about the albums they play often (because they're not cool).

Or people who force themselves to listen to difficult albums while they don't really enjoy them. People who lie themselves because of the critical eye of the society.

Fortunately, I'm not in this category.

Classic straw man

Rhianna is catchier than the common cold, but it still doesn't change the fact that the music is absolute bilge. It sounds like the very worst of nineties eurotrash

this is fundamentally incorrect. especially the use of the word technically. first of all, this isn't always true. i have listened to many albums that i've enjoyed first time around, but they've worn thin on repeat listens. for example the most recent Errors EP was lovely on first spin, but has not lived up the continued plays. And secondly the word "technically" means, I assume in this context, that you are theorising that anyone who listens to anything more and more they MUST like it more and more. That is not directly related.

In fact, this whole thread is astonishing in it's immaturity. Remember, "rating" something is pointless and doens't mean anything. If you like it, like it. You appear to be talking specifics, yet haven't specified anything. You might need some substance to take this thread somewhere, for at the moment there's nothing even to discuss.

Hypothetical situation:

Difficult albums are difficult for a reason. You can't listen to them anytime. They're not (that) catchy. Let's take a difficult album.

Also let's take a second album, this time really catchy (that you could listen it anytime).

And the logic comes in: if you listen to the second album more -> you like it more -> this album deserves a higher rating.

But in reality, everytime the first album is mentioned a lot, despite math saying that you listened it much less than the second one.

So, the question is: in your personal rating system, does the second album deserve a higher rating because of a higher playcount?

Got it, or should I draw a drawing to you?

I prefer to never listen to an album so it retains that unadulterated perfection.

like a brand new jar of peanut butter.

a sight to behold.

I feel like I've stepped into the music equivalent of the Repo Man set:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vNUB5rnkoNg/To8LbRjWrTI/AAAAAAAAAdk/h5OX8btHOns/s1600/repoman4806.jpg

http://mlkshk.com/r/A2F

Two acclaimed albums:
Arcade Fire - Funeral (123 plays)
Robyn - Robyn (234 plays)

Looking at the hypothetical plays: does it mean that that person rate higher Robyn because he/she listened to Robyn much more than Arcade Fire?

That person needs to rate higher Funeral just because it's a masterpiece, despite listening it much less than Robyn?

What artist from these two do you you think that hypothetical person likes more?

but it doesn't mean I like it more.

Some music requires me to pay full attention to it but I'm rarely in a situation where I actually listen to music on it's own. ALSO some music is very mood driven and as a result doesn't get listened to all the time, catchy music is something you can sling on in the background and largely forget about until the hook comes in.

I guess I'm misunderstood.

@Admin(s): please close this topic.

If these are Last.FM stats then it's a bit batshit for a few reasons:

Robyn has 13 tracks and Funeral only 10. LFM is shit with albums so it simply counts up the number of times a track from the album has been played, so for every full play Robyn automatically gets 3 more tracks.

Funeral is also 20 mins longer so technically you can get three Robyn plays to two Funeral plays.

Finally, if we are still talking Last.FM stats then maybe they just liked a few songs off Robyn a fuck load and played them over and over, generating the majority of those plays, while they played all of Funeral each time and liked all of it, so they might still counter that they thought Funeral a better album.

This is part of the reason why we're all wondering what you're on about, I think.

I don't even like it very much

Take Swans. Fucking brilliant band, right? We all love Swans, yeah? Great fucking band. Michael Gira is a madman and a genius. And Children of God is fucking brilliant.

How often do you think, "I think I really wanna listen to Children of God"? Not very often, right? I don't know about you, but I don't often put Swans on because they are incredibly intense, and because they are the least "light" band I can think of.

However, I can put on, say, Dragonslayer by Sunset Rubdown every single day and never have an issue with hearing it again. In fact, for about a two week span, it was on a continuous loop in my bedroom. I never got sick of it.

The question: is Children of God a better album because it is truly a work of art, or is Dragonslayer a better album because it is immediately lovable and never overstays its welcome?

Or, in different terms: is Groundhog's Day a better movie than Seven Samurai because it's a movie that is infinitely watchable?

Am I getting this right?

I think I get what you're going for. Let it live.

The problem with the thread is it tries to make a sweeping generalisation about something that will always have to be on an album by album basis, while throwing in some weird aspect to do with 'catchy' vs. 'difficult' as if it's trying to make some point about people being pretentious with their choices.

Dunno, I just checked and it's 2013 not 1993 and I'm not sure this sort of rockist pretension really holds much sway any more.

Artists that often put out songs that are 10/20 minutes in length get a raw deal on last.fm

Like nothing happened.

perhaps deep-blue is too, I dunno. I just like the bit where he said "Fortunately, I'm not in this category"

but it's 100+ plus replies coming up

I mean, I love bands like Godspeed You! to pieces, but I'm not likely to listen to them very often because either my mood doesn't really suit it at all or I feel like something a bit more beat driven. But I know bands like this are better than bands I listen to on a day to day basis.

My most listened to song of the last month is probably GNG BNG by FlyLo because it's a really catchy beat and good for walking too and makes me feel like a badass. But it has nothing on some of the other electronic masterpeices on my mp3 player.

I guess this is where the whole 'music to listen too to enjoy' and 'music you listen to too appreciate' thing comes in. I mean, how often do people actually go out of their way to listen to Confield for fun?

can often exceed the more predictable comfort from something more accesible. So yeah, I agree with you when you say that less accessible music often doesn't fit your mood, but when it does it can often provide moments of fantastic musical enjoyment. That would explain why people often name these albums their favourites.

Maybe too often people confuse 'worthy' (in all kinds of ways) with great

I think Deepie just missed the mark on the phrasing. That's okay.

and I think the roots are essentially in both the fact that an older generation are generally the 'taste makers' and the fact that music output and reviews were so controlled for so long.

That sounds really fucking Ché Guevara t-shirt but I don't really mean it to be some big political point, maaan! There's that point in Almost Famous where Lester Bangs says how rock music is dead and it's 1973 and what he really means is that he's old and he's got no time for what young people like.

And there's a lot of that sort of pressure from generations before to tell you, "this is worthy," so The Beatles is the biggest band ever, etc. And you can be pretty safe in saying, "Yeah, Revolver is a really great album," and you never have to actually evaluate that at all.

If we go back to the Swans thing, I personally really liked the Seer and I made the effort to listen to all two-hours of it a number of times. It's definitely in the top 10 albums of last year for me. But it also ticks a lot of boxes that Q Magazine and NME have made points about in the past when they've given albums high scores: it has great production, it's a double album with *atmosphere*, it's got some weird and crazy sounds in so it's *different*, it's not just a rock album. And there's a big dynamic of sound.

I think a lot of those things would lead people who found it hard to take in and listen to to make the sort of value judgements you're talking about. I'm not invalidating your reasoning in the post, I'm saying that it might not be the only reason someone turns round and says Godspeed You ! Black Emperor have a definitive incredible, top 100 ever album while some quick and catchy album isn't really it. They might say that because Godspeed represent the tropes of which we have been told great albums are made.

And going back to cinema, The Seven Samurai similarly encompasses more 'film student' type clichés we hear about than Groundhog Day so maybe people would be more inclined to put it higher in a list.

------------------------

Anyway, TL;DR. Sorry. It was just a throwaway comment, TBH.

That 'immediate' albums often lack longevity while 'difficult' albums reward perseverance and stick with you. Both could be 'rated' equally for those very attributes.

My brain is just a bit scrambled atm to make a decent stab at replying, but overall good stuff.

The London Boys.

:D

It isn't truly a work of art any more than Dragonslayer is. They're both works of art. There's no hierarchy.

no they aren't

Don't really understand this point. Every time I listen to Confield it's for enjoyment. I just think you're applying a limited definition of fun here (like catchy, party songs or whatever are fun because you play them at fun parties, but music which is less suited to partying and more to listening in your bedroom is less fun because sitting in your bedroom is less `fun` than partying). Or something.

?

Do you want me to list NME ratings or something? The point I was making was that even though I prefer a lot of these other bands, and in my opinion of course think they are better, I don't necessarily listen to them as often as other bands that I find either suit the mood I'm in more or make better casual listening.

Some albums you don't need to listen to over and over again to recognise that they're one of your favourite albums ever. Every album has its time and its place. For example Holy Bible is one of my favourite albums ever but I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole nowadays.

I enjoy Confield, and think it's a brilliant album, but I tend to turn to other albums like Tri Repetae or Amber first. When I'm in a mindset for an album like Confield, it's the greatest thing in the world, but I listen to music all the time and I find this doesn't occur nearly as often as with other, similar yet less, I don't know, challenging albums? Amber doesn't require as much attention as Confield I guess, so I tend to enjoy it more often.

I see what you mean, but this really isn't the case. It doesn't just apply in the context of what I find "fun". I'm more likely to listen to Drukqs than an LCD Soundsystem album, despite the latter being the obvious party choice. I'm not saying I don't listen to these more abstract albums much, it's just a lot easier to put on something a bit less heavy.

If not, your references to 'math' upthread are pretty inexcusable.

I`d rate it by how many times I`ve listened to it, which for me is usually a combination of it being enjoyable and intriguing [not bored of it]. The new Autechre album is definately fitting into this category.

I referenced 'math' (=mathematics if you don't get it) because subtraction is involved.

Let's take my text:
"But in reality, everytime the first album is mentioned a lot, despite math saying that you listened it much less than the second one."

x = the plays of the first album (e.g. 100)
y = the plays of the second album (e.g. 350)

The difference between the plays of these 2 albums:
x - y = 100 - 350 = -250

"But in reality, everytime the first album is mentioned a lot, despite math saying that you listened it with 250 less plays than the second one."

If you don't get that, you're really thick... or American.

seems wobbly ground to judge other peoples music taste as being real or fake.
i can only speak for myself but the holy bible is in my top 10 albums ever,but i generally go thru a phase every year of listening to it for a few weeks,but during that few weeks i never cease to feel like im listening to something special.
where as i listen to ushers last lp every few weeks,i enjoy it,but it has never made that same mark on me that the holy bible did.
i imagine thats how lots of music fans feel about certain albums

Jesus, what a terrible username. Aren't you ashamed of this crappy username?

And look who this'd this stupid comment: heartworms & funkycow. Is this the gathering of people with stupid usernames? It seems it is...

Respect.

Logic - aka common sense; if you listen more to an album, the common sense tells that you like it more (otherwise what idiot would keep listening to an album that he/she doesn't like? -- excepting the special cases when someone try to get into new music).

Math - because of adding (playcounts++) and subtraction (the differences between the plays of two or more albums).

It's that hard to understand?

PS: bonus, Boards of Canada - Music Is Math http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7bKe_Zgk4o

So, your laugh disappeared...

i hope no one does anyway.

and as an aside, i don't get your maths tbh.

Just because I listen to an album with 12 tracks and an album with 4 tracks it doesn't mean I like the album with 12 tracks 3 times more than the one with four. And even if you're counting albums, supposing I listened to a 30 minute album four times rather than a 2 hour album once? This isn't a sensible way to compare how much you do and don't like albums.

Indeed it's not fair to compare albums with 4 tracks of 10 minutes each with a punk album with 20 tracks and 2 minutes each.

The Total Time is more accurate.

I sent the message too fast and I don't have a damn edit button

I just don't think that logic and maths is the best way to determine which music you like the most. Speaking purely personally, my favourite music isn't necessarily the music I listen to the most; it's the music I enjoy the most when I listen to it.

See the last line on the post above yours.

Because both versions are correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Math_(disambiguation)

"Math or maths is used colloquially to refer to mathematics."

So, it's correct.

Fuck you.

Your mathematics (x - y = z) are PERFECT, well done. It's the proof that you're taking from the answer that's not, and that's the part where it falls down; more plays doesn't mean to like something more, and it certainly doesn't mean that you rate something "higher", or whatever you mean.

I understand your mathematics; I don't get the conclusion you draw from them.

it's part of the fun.

http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4426585#r7375659

You ignored the point, of course.

Check this: higher playcount (or higher timecount) -> you like the song/album more -> more importance -> higher rating

In this country (the UK) we say maths. No one said you were incorrect they were asking if you were based in the UK.

it's part of the fun.

This is a different thing. You mixed maths with conclusion.

1. "and as an aside, i don't get your maths tbh."
2. "I understand your mathematics;..."

Oh, and by the way: fuck you too.

"my favourite music isn't necessarily the music I listen to the most; it's the music I enjoy the most when I listen to it."

That's fair.

whereas the truth is that the more times you listen to something, the more times you listen to it.

Liking the song more doesn't mean it's more important.

The song being more important doesn't mean you give it a higher rating.

Every premise you state is wrong.

"You seem to be saying that the more times you listen to something, the more you like it."

This is what I meant. Otherwise, why you would keep listening? Just for playcounts?

Compare it with playing games. The more time you spend playing a game, the more you like it, the more valuable is for you, the higher rating.

Look at some last.fm charts at Top Tracks (overall). Don't tell me those tracks on top aren't important for the owner of that account... They're here for a reason: the owner of that account liked them a lot and played them a lot -> higher rating than ordinary tracks. And usually these top tracks are also added at Loved Tracks.

The one that you listen more rarely or the one that you listen more often?

Think of it more like your favourite food. Just because you eat something every day it doesn't mean it's your favourite thing to eat. Your favourite thing might be something you have quite rarely, but it's your favourite because you enjoy it the most when you eat it.

I appreciate the point you're trying to make, but I don't think it's something you can measure through maths. The amount you do or don't enjoy the music you listen to is fundamentally intangible and therefore pretty hard to measure.

;)

Some users here claim that the music they listen the most often is not their favorite music (the music with the highest rating for them). This is baffling to me... Why you would spend the most time listening to something that isn't your most favorite music? Isn't life too short to waste it with something that you don't like (too much)?

...your favorite music is not the music with the highest rating for you. They want to defy a common sense logic that says that the things you like are the most important to you (hence, the highest rating).

well if you look at it that way,i imagine if you took the total amount of time in my whole life spent listening to the holy bible it would rank very high up my list of most time spent listening to a specific album,where as usher who i mentioned earlier would figure higher over the last year.but im starting to tire of it and cant see myself going back to it forever.
that makes sense i think?

I like steak more than I like yoghurt, but I eat a lot more yoghurt.

absence makes the heart grow fonder.

but that's not to say Confield doesn't have its place.

and that a lot of your love for it is tied up in nostalgia. It's also possible that some albums just don't need or warrant as many listens for you to appreciate them. Maybe it's a quality over quantity thing? As jessepinkmanslungs said above, I love albums like In Utero, although I just don't have time for it these days trying to ingest all this new music and interesting new sounds. I guess we're just moving with the times? Sometimes I feel like putting on the classics, and I do this quite often, but there's so much music out there that I don't want to spend my time stuck with these originals. If I hadn't listened to as much new music the last 2 years I'd be severely narrowing myself down.

Everyone's having fun.

These are not the only types of album that exist. There are also catchy albums that you listen to rarely and difficult albums that you listen to often. As well as difficult albums that are catchy and albums that are neither catchy nor difficult.

But, both are great albums. The question Deepie is asking is this: is an album better than another album because it's more accessible?

I can understand not wanting to put out an album that sounds like Maroon 5 or Rhianna, but I want to at least listen to it without reference tools. It's been years since I played my Bjork or Sigur Ros CDs. Radiohead - wankers elitists. You want difficult? Thelonious Monk, some classical stuff. I'm not gonna humour pretentious hippies.

I speak to you now.

There is no *definitive* link between listening time and appreciation.

I'll use Elliott Smith as an example. I listen to him in fits and starts. I'll go months without a single play and then listen to him non-stop for a week. I find it difficult to listen to him too regularly. It still gives me a feeling of despair (yes, all of 10 years later). And the music itself taken out of any context is still pretty intense to me.
He is (and probably always will be) my favourite artist. No one else's music consistently gets under my skin and speaks so deeply to me.

I also listen to Land of Talk every week. They're a lot of fun to listen to, but they're also easy to listen to. I can listen to them walking to work, on the bus/train, whilst i'm out shopping or hanging out with friends. I can listen to them on repeat or back to back.

As cliched as it is I usually listen to Elliott Smith in complete solitude, in my bedroom, headphones on, curtains closed.

Land of Talk are an excellent band, but I will never hold them in the same regard as Elliott Smith.

P.S. Stop posting as if you're presenting scientific findings it's really fucking grating.

Initially, I asked a question; I didn't say that it is exactly like that. But the topic derailed...

So it would be: "P.S. Stop posting"

Yeah. That it will happen sooner than you think. Actually it's a good advice. I'm quite sick of DiS forum anyway.

I guess I don't have a place here. I have way too many haters. I can't even open a topic without seeing ironic, provocative, and out of context comments... I can't have a decent discussion with these hyenas. This is the most fucked up music forum I've seen so far.

is accept that a hypothesis can be weak and flawed, then subsequently acknowledge the reasonable criticism of the flaws. There's no shame in that. You don't have to abandon it if you believe in it - but, for example, you could do with stepping back and scrutinising every implicit clause in your statement to see where the problems in trying to find significance in applying quantitative values to subjective forms:

"Technically, the more you listen an album, the more you like it."

This is no dig at you in any way - keep on fighting the fight man. It's a comment on the formulation of thought processes and argument construction.

a discussion requires a base that is valid for which to start upon. And this thread, despite valiant attempts by yourself, is based on a logical fallacy and you've not heeded it.

. . . my top tracks are woefully wrong thanks to a scrobbling error several years ago that result in what I was listening to being scrobbled several times. While it has evened out in terms of artists/album overall lists the error still rears its head in the tracks. With due respect to the excellent Malcolm Middleton "Death Love Depression Love Death" is not my third favourite track of all time!

It isn't perfect but have we all forgotten about normalisr already?

http://www.normalisr.com/

Adjusts last.fm charts to be by time rather than number. Watch as Sigur Ros fly up your overall chart to their deserved position. Knock yourselves out folks!

or course in terms of what your favourite albums are but it's interesting nonetheless.

reassure still_here and others that there is still intelligent debate on the music board.

Not even the pro's know how to prove their arguments right:

http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/03/07/glass-houses-and-straw-men-an-attempt-to-assess-quality-of-statistical-analyses-fails-its-own-test/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29

you should see me - BLOB!

I prefer Otis Live At The Whisky. But then, if you noticed earlier, I am a chips eater. We roll like that.

i'm not sure the difficult/catchy scale works. For me 'difficult' albums (that I like) are ones that have taken me a while to get into, but once I have they probably get as much plays as a catchy one, probably even more so as catchy albums may be instantly enjoyable but less there to hold my interest. So basically a long way of saying some albums are growers.

its just not possible to tie any form of art at all with some form of definitive scale.culture as a whole exists as a totally abstract notion,it thrives on so many constantly fluctuating themes such as your peer group,trends,fashions,politics,mental health,spirituality and christ knows what else that its totally impossible to measure so precisely,as you seem to believe.
and for me at least that is part of musics joy.

It means that Patton Oswalt goes from #27 to #5. Damn!

It goes through weird waves of insanity, where people gang up on each other for no reason other than having a difference of opinion.

Deep-blue has turned men into animals. It's like Lord of the Flies up in this bitch.