Quantifying the value of an album - How do you do it?

[JayKeeley]

What metrics or key criteria?

Here are some discussion points:

1 - If a 10 song album contains 3 really excellent tracks, but the other 7 are pieces of shit, then is the album a keeper? Do the 3 good tracks outweigh the crappy 7 tracks?

2 - What's better - (i) an album with a few very good songs where the rest is blarguh, or (ii) an album that is consistently above average throughout?

3 - Can an entire album listening experience be ruined for you through one major flaw? Example: Can you listen to an album that has some excellent song material, but you can't stand the drummer, or the production is just painfully bad?

4 - If you rate an album with a score (e.g. x/10), does the measuring process differ depending on the genre of the album? Example: you might have a 10/10 death metal album that you like just as much as a 7/10 doom metal album.

:Spin:

 

[IOfTheStorm]

1. the album is not good
2.ii selection
3.No
4.When you judge for your ears yes (its logical to like something one gengre more than another), but for others to see , its different.

 

[dill_the_devil]

1 - Nope, because you've paid for an album's worth of material. If there were only three decent tracks on it and the other seven were shite, I'd feel cheated and annoyed that my money had been 70% wasted.

2 - Consistency wins hands down, every time. I find that if there are one or two moments of genius in a generally crap disc, that makes the whole experience far more depressing, because then you know for a fact that the band is capable of doing better, and therefore have no excuse.

3 - Only if it's a painfully bad vocalist - that seems to be the only thing that can put me off a band altogether.

4 - I tend to rate albums against other landmarks in the same general style, although I am generally a lot harder on power metal because there are only about four power metal albums I can listen to... hehehe

 

[Black Winter Day]

i just base it all on the album cover

 

[NAD]

I don't have a certain checklist to go by to rate an album, it pretty much falls down to how much I enjoy the album, obviously a subjective look.

1. That situation seems so rare to me, if I really like one, two, or three tracks on an album I generally like the whole thing. But no, I would not consider the album as a whole good, if the songs as a whole were not good.

2. ... I can't really answer that because it can vary so much. Although those few CDs with one truly brilliant track with 12 shit ones are frustrating, because you know the group has the ability to rule, but they just choose not to 99% of the time.

3. Major flaw, definitely. If a good group has a really terrible singer and he never shuts up, it's hard to look beyond that. Case in point, the Haunted's first album, which I can barely listen to because I can't stand the vocals.

4. Not conciously, no. I don't think there are any genres I simply cannot stand though, except maybe straight up hardcore or power metal, but even those I'll give a fair shake. An attempt at one anyhow.

 

[MadeInNewJersey]

1. There better be at LEAST 70% quality tracks, not the other way around.

2. I would much rather an album be decent all the way through than have a few standout tracks and lots of filler.

3. This depends. NAD makes a good point about the vocals. If they demolish an album for me, I'm not looking past it. But poor production can be overlooked. This has to be a case-by-case basis for me.

4. Probably to a degree. A 7/10 Viking metal album to me would be as good as a 10/10 prog metal album, almost every time. There are definitely some genres where I am far more lenient, because I prefer them.

 

[Jim LotFP]

1 - If a 10 song album contains 3 really excellent tracks, but the other 7 are pieces of shit, then is the album a keeper? Do the 3 good tracks outweigh the crappy 7 tracks?

Depends on the three songs. In general, bands have shit diversity. They'll have two or three types of songs and within those types they'll all sound exactly the same. If any album can come up with three really excellent tracks, they are a godsend in comparison to everything else because most bands can't come up with three really excellent tracks in a career. Bands tend to write in sounds instead of songs, so the chance that songs would stand out is simply random chance... either that or they burn out their brilliance of sound after two albums and after that become repetitious bores or change styles so they can run a new sound into the ground.

2 - What's better - (i) an album with a few very good songs where the rest is blarguh, or (ii) an album that is consistently above average throughout?

Albums which are consistently above average are SO rare, again, because bands don't seem to be writing songs as their own individual entities. If a band can come up a few very good songs, that has to be enough for me or I'll only like one CD every six months or so.

3 - Can an entire album listening experience be ruined for you through one major flaw? Example: Can you listen to an album that has some excellent song material, but you can't stand the drummer, or the production is just painfully bad?

There's always something... production just has to sound decent for me to not be bothered, and a clever band can cover up any talent deficiencies in a band. Untalented and clever is better than talented and boorish... Talented and clever is best of all, of course.

4 - If you rate an album with a score (e.g. x/10), does the measuring process differ depending on the genre of the album? Example: you might have a 10/10 death metal album that you like just as much as a 7/10 doom metal album.

eh, my mental scales (since I don't publish ratings... I should though) are universal, not 'oh this is a great death metal album it gets a few more points than this great doom metal album'... of course my personal biases get involved but it's not a conscious effort. It's damned difficult for a straight up genre release to get many points from me because those bands have a hard time with the song vs sound thing. Mid paced, melodic bands usually have some sort of advantage with me because there's no choice but to make real songs if a band's in that mode, because there are no crutches (CRUSHING DOOM! or BRUTAL HEAVINESS!) around those parts.

 

[Demonspell]

1. For me, a truly great album has no songs that are significantly worse than the remainder of the album, and officially becomes bad when at least half the songs fail to interest me or have little to no redeeming qualities.
2. The second one.
3. As long as the problem is not glaring enough that it destroys the album's listenability.
4. I try to avoid this trap, but sometimes genre bias does show up, I'd be far less likely to give a strict death metal album a 10 than a prog album, for instance. However, the grading criteria is consistent, a 7/10 in both genres would have about the same amount of factors lowering the rating.

 

[J.]

1 - If a 10 song album contains 3 really excellent tracks, but the other 7 are pieces of shit, then is the album a keeper? Do the 3 good tracks outweigh the crappy 7 tracks?

No. Like 'Gugs said, the good better outweigh the bad. Example: Opeth's Blackwater Park. The title track and Patterns in the Ivy are excellent, beautiful songs. The rest is the musical equivalent of the shit I just took. I don't own the album.

2 - What's better - (i) an album with a few very good songs where the rest is blarguh, or (ii) an album that is consistently above average throughout?

ii, easily.

3 - Can an entire album listening experience be ruined for you through one major flaw? Example: Can you listen to an album that has some excellent song material, but you can't stand the drummer, or the production is just painfully bad?

No. Production has never bothered. I can't believe people actually get all bent out of shape because the guitars are too loud, or the drums are too buried.

4 - If you rate an album with a score (e.g. x/10), does the measuring process differ depending on the genre of the album? Example: you might have a 10/10 death metal album that you like just as much as a 7/10 doom metal album.

No. My favorite album ever is a melodic doom album, yet I don't consider doom my favorite genre.

 

[Nate The Great]

I don't want to answer all those right now, but I'll say that the drum production on Mithras 'Worlds Beyond the Veil' brings that album down in likeability for me. I think it is one of the cheapest sounding productions (just for the drums) I've ever heard. It just adds a little bit of cheese to an otherwise good album. Cheese is good, but not with music/art.

 

[NAD]

I love the drums on Worlds Beyond the Veil, I must be one of the few because I've heard that comment several times. The wee bit o' reverb on them gives them a spacey feel baby yeah!!!

 

[Nate The Great]

The terribly cheesy triggering and amazingly thin production gives them a very fake sound. Most drum machines sound more real than the Mithras drums.

 

[Demonspell]

I find triggering and constant blasting to be about equally annoying, though I have to agree that in Mithras' case they do actually enhance the atmosphere a bit.

 

[JayKeeley]

The terribly cheesy triggering and amazingly thin production gives them a very fake sound. Most drum machines sound more real than the Mithras drums.

Wait 'till you hear Dechristianize.

 

[NAD]

Eh, just the snare sucks on that one.

I love the cymbals on Dechristianize, they sound like tortured souls being slaughtered.