which do you prefer?

[Metal_Camden]

So which do you prefer?

a) a new album or band that is an imediate classic upon first listen, instantly good

OR

b) an album or band that is good' on first listen but as you listen more and more the CD becomes amazing and better every time.......


I personally like both, but just wanted to see how you guys out there feel

 

[ICEDEARTHFAN]

I have more experience with option b.Option a is great but it seems that band always falls off with the 2nd release.It's never as good as the 1st because everything after that is always compared to that classic 1st release.

 

[Cheiron]

Too many products out there. Rarely is it worth the time for B. A is almost always worth the time. B generally occurs when I already like a band's previous output, and thus I am willing to spend more time with a merely 'good' listen to see if there is greatness that I didn't hear at first.

 

[General Zod]

If both discs are destined to end up in the "classic" category and have the same life span (in terms of listening hours), than the instant would be the logical choice. With discs that are growers, it's possible you'll give up before they clicks.

If the choice was between a disc I love upon first listen, but which wears thin after a dozen spins and a disc that takes a half dozen listens before it clicks, but becomes a disc you listen to for years, I'd take the second option.

 

[Diamond45]

If a new band (to me) wants to grab my attention, it's Option A. It needs to take me in hook, line and sinker on first listen. Then I'll start to explore more of their material. Otherwise like Cheiron said, there are too many fish in the sea and I'll move on.

 

[Jasonic]

I like both of course, but overall would say I like ones which are "growers".

I suppose it depends on the band.
If it is a long running band, and it grabs me instantly, the problem could be that the band didn't really do anything different. This isn't always a bad thing, but could result in that CD sitting on my shelf after 2 listens.

It's always the albums which at first are head scratchers , and then click later, that I end up appreciating more, because usually it means that band did something more unique than the usual for them.

The first example that comes to mind is SLOUGH FEG's APE UPRISING.

 

[cslebn]

I have to go with B because I find that growers are usually more rewarding over time. It's not that the gloss of something I like instantly will wear off over time, but the growers tend to feel more rewarding and bond on a deeper level. As for time put in, I listen to my music library on random a lot and over time I'll hear somethign again and againa nd slowly it will build this love in me and then I find some album I thought was decent is something I love

 

[Dolamite S. Biffle]

I want to listen to a disc that when I envision the song live it gives me goosebumps, thats what I want.

 

[Metal_Camden]

thank all of you for your imput! I'm kinda the same, I love both, but usually find that the ones I have to listen to over and over are the more rewarding ones

but still who dosen't love an instant classic right? \m/

 

[OrbWeaver]

I like both, but the problem for me with option B is that if I only t hink an album is "good" I might not really listen to it all that much, so it might take awhile before it becomes one of those "amazing" albums. I have a couple albums in my collection that I listened to once or twice at first, then ignored them for a year or two. Once I got back to them, THEN they blew me away. I sort of feel like I missed out for that year or so, you know?