Do you still listen to albums the whole way through

donfers

I wish I could say yes but I am afraid I am addicted to the shuffle button, in some ways I miss the days when I bought a cd and listened to the album the whole way through seven or 8 times before forming a final opinion on it.................now I have loads and loads of music but don't have the same connections with the tracks/albums

so is it a problem that we have too much access is my question?

homerun_homer

I still listen to albums the whole way through but not always, and this is no different to before. It's just easier to shuffle now that it's too tempting.

Like any album, if I'm gonna stick by it it has to be good the whole way through and hold my attention otherwise I'm only gonna listen to the best bits and move along.

ColmDawson

It's certainly easier these days to succumb to the seductive simplicity of the shuffle button, but I don't think it's as rewarding as listening to a whole album. Sure, sometimes you just want a quick general feel of an album/band/genre and shuffle is handy for that, but I find it a lot more satisfying to digest a full record in one go. It's not just about the songs, it's about the sequence they're in and the way each one relates to the preceding and following tracks. The artist arranged them that way, so there's usually something to it.

In short: I don't want my dinner to be a forkful of lasagne, a slice of lamb and a few sausages of various types; I want one nice meal and I want to eat it all. :pac:

ButtersSuki

Hey,

Hear you on the access and the skipping fronts and have to admit to being guilty to it myself but if it's an album I really want to listen to I listen to it all the way through in the car - one of the few advantages of Dublin traffic

La frog fairy

first time i listen a new album, If i dont get "into" the song within the fist 30secs or so than i skip to the next song, im just too impatient thats why.

After that, I like shuffle the album, makes it more interesting not to know which one is coming, especially if i like the album cos i tend to listen to it a lot then.

ColmDawson

La frog fairy wrote: »

first time i listen a new album, If i dont get "into" the song within the fist 30secs or so than i skip to the next song, im just too impatient thats why.

That reminds me: the first time I listen to an album, I always listen to it from start to finish. Seems fair to me.

maccored

even when I had vinyl and tape I used to skip the filler

vincentdunne

I think you folks who 'skip' are probably missing some of the best songs which will last inside your head. I don't even rate a song until I have heard it 3 or 4 times. How many No.1s will you be listening to in a year's time?

smokedeels

Yeah, I'll still make cup of tea, get my smokes, put the CD/record on and listen to the album straight through, and repeat as needed.

I avail of playlists/the shuffle button, but I still love doing the above when I first purchase an album.

nommm

I still listen to albums the whole way through. I love it. Shuffle annoys me, on my ipod it always seems to play the same few songs. If I'm going for a jog or something I usually make a playlist though. :cool:

cashback

vincentdunne wrote: »

I think you folks who 'skip' are probably missing some of the best songs which will last inside your head. I don't even rate a song until I have heard it 3 or 4 times. How many No.1s will you be listening to in a year's time?

Very true, some of my favourite songs are album tracks which took a few listens to grow on me.

rcaz

To be honest, it kinda bothers me when people say that they only listen to single tracks/always shuffle everything/skip 'filler' because it's 'more interesting' or something - the artist(s) involved in making the album aren't just trying to entertain one person, they're making artworks, complete albums, and complete works of art like that are too important to just take apart for someone's own convenience. If the album isn't good enough to hold your interest the whole way through without being shuffled of skipping tracks, then find a better album and listen to that instead.

I think the 'problem' of having too much access is only an issue if you're not interested in giving large chunks of your time to the art. Which is fine, if that's the way you want it, it's just not my way.

orourkeda

It makes no sense to buy an album and not listen to it straight through a couple of times early on.

Its perfectly understandable to choose your favourites after this.

feno13

The ipod has alot to answer for here I reckon. Yes, they offer convenience but the compromise is quality (mp3s sound like piss) and take the love out of listening to music in a way. I would say that its becoming rare for people to sit down with (or purchase in the first place) a CD or vinyl and listen the whole way through. And of course, this has an influence on the way music is written, recorded, mastered, marketed etc. Just listen to the stream of tripe being pedalled on daytime radio. But thats a whole other can of worms I probably shouldn't open and I'm beginning to waffle. Anyway, personally, the answer is yes, I still love to listen to CDs/vinyls from beginning to end, the way all great albums are intended to be listened to.

rcaz

feno13 wrote: »

the compromise is quality (mp3s sound like piss)

I don't get this argument, same way I don't get people who buy really expensive headphones and keep all their music in FLAC - you're never going to be able to listen properly in any situation that necessitates a portable music player, so why bother? I think a lot of people obsess over sound quality like this because they think they should, and they think it'll improve their enjoyment, but if you're listening to music on the train, you're never going to be paying full attention anyway, so the whole exercise is pointless.

feno13 wrote: »

Just listen to the stream of tripe being pedalled on daytime radio.

That was already a problem long before the iPod or any equivalent technology was invented...

Miguel_Sanchez

The shuffle function doesn't work on my MP3 player. It also doesn't work on my CD player for some reason.

I do remembering fast forwarding past songs I didn't like when all my albums were on cassette though and these days I still may skip over a track if I dislike it but I will normally listen to an album the whole way through. I dislike listening to one album on shuffle as it's not the order the artist intended. But I will sometimes stick my iTunes on shuffle and just let it bounce around from artist to artist picking random songs.

La frog fairy

ColmDawson wrote: »

That reminds me: the first time I listen to an album, I always listen to it from start to finish. Seems fair to me.

ah i do too, but what i was saying is i listen to it quickly skipping song if i dont get hooked right away then properly listen to it all over.
it was just for the first time listening that i cant wait.;)

Anyway, best way to hear a band is live, nothing can compare to that.

fluke

With certain bands that I've listened to over the years (those that have a special place in my heart) I will make a point of listening to their new/recent albums the whole way through. Even if I only get halfway through an album on a given night I will come back to where I left it.

Even bands I'm recommended I'll listen and get through a specific album a few times until I make any sort of decision.

Some albums I've listened to lately seem to run out of steam before the last 2/3 songs.

feno13

El Pr0n wrote: »

I don't get this argument, same way I don't get people who buy really expensive headphones and keep all their music in FLAC - you're never going to be able to listen properly in any situation that necessitates a portable music player, so why bother? I think a lot of people obsess over sound quality like this because they think they should, and they think it'll improve their enjoyment, but if you're listening to music on the train, you're never going to be paying full attention anyway, so the whole exercise is pointless.



That was already a problem long before the iPod or any equivalent technology was invented...

I don't "feel that I should" obsess about sound quality and I don't feel that I obsess about it in the first place. Look, its quite simple: if you enjoy listening to music its MORE enjoyable listening to the records you love in the best way you can. Same as you'd rather watch a movie on a decent telly rather than a portable 14 inch job. Also, if you're listening to music on the train and not really paying attention, then why bother listening? This is what I find somewhat lamentable. Listening to music as an event in itself (ie putting aside time to sit back, relax and listen to an album start to finish) seems to be dying in favour of music being a convenient source of continuous background noise. This doesn't instill any passion for music.

With regard to your argument that there was always sh*t on the radio before the ipod was invented, I didn't say the ipod was the cause of the problem. But, it would be foolish to say that the people who write and produce the music that you hear on daytime radio haven't taken heed of the fact that all the kids out there that own ipods barely listen to full songs anymore as they've now got too much choice ----> In a desperate bid for attention, pop songs get shorter, deal with increasingly crude and simplistic themes, are mastered louder etc. etc. etc.

fluke

feno13 wrote: »

I don't "feel that I should" obsess about sound quality and I don't feel that I obsess about it in the first place. Look, its quite simple: if you enjoy listening to music its MORE enjoyable listening to the records you love in the best way you can. Same as you'd rather watch a movie on a decent telly rather than a portable 14 inch job. Also, if you're listening to music on the train and not really paying attention, then why bother listening? This is what I find somewhat lamentable. Listening to music as an event in itself (ie putting aside time to sit back, relax and listen to an album start to finish) seems to be dying in favour of music being a convenient source of continuous background noise. This doesn't instill any passion for music

This particular statement is so so true of me lately when going to work in the morning...:(

markok84

I always listen to them from start to finish, it's just habit from the age of the cassette tape. To fully appreciate the Hazards of love for instance it needs to be listened to from start to finish IMO.

donfers

markok84 wrote: »

I always listen to them from start to finish, it's just habit from the age of the cassette tape. To fully appreciate the Hazards of love for instance it needs to be listened to from start to finish IMO.

the hazards of love????


start a thread on them mate, i haven't a clue about them

feno13

fluke wrote: »

This particular statement is so so true of me lately when going to work in the morning...:(

Thats the thing about radio. Well, certainly the majority of national morning/daytime radio. They make it so middle of the road, neither offensive nor inoffensive, keeping it a steady level of mediocrity that no one bothers to change station. By pushing the boat out at all, they'd risk losing listeners. Its a shame really.

Jay P

Yes, I do. I genuinely find that it upsets the flow of the album otherwise. What I do a lot though is listen to my favourite song first, then go back to the start and listen all the way through.

The only times the shuffle function is used on my iPod is when I want to listen to an artist, but not one single album, just a load of different songs. Other than that, when I've a playlist made, I always put it on shuffle.

lostboy75

hazards of love is an album by The Decemberists
which is what i think markok84 was mentioning,
like several of the Decemberists albums is a story told over an album. with different themes and characters etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hazards_of_Love

p.s. dont know how to link names etc.
i tend to do both, seldom use shuffle, but do skip around in albums, majority of the time i will play the album through. never really use playlists,

Lost

John

I only listen to albums all the way through, even on my iPod or at my computer. The only time I listen to single tracks is if I'm listening to the radio (and even then I restrict myself to certain programs and stations, I haven't got mainstream tastes to say the least) or if I'm listening to singles.

While I agree in principle with feno13's points about listening to albums should be an event, this is an ideal situation. I do put aside time for just listening to albums, I still get excited about new releases and don't download leaks and have bought one album ever in mp3 format (and only because at the time it wasn't available in any other format).

However, I also like having music on as much as possible, dipping in and out as I'm working. It's not giving the music the same attention as a dedicated listening session but it's amazing what differences you pick up on when the music is not your primary focus. It's horses for courses really.

zimovain

I tend to 'trim down' some albums on my Ipod. I have cut Blonde On Blonde down by 4 songs as I just find some of it drags at times. I think most of us are guilty of trimming??

Miguel_Sanchez

zimovain wrote: »

I tend to 'trim down' some albums on my Ipod. I have cut Blonde On Blonde down by 4 songs as I just find some of it drags at times. I think most of us are guilty of trimming??

Do you delete the songs or just skip them?

I never delete songs off an album.

zimovain

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Do you delete the songs or just skip them?

I never delete songs off an album.

Delete, but on a very rare occasion.

rcaz

I never 'trim', and I wouldn't do it ever. And seriously, you thought Blonde On Blonde needed 'trimming'?? :eek:

zimovain

El Pr0n wrote: »

I never 'trim', and I wouldn't do it ever. And seriously, you thought Blonde On Blonde needed 'trimming'?? :eek:

Too much filler on it for me. Rainy Day Women is something I never want to hear again in my lifetime. Highway 61 is a far better album.

'Little James' from Oasis's 'Standing on the...' album is another that has been given the bullet.

markok84

donfers wrote: »

the hazards of love????


start a thread on them mate, i haven't a clue about them

It's the fifth album from The Decemberists, their previous album, -the crane wife- is also a concept album but I think the hazards of love is a hundred times better. The whole album is like an opera and tells the story of a woman named Margaret who falls in love with a forest dweller called William to the chagrin of his Mother and another character called the Rake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=881qFziuGG8

and the playlist.

They've a new album out in 2011, can't wait!!

fluke

The only time I trim an album is when there are bonus tracks on it, the songs might be good, but usually they're tacked on ath the end and don't fit the general feel of the album.

ricero

yea i listen to kasabians debut album straight thru and oasis first 2 albums right thru

Placid_Casual

Whenever I get a new album, I listen to it all the way through, probably at least 5 or 6 times. I find it takes me at least that long to decide whether I like both individual songs and the album as a whole. After that, i'll listen to either individual tracks or the whole album depending on how much I like the album, my mood and how much time I have to listen.

Generally though, I do like to listen to entire albums as I feel that's the way the artist meant it to be listened to. Obviously, I don't always do that or even want to but, in a way, skipping tracks feels like skipping scenes in a movie or chapters in a book.

A V A

yes i still do it ,

the xx - xx
foals- antidotes
angels and airwaves - we dont need to whisper
the drums- the drums

jill_valentine

It's very, very rare I'll delete a song from an album if I plan on keeping the rest. The last occasion I can think of was City With No Children on The Suburbs, which I hated so much it put me off the whole thing. It's something I never do usually, but my enjoyment of the album hugely increased for it, so I think I made the right call.

Generally though, I always listen to albums the whole way through. Partly because the way my MP3 player is set up, it's easiest, but also because I have some very schizophrenic tastes, so shuffling can have absolutely dire consequences. The violent jolt from a bit of Thom Yorke piano noodling* to Death From Above 1979 screaming about shagging something is simply too much for my delicate nerves to handle.

So yeah, full albums all the way. Not because I'm a purist or anything, but because if one song suits my humour, then usually the rest do too.


*snicker.

eyeball kid

jill_valentine wrote: »

So yeah, full albums all the way. Not because I'm a purist or anything, but because if one song suits my humour, then usually the rest do too.

This is why I generally listen to full albums as well. I'm also to lazy to make any playlists or anything like that.

1967

Always listen to an album the whole way through and will listen to it quite a few times before passing judgement,i dunno maybe its an age thing with the younger people brought up on cd's and mp3's who just flick through songs and the people brought up on vinyl and tapes who listen to an album fully.

rcaz

1967 wrote: »

Always listen to an album the whole way through and will listen to it quite a few times before passing judgement,i dunno maybe its an age thing with the younger people brought up on cd's and mp3's who just flick through songs and the people brought up on vinyl and tapes who listen to an album fully.

I'd qualify as a 'younger person' (just turned 20 in October), and I'm of the latter persuasion. I think it's just varying level of interest.

column

Some albums just don't work if you shuffle them - Mansun - Six, for one.

I'd say there's a few Pink Floyd albums that don't work on shuffle either.

rcaz

column wrote: »

Some albums just don't work if you shuffle them - Mansun - Six, for one.

I'd say there's a few Pink Floyd albums that don't work on shuffle either.

All albums don't work on shuffle. If you shuffle it it stops being an album. It's just a list of songs then.

ValJester

jill_valentine wrote: »

So yeah, full albums all the way. Not because I'm a purist or anything, but because if one song suits my humour, then usually the rest do too.


*snicker.

+1

McCruiskeen

I think the way we consume music is changing.

One example I can think of...

now when I give and recommend an album to a friend, unless the first 1 or 2 songs are catchy, I usually get tumbleweed back from them. Sometimes I edit the album and put the catchier songs to the beginning and my friends are much more likely to like the band even though it's exactly the same album (I do feel a bit dirty after I do this).

People often won't put in any effort with an album if their very first impression isn't positive, but I find that my favourite albums are ones that I didn't particularly like at first, because they were complex and more was going on than just catchy tunes.

Then again too many of my friends are musical snobs who don't like music unless they "discover" the band themselves.

Then again, I remember when I was younger and all my pocket money was spent on an album (hence it was precious), I would kid myself that ****e was great rather than admit I've just blown 10 pounds.

column

McCruiskeen wrote: »

People often won't put in any effort with an album if their very first impression isn't positive, but I find that my favourite albums are ones that I didn't particularly like at first, because they were complex and more was going on than just catchy tunes.

Certainly agree here.

seachto7

Yes, I listen all the way through. I only buy albums that I know are solid throughout, why spend money on a weak album...
Though I do have albums, where the particular genre of music, I have grown out of...

rcaz

seachto7 wrote: »

Yes, I listen all the way through. I only buy albums that I know are solid throughout, why spend money on a weak album...
Though I do have albums, where the particular genre of music, I have grown out of...

Do you never buy anything without researching it first?

seachto7

ah yeah, I'd read reviews , and try and get positive and negative reviews if possible, then go to myspace or youtube, and listen to some clips, then I'll make up my mind from that.
But even if it's a band I like, and a general consensus is that there are only one or two good songs on the album, I'd probably steer clear.
Thing about so much music being available legally and illegally at the click of a button, is that I am flooding myself with music, and not listening to it properly.
Whereas, back when I could only afford a CD the odd time, I'd make sure it was quality before buying, and I'd get to know it inside out.
If I'm really into the band, I'd buy the CD.....

Gregsor

I do but it will take me 10-15 mins to pick an album out first.

Mostly the older stuff (early 90's)i will leave on,track to track as it was probably the most influenced time for music for me and i knew most of the songs word for word,these days i don't have the privilege,granted i still get loads of listening time but just not the same as my teenage years when the music pumped true my veins and it was my everything and anything (no i am not grey yet ).

I like to think there is a method behind the song placement on albums,almost like a story playing out but it doesn't work if you aren't too bothered with the artists in the first place.
Unfortunately a band has to earn their airplay time in my head and these days alot just don't make it.

Sinfonia

El Pr0n wrote: »

To be honest, it kinda bothers me when people say that they only listen to single tracks/always shuffle everything/skip 'filler' because it's 'more interesting' or something - the artist(s) involved in making the album aren't just trying to entertain one person, they're making artworks, complete albums, and complete works of art like that are too important to just take apart for someone's own convenience.

If an artist finds it acceptable to effectively shuffle their albums in various combinations for setlists at live shows, then I fail to see how the artists themselves can consider an album to be a complete work of art, too important to be taken apart.
Thus, if your argument is anti-shuffle as a matter of respect to the artist, then surely it is nullified by the vast majority of live performances outside of the 'art' music tradition.

As some people have mentioned, the 'concept' album may affect the decision, as individual tracks lose their autonomy and become part of an extended narrative. This is comparable to movements within a symphony, for example, which in the classical traditional would always be expected to be performed in its entirety. However, if a series of discrete pieces, perhaps for the same instrument, are published under a single opus number, or a series of songs with a similar lack of correlation in narrative are compiled on the same album, I see no problem with the shuffle button, or with isolating tracks.

If an artist is committed to the idea of their album as a single work of art, and stays true to this in live contexts (and obviously never willingly releases a best of/greatest hits compilation), then I think your point is valid, and while I wouldn't necessarily agree that the listener should feel indebted to the artist, I do agree that it would be a decent (if albeit unnoticed) display of respect for the wishes of the artist. It's just too rare though.

jill_valentine

Artists can agonise over the running order for a long time, even if it's not a concept album as such, and the result is whatever they figure works best. More often than not, they're right. Even if it's not a concept album the emotional arc or the pacing or whatever can be quite thoughtfully judged - so the songs might not be completely interconnected or anything, but they might just flow best in the order they appear.

As for the live thing, it's true they mix things up live, but songs can work differently onstage than on a disc, you know?