This is something that has made me curious for a while, especially regarding more experienced reviewers. After how many listens of the album you generally write a review? Do you prefer to write it right after listening or after leaving it for a while and then coming back to it?

In my case it's usually minimum 5 listens (in case of great albums, it can reach 15-20), and I try to leave it for a while to get a colder perspective. I wonder how others look at this...

Greatly depends on the musical content. I don't need 20 listens of a Nightwish album to tell me it sucks, for example.

As few as 2, as many as 200.

Usually around 3-5 for me, though I may require more or less depending on the band.

As many have suspected, I don't actually listen to what I review at all, I just say the opposite of whatever people who like it say. In fact, I'm not even a metalhead.

NP: Heut Ist Mein Tag

I don't do a lot of reviews, but i'd say roughly 4 straight listens, then come back to it a day later for one more, then its review time

Well, I recently wrote one for Overkill's The Killing Kind. I've heard it before here and there. But recently I listened through it twenty six times according to Last.FM though it misses a few spins that I gave it in the car. So that would be about thirty I guess in total. Of course, after I decided to write the review I listened to it five, six times again.

see for the most part most music is full of cliches so what i listen for is something new and untried usually. I would say between 5 - 7 listens for me

You clearly needed to listen a few more times.

you should always listen over and over untill you feel that you can...

BE THE REVIEW.




i reckon.

What does that even mean?

I'm not quite sure either, but it DID make me laugh.

Back on topic: Most of the time I can formulate a decent opinion on it within the first listen, but it takes maybe 10 more listens of it to solidify that opinion well enough that I have enough content for a review. Yes, there are albums that grow on you, or lose their lustre over time, but I can usually recognize that those albums have traits that either take time to develop or diminish.

i generally write reviews for albums that ive known for a long time so have had dozens of spins off.

The reviews I've written (and I haven't written one in three years - planning on doing another one soon) I generally would listen to the album as one normally would, not paying a huge amount of attention. Then, I would when I was considering reviewing it, listen to it a couple of times in full. Finally, I'd dissect each track and make a few notes on each, and then listen to the album in its entirety again. As I listen through, I would begin to write the review.

I listen enough until I think I can fairly write a review - bare minimum for writing a review is an uninterrupted listen all the way through with my undivided attention given to the music, usually with a notepad to keep track of thoughts. Sometimes I begin summarizing the album on the second listen through, sometimes I try to mix up my listening habits and listen to the album a few times in different situations (while doing something else) as it helps me notice different things. Very few albums that require undivided attention by their nature end up being albums that I enjoy - Devil Doll albums are amazing because of the incredibly complex and extraordinary composition that leaves me hearing new things dozens of listens in, but a lot of tech- and neo-prog stuff is complex for the sake of complexity, not out of necessity.

Usually the way I review shit is I pick an album that I've heard before. (My latest review was entirely new to me, actually, but whatever.) I'll play it once and write down my general thoughts on the music. Then I'll play it a couple more times and refine the edges on certain parts of the review that I've already covered. I usually don't listen to an album more than three times during the reviewing process, unless I'm typing a motherfucking monster.