Didn't you also review a Trivium album after only hearing the single? Ahhh, good times.

actually, it was 5 minutes, and I got 8 points for it, that's correct.

That trivium review: wasn't even the single! Just a random song. That was an awful review, though, definitely my worst "review an album without listening to the whole thing" review (and there's a few of 'em!)

Caspian, it's not so wrong when it's obviously total shit like Trivium. You get a perfectly good picture of it just from listening to 1-2 songs.


Yep, and more than that is overanalysing it.

For me, I usually listen to a record for a full 24 hours, whether that be me hearing it four times or 20 times. With that said, I have to make sure the record consumes me on all levels before I actually site down and try to gather my thoughts in Microsoft Word.

Since I review with the objective of assembling a magazine and publishing a tangible object, I put a lot of time into the reviews that I write, and consequently, I put a lot of time into the albums that I review. Oftentimes it is not until several months after I first acquire a CD that I begin to write a review for it. I like to listen to it several times initially, then give it space and come back to it after a period of time to see if my initial observations are still valid. While this is not the most expedient and contemporaneous means of reviewing, my goal is not to get my take on an album out as fast as possible to make sure that as many people know what I think as possible; rather, my sights are set on a broader ambition than simply "here's what I think about the latest album right now". I like to think of my reviews as complete in the sense that they capture what I expect that I will feel about a particular album for the duration of time while placing it within a historical context of past, present, and future. It takes a lot more time, but it's more rewarding and contributes more in the long run than a series "here's what I think" one-liners.

Usually 2-3 listens will do it for me. If I can stomach that much ("Holy Creatures Quest" and "American Soldier" were painful enough with one listen).

I'm pretty terrible at planning reviews, i.e. "I'll check this out n' review it later"

I usually scan through my playlist til a track comes on and I have a really strong opinion on a very specific aspect of it; then scan through their discog for a general background opinion on the band; also good for comparisons), then listen to only the album I'll be reviewing as I'm reviewing it... Some may see this as lazy, waiting for inspiration to 'strike,' but as most have covered -- everyone's different and reviews are as subjective as they come.

Some releases ony a few times other hundreds. But I have to say I want to at least hear a new release 5 times before reviewing. except when I totally and truly HATE it. In that case 3 times is my max

After one listen I'll know if I have something to say or not. Good or bad. Then it's just a matter of wanting to say it. I don't want to sound like an idiot, or a whiner. I just want to write a review that might be helpful to someone who reads it.

Best comment ever.

Confirming that many people only listen once when giving bad reviews is not really a shock when reading some of them.

Often it seems like the reviewers are either disappointed based on expectations or hype, and rush to some judgement, or simply don't like the band and are just listening once to prove that their assumptions are correct.

I also get a feeling that many rate based on what others have rated, simply because they want to affect the overall score or to show how disappointed they are, and not how good the release is.

That's a fairly bold assessment. It undoubtedly happens, but probably not to the frequency you believe, Megadeth. Granted, I'm with you about one-listen reviews being bad logic, but I'm sure at least the core foundation of veteran reviewers 'round this neck of the woods practice a deeper reviewing method than most.

I don't think the scores given are "political" in that sense. The moderation keeps out pretty much all counter-reviews.

Generally it's not good to review based on only one listen, but honestly some albums you kinda can tell you will hate just based on one or two. Do I really need to spend a month lisening to the new Running Wild album to tell it sucks?

3 is the magic number for me, unless the album is horrible. Then 3 is too much.

EDIT: Well shit, I've already been here, apparently.

I like to listen 6-10 times depending on the density of the album. Some albums need even more listens. Really bad albums might need only 2-3 listens. I would say its virtually impossible to have anything worth sharing about an album after a single listen.

Usually only once or twice. Special cases come up like Agony by Fleshgod Apocalypse where I could not stop listening to the album long enough to review it so by the time I did review it I had listened to it I think 8 or 9 times, or the new Nile album where I intentionally listened to it a second time because I barely remembered anything about it after I listened to it the first time.