Does anyone else do this?

[Ultimetalhead]

Just another weird music listening habit poll. I find that I'm usually partial to the second option, because I have this weird thing where I don't want to wear out any specific part of the album for myself (like, I'd burn myself out on the first 5 tracks of something, and thereby not want to listen to the album as much).

It all pretty much relates to the "sanctity" of the album to me. I absolutely despise listening to individual songs by bands, because I feel like the album is always greater than the individual parts. Even if it's not, I usually convince myself it is.

[BlobVanDam]

If it's the same day, I'll resume from where I left off, but if it's later than that, I'll start from the beginning.
If I'm listening to a whole album, I like to listen to the whole thing, so if it's interrupted I like to restart so I get the full album, otherwise I'll just get the urge to listen to the songs at the start of the album again anyway.

[Nick]

This happens more often then not in the car, and I just let it resume from where it left off.

[Elite]

If it ever happens to me, I'm all for the second option.

[yorost]

It depends on how long of a break.  30 minutes?  I definitely just unpause.  A day?  I probably restart it.

[Zantera]

I never really stop in the middle of an album. But if it would happen, I would probably listen to it again from the start. (unless it's the same day)

[darkshade]

Most times I will pick up where I left off, unless a lot of time has passed. But if it's the same day, or if I listened to an album in the car on my way home, went to bed, then had to go somewhere in the morning, I'd pick up right where I left off. I, too, fear overplaying early tracks to where I won't want to listen to the whole thing.

[Nekov]

I always start from the last song I was listening to before I got interrupted.

[lonestar]

I've done both.

[Ħ]

Just another weird music listening habit poll. I find that I'm usually partial to the second option, because I have this weird thing where I don't want to wear out any specific part of the album for myself (like, I'd burn myself out on the first 5 tracks of something, and thereby not want to listen to the album as much).

I never worry about that.

It all pretty much relates to the "sanctity" of the album to me. I absolutely despise listening to individual songs by bands, because I feel like the album is always greater than the individual parts. Even if it's not, I usually convince myself it is.

There's a huge emphasis about the sanctity of the album on DTF (probably due to SW) but I think it's overblown, tbh. I'd say it depends on the artist. Some artists are album-oriented, and some are not. Even then, the artists' intentions don't really matter, because an album written as an album could still just come across as a collection of songs (Blackfield albums, In Absentia).

If you skip around individual tracks for an album that is just a compilation of songs (whether the artist intended it or not), then I don't see a problem. Lot's of artists let the first half of the album be much better than the second half.

[KevShmev]

It all depends on my mood.  For example, if I drive somewhere and get through half an album, whether or not I listen to the other half of the way home later depends on if I am in the mood for the rest when I get back in the car.  I'll turn the car on, and if it still sounds just right to me that instant, I'll leave it on, but sometimes I'll get the urge to want to hear something else, so I'll change it. 

Ultimately, while many albums are best listened to as wholes, I do not make myself a slave to it.

[darkshade]

Ħ made a great point. If you listen to, say, a funk album, it doesn't usually matter if you finish the album or not. Funk albums are usually a collection of songs. But if you listen to a more prog album, then sometimes, it's best to try to listen to the whole thing, or pick up where you left off.

[jingle.boy]

Depends how long it's been, and whether I even remember that I left part way through.  If it hasn't been that long, and the song is still "active" on my iPhone/pod/tunes, then I'll usually just pick it up from there again (assuming I'm still in the mood for that artist/genre).

[ReaperKK]

Start from beginning unless I'm in the car.

[PuffyPat]

I've done both.

This. It really depends on how I feel about the album, or how much time I have, although I feel like I usually restart the album unless it's in the car or has only been a short amount of time since I stopped listening to the album.

[kirksnosehair]

I've done both.

Same here, I think it depends mostly on the time that has elapsed since the first play.  But in my car I usually just put a CD in and play it start to finish, even if there are breaks in between.

[Ultimetalhead]

See, the weird thing is, my crazy "albums must be listened to as a whole" thing didn't start when I got into prog. It's something I've been doing ever since I got into 90s bubblegum pop. To me, it was all about how the songs flowed, and it still is to an extent. And, I guess my logic back then was "Well, I paid for the entire album, so it would be a waste of money to not listen to the whole thing."

As silly as I find Steven Wilson sometimes, I don't think he's to blame for my case.

[darkshade]

^ Well.... Yea..... Steven Wilson did not come out of no where and emphasize listening to a whole album in one shot, and then a mass of people were like "oh yea, I'll have to try that. Steve Wilson is so smart!". That's been a thing since the concept of "album" was introduced 50-60 years ago.

[TioJorge]

If it's the same day, I'll resume from where I left off, but if it's later than that, I'll start from the beginning.
If I'm listening to a whole album, I like to listen to the whole thing, so if it's interrupted I like to restart so I get the full album, otherwise I'll just get the urge to listen to the songs at the start of the album again anyway.

This exactlys. That said, these days I've been listening to fewer and fewer albums entirely and just listening to a few individual favorite songs off said album. If it's one thing I'm 'burnt out' on recently, it's concept albums and long, drawn out sequences of music. I've been much more welcoming to shorter, 'to-the-point' songs the last couple weeks. Not too sure why. I might still be recovering from The Incident..

[Phoenix87x]

Just another weird music listening habit poll. I find that I'm usually partial to the second option, because I have this weird thing where I don't want to wear out any specific part of the album for myself (like, I'd burn myself out on the first 5 tracks of something, and thereby not want to listen to the album as much).

It all pretty much relates to the "sanctity" of the album to me. I absolutely despise listening to individual songs by bands, because I feel like the album is always greater than the individual parts. Even if it's not, I usually convince myself it is.

Amen to that.

I also get really crazy over this. I plan ahead so that if I listen to something that pushes an hour, then I can finish it. Like a good example is I&W. My commute is 35 minutes so I can get halfway through Metropolis on the way there and start again exactly where I left off on the return home. There's no way I'm going to start over with PMU again. I really like to space out when I listen to albums again, especially very powerful ones.

I Believe in albums and that's how I judge a band. If they can't give me one full I album that I can enjoy front to back, then it really turns me off of that band.

It definitely drives me batshit insane when I'm in a car with people and they replay the same song like 3 to 4 times. You'll see the vain throbbing in my head and I start to freak out a little bit. Definitely a weird hot button issue for me.

Music is one of the most important and meaningful things I have in my life and I take it very seriously.

[Ħ]

Where do you guys get this idea that music is supposed to be listened to in an album format? The album is a man made invention just like musical composition is. To say that you'll only like album-oriented bands is similar to saying you only like metal bands. You're excluding yourself from a lot a creative possibilites out there.

Granted, if an artist comes out and says, "My music is to be listened to as an album", then yeah, maybe your musical conscience would be correct in deciding to refrain from song-skipping, but other than that, I don't see any reason it has to be that way.

[hefdaddy42]

This happens more often then not in the car, and I just let it resume from where it left off.

This.

[Gadough]

I do the first one way too often. It's a bad habit.

[Ultimetalhead]

Where do you guys get this idea that music is supposed to be listened to in an album format? The album is a man made invention just like musical composition is. To say that you'll only like album-oriented bands is similar to saying you only like metal bands. You're excluding yourself from a lot a creative possibilites out there.

Granted, if an artist comes out and says, "My music is to be listened to as an album", then yeah, maybe your musical conscience would be correct in deciding to refrain from song-skipping, but other than that, I don't see any reason it has to be that way.

Generally, if an artist puts the songs on a medium that plays the songs back in a specific order, I would assume it's implied that the songs are meant to be listened to together. Unless artists really just like 3 of their own songs and shit out the rest of them to fill up space (which, I know modern pop artists do that, but still).

The "feels more like a collection of songs" thing is pretty silly too. An album is a collection of songs by definition. If they have no flow or common ground at all, why put them out on the same disc?

[Ħ]

An album is a collection of songs by definition. If they have no flow or common ground at all, why put them out on the same disc?

Why not? If you're an artist and you just finished producing about ten songs, and they're all pretty good in your judgment yet have no common ground, then why not just release them all together?

[Sigz]

If they have no flow or common ground at all, why put them out on the same disc?

Because bands need a way to distribute their songs and make money.

[Ħ]

If they have no flow or common ground at all, why put them out on the same disc?

Because bands need a way to distribute their songs and make money.

If money is a concern for you then you are not a true artist.

The only correct way to release and listen to music is through the album, and the only correct format is vinyl.

/UMH, Zilcho, Zack, SW, etc...

[Jirpo]

Depends how long ago I listened to the last part of the album.

[Ultimetalhead]

If they have no flow or common ground at all, why put them out on the same disc?

Because bands need a way to distribute their songs and make money.

If money is a concern for you then you are not a true artist.

The only correct way to release and listen to music is through the album, and the only correct format is vinyl.

/UMH, Zilcho, Zack, SW, etc...

Don't EVER lump me together with the vinyl crowd. I think vinyl is vastly overrated.

While we're on that idea, don't ever lump me together with people like Ryan or Zack. 

If they have no flow or common ground at all, why put them out on the same disc?

Because bands need a way to distribute their songs and make money.

I guess so, but my gut tells me they would still be intentionally arranged in an order that would be pleasing to the listener, making it a more well-rounded experience than simply "cherry picking" songs.

[ariich]

Well, I kinda do both. But these days most of my listening is on my iPod, which kindly remembers the last song I was on for me, so I voted for the latter.