These days, I pretty much judge an album a success if at least half the album has great songs. I'm 33 now, so I feel the bands I grew up listening to come out with hit or miss albums these days. They have written about everything already, I suppose its hard to keep the creativity original. So if an album has 12 tracks, i'm hoping for 6 to put on my ipod. I rather 6 great songs, then a band with a hit song and 10 okay songs. Take Green Day's Uno as an example. For me I feel they had 7 good songs and consider it a success. I suppose with the Ipod nation we live in "yes I know the sound quality is the best" but to me you can pick your fav 7, and not have to worry about listening to the filler between or worrying about press the skip button.

So what makes an album a success to you these days?

ive noticed that when talking about my favorite albums, i usually refer to the track # instead of the name of the song. thats usually my criteria

Can you elaborate?

no prob. i think what im trying to say is usually my favorite albums are albums i can put on and leave on w/o skipping tracks. obviously i will like some songs more than others, and ive noticed that i usually just remember the track # and not the title, b/c im so used to listening the album from start to finish. make sense?

Thematic coherence. I will consider any album a 'grower' if it looks to have been composed well as a single unit. I'll forgive filler songs if I feel they contribute to the whole.

I use to feel that way, and I still will keep some filler songs on, if I feel it progresses the album along. Today there is so much music out there, I've come to prefer to listen what I really really like off an album then something is okay off of it. Doesn't mean I give up on them completely though. Because I save the songs on my computer, just not in Itunes and i'll go back and take a listen and some songs come around later and I think "how did i miss that the first couple of listens" I do have a minimum 5 times listening to the album before taking anything off though. Because I know not every song can jump out at you, or a lyric you might pick up on later blows you away.

I'm an all or nothing kind of guy. Either I can accept the fillers as part of a really good album, or they're so bad they ruin the whole album. S/T is like that for me; the worst songs make it unlistenable. I don't see the point of retracking albums or taking songs I don't like off them. I don't save my favourite songs so that I have an 'EP' or whatever. For me, if the album doesn't work it doesn't work. Life is too short to find your favourite two songs off a crap album. Just my opinion. I'm not saying they're aren't good songs on S/T, just that I don't remember the last time I actively wanted to hear them because I like to put an album on and leave it, without having to skip.

But what if they're really good songs?

It depends on the album. Everything I just said will crumble in the right context.

If I find myself putting it on repeatedly, generally I think it's a great record. This rarely happens.

And it's why when I push play on backspacer, I start with the fixer. I've head GSMF and Got Some more times live, than I have on the record. Haha. I wish.

To me, a great album is better than the sum of its parts. Kid A is the best example of this. There are only a couple of songs that I would ever even consider "mixtape worthy" but it is one of the best albums ever made.

I understand exactly what you are saying harmless and path you go with choosing what to listen to. I avoided it forever, but i finally gave into the ipod generation. For S/T i only have 8 songs listed and thats what adding love reign o'er me add.

As for Kid A, yes, thats one even know they are not all my fav or great songs, that fits into the the fillers keep the album flowing and I've kept the whole thing and will listen to the whole thing, while every now and then making a radiohead playlist and throwing some songs off of there on that.

I find myself doing the same thing. I can name the titles of only a few Arcade Fire songs but I listen to all three of their albums quite a bit.

When I start thinking about the album and not the individual songs. I know it sounds obvious but it's hard to explain for me.

A great album has to take you for a ride emotionally and teach you something about yourself as a music fan. Individual songs can't do this, it has to be the sum of the parts. Sometimes for me, what has made me think of a great album that comes along at a time that has also coincided with events or struggles I have had in my own life. Cold Roses by Ryan Adams comes to mind. Great album, also a lot of personal investment in the songs as a whole for me.

This is a complicated this to explain. Its about more than just "good songs"

I really like the premise of this thread, but these are two very different questions.

Running with your comment about the bands you listened to growing up coming out with hit-or-miss records these days: I'm not terribly difficult to please when it comes to new albums by artists whom I've already established as favorites. Though I'll compare and contrast sometimes to the point of vitriol for purposes of discussion, all I usually ask is that the artist fatten up his songbook in some kind of meaningful way--maybe tentatively try his hand a few things he hasn't tried before, show some kind of growth (lyrical, compositional, whatever) from previous records, even just write a handful of better-than-decent songs in a manner predictable for that artist. My criteria for what constitutes these things is flexible probably to a fault; it's extremely rare that an artist of interest to me puts out a record that I feel is beyond redemption. Usually, if I've managed to sustain a heightened level of interest in an artist for any length of time, it's because there's some underlying character to what they do that's always there no matter how they dress it up or how the quality varies relatively. So if I can ask myself, "Am I annoyed with the half-inch of space this CD takes up on my shelf?" and answer "no," I'm usually satisfied enough that the record exists. Increasingly I care less about whether artists are "sullying their legacies" or something to that effect--honestly, there are times when I find mining some relative failure for hidden treasure equally as enjoyable as sitting back and basking in a favorite record. Likewise am I weary of specifying some cutoff number of tracks I need to feel passionately about before declaring a record a success; sometimes, an album where I only like three songs but find myself playing each track four times before swapping discs nets the same amount of enjoyment as an album that has twelve tracks which flow together perfectly.

The qualities of a "great album"--or perhaps, "Great Album"--are a lot more elusive. I think the only criteria I'd claim is consistent among every album I'd consider truly "great" is that it's not a distinction I could have arrived at systematically, or in a short period of time. Many albums I considered "great" ten years ago aren't albums I'd have any interest in hearing now; likewise, many albums I consider "great" now are ones that struck me as "just okay" when I first heard them. A 12 track album containing 12 good songs does not necessarily signal a great record, nor is a 12 track record with only 6 good songs immediately disqualified from consideration. The records that I might consider Great--where every song in itself nets a perfect score, then nets another collective perfect score when taken as a whole, and then goes on to signify some greater meaning beyond itself--seem to be the rarest of breeds. And then sometimes, I still end up preferring some off-the-cuff impulse project that likely interests no one beyond myself and the artist's immediate family.

I think the short answer is that, the fewer hard-and-fast guidelines I impose on what constitutes great albums, the more of them I find.

KD's point is interesting. A good chunk of the albums I considered great years ago I barely listen to now, and their greatness is almost entirely retroactive--not albums or songs I'd be drawn to if I heard them today.

I suppose "How long does a great album have to be great for?" is a good question to ask. If I thought an album was great for a month or three, but then life happened and I moved on, why is that album not great? It was there for a special, fleeting moment in time. Maybe it's a great album in context.

I totally agree with this. there's only 7 or so artists I'd say that about, but then again, those are my favorites

And to think I was starting to feel nerdy for trolling in the religion thread.