Ship Bias: Diluc Ragnvindr.

Full shame, but Chiluc grew on me thanks to... OOC discussions, LMFAO. I was, once, part of the '??? where are they getting this ship from' group, and now . . . there is potential.

Hi! I really enjoyed reading your review of Twice's "Knock Knock". I'm also very curious on your stance of 'shipping' idols and am looking forward to the day you post about that topic! At any rate, my main question is: how many times do you listen to a song before you review it/make a judgement? How much would a review change if you wrote one on the first listen and then another several listens after? Thanks for your time, and I hope you keep up the great content! :)

Hello. First of all, I am glad you enjoyed the review and also, thank you for sharing your interest in the potential discussion on “idol shipping.” If it is something readers are curious about, I will definitely give it some priority. 

On topic, this is a very excellent question. To answer how many times I listen to a song before reviewing it, it truly does depend on many variables. Generally speaking, however, I try to give at least three days before actually writing a review regardless of how much (or little) analytical work has been done beforehand. The reason for this is--whether it is a genuine phenomenon or not--that I tend to have a “first-listener bias”; in other words, the first playbacks I have of a song tend to be either overly generous or overly critical. This is simply due to how I naturally “check” if a song suits my preferences. To use TWICE’s “Knock Knock” as an example, I was already hooked within the first playback. This is, as addressed in the review, due to the song merely fitting my preferences for songs I like. Of course, however, the issue with this first-time bias is that I was suddenly assuming the song was very solid without actually being critical of it. Thus, the three-day period ensures that any “excitement” I have towards a song dies down so that I can truly write a more critical review--and of course, the same applies to songs where I already dislike a song due to mere stylistic features.

Now regarding actual analytical work, this is layered in with the minimal three-day waiting period. For an example with TWICE’s “Knock Knock,” I personally spent a week of actual analysis with each day having around six serious listening sessions--these sessions are where I take time to really focus in on the song and, while I am doing so, am writing down notes on points of discussions or points that are strong or weak. It should be clarified, however, that “Knock Knock” is by far an exception; seldom do I spend this much time for one song. I only did it as the composers very much stunned me and I wanted to really understand what was occurring. 

Overall, to simply share my general review process, it tends to follow this process: 

The first day is me listening to a song casually. This is, as discussed, to understand where my current biases lie, and it also allows me to become familiar with the song.

Day two is when I prepare to be more analytical but am not listening to the song’s actual composition quite yet. For what I do on this day: I will focus on listing down the sections involved; finding the English translated lyrics (and fixing lost-in-translation mistakes with grammar and such); do some minimal research on the artist (especially with getting to know the artist if I am not familiar); and lastly, I start preparing the links for the review (whether it involves the music video, dance practice, an audio link, etc.). As noticed, though, the most important detail here is that I am not actually analyzing the song yet. At most I casually listen to the song a few times, but this pause of listening and analysis is to really allow all my initial biases to fade away.

Day three--and arguably “day three to day X”--is when I finally begin analyzing the song. Now what this looks like is addressed above in terms of really listening to a song and taking notes on any detail that catches my attention or that I think would bring an interesting discussion. This process can take up to a day (and on average it usually does), but as seen in TWICE’s case, this can extend all the way to a week if a song happens to be quite convoluted. And for those wondering on what exactly I am actively listening for, this would perhaps entail an actual post to thoroughly explain. But in short, the biggest guiding factor I use when actively listening and being critical of a song is asking “Why did the composers choose to do X here; what effects were they aiming for?” A huge misconception with music reviewers or simply critical listeners is the idea that critical listeners are merely selective listeners; that is, it is assumed that being critical about a song means being able to hear subtle details involved. This, as addressed in a review on Apink’s “Only One,” is incredibly false: the critical aspect is from asking and attempting to answer why versus merely being able to find the what. In truth, no one necessarily cares if one is able to hear all the minute sounds involved; what people do care for, however, is a discussion--especially since music is subjective--about why a song plays out the way it does. 

And finally, after all the analytical work is all done and I have a document that is well-fleshed with points to discuss, then I begin the actual writing process. This is can take only one hour but also up to around five or even six hours--as was the case with TWICE’s “Knock Knock.” Overall, though, as long as the analytical work I did beforehand was thorough, the writing process is not too difficult as it becomes a task of then “translating” those notes into actual, articulated sentences.

All in all, thank you very much for asking this question. I think it is definitely an important question to ask as readers should very much be wondering how I do in fact review songs and the processes involved, so thank you very much for taking the time to ask this.