How significant is the order of songs on an album

[Zen Peddler]

When you get a new cd if you dont like the first track do you chuck it or give up? How much time do you give a new cd or recording? Do you wonder why the best track is the last track on a particular album or ever think that the first song on album was a great choice for that first track?

Is it better to shock and awe on the first track, or start accessable and then once you've been drawn in, is it better to go weird or experimental later on?

keen for your thoughts on the above!

[El Presidente Hillbillios]

i recon there has to be a hook in the first track. I have heaps of music i havent got past first one or maybe two tracks

[J Smith]

I'll always listen to an entire album (proba couple times) before making the decision to never listen to it again. I like to consider the voyage/msg that the artist wants me to hear - sounds a bit wanky I know!

[chnt]

leave it up to artists discretion for what ever reason they want, there are too many variables to define, unless they aren't giving it a thought..

[PsillyBean]

I would probably listen to my favourite album and figure out what helped make it so good in terms of track choice. Just a thought :D

[Rabaelthazar]

Track 3 is the magic track. That's where your killer tune should go with your next best tune about 2/3 of the way through.

I think the structure of an album is as important as the structure of a track and kinda works the same way. If you think of a song structure (which is, of course, infinitely variable but generally fits within certain parameters) you'll have an intro, a verse style section, a chorus style section, a verse style section, maybe a middle eight or a breakdown, perhaps a double chorus and an outro.

If you can arrange your tracks with that in mind, you'll create a more exciting journey for the person who listens to your album the whole way through.

EG:

Track 1: (intro) set the mood, keep it short. Have something to grab the listener's attention and allude to what's coming up (IMO the first track on an album should be no more than 3 minutes. Long tracks go much better at the end of an album)

Track 2: (verse) mood has been established so embellish - tell a story. Put a strong track here, but don't peak too early.

Track 3: (chorus) ok, let them have it. Put you killer track here. Could be track four instead, but for the sake of this example we'll keep your killer tune here.

Track 4: (verse) alright, drop it down a notch. Maybe put something a little more adventurous or experimental in here but keep it a strong tune. The listeners have just heard your piece de resistance and will be more open to something that's left of centre. If it's shit though, this could be the point where they eject the cd.

Track 5: (breakdown) speaks for itself. Give the listeners a chance to wind down after listening to three good tracks

Track 6: (chorus) stick another killer tune here

Track 7: (chorus) hit 'em again.

Track 8: (outro) reflect on the tracks now passed and wind the listeners down to a point where they can get off the ride and say, "fuck that was an awesome 40 minutes of my life"

Track 9: (encore) if you put anything after your outro track, make it short and fun. If it's long and serious, don't put it here.

The move away from album structure and, in fact, the move away form albums is the one thing about the current state of affairs with mp3s and downloads that I find really heartbreaking. An album is a work of art, even more so than the songs that make it up (in my opinion). The combination of the songs, the album structure, the cover art and the liner notes is such a special thing. I think there's going to be a whole generation of kids whose vast majority don't ever experience an album as it was intended.

Anyway.... bottom line is:

There's a huge difference between an album and a collection of songs.

[chnt]

sorry to be a pretentious douche, but i disagree with your post rabaelthazar, in art, there should never be a set of rules that an artist has to adhere by, creativity, experimentation and non-conformity should be encouraged, not every song adheres to a 4 4 time signature, not every song has a set tempo, not every song has a verse chorus structure, likewise not every album has a set structure, length, number of tracks, etc..

there are concept albums that might have a specific track order for a specific reason, there are abstract albums with a not so specific order, it's all art and it should all have meaning to the artist, and that's what is important. if the artist tries to conform to a set of rules or what they think other people will prefer, instead of following their own creative direction, then the art will lose some of it's uniqueness and become more meaningless, artists should make art only to suit themselves, and it's a bonus if others like it, and generally the best art is made this way, given that it's all a matter of opinion.

[Rabaelthazar]

No dramas, Chnt. You're allowed to have your own opinion and there's nothing pretentious about your post.

I actually agree with everything you say. There should be no rules and I wasn't trying to imply that there were in my post, although reading back my post I can see how it could seem that way. My track listing was only an example. I'll quote myself now (first time I've done it on the Corroboree, I think) just to expand.

If you think of a song structure (which is, of course, infinitely variable but generally fits within certain parameters)

 

Every song's got a structure, whether that's arranged blocks of 16 bars in 4/4 or whether that's a formless free jazz improvisation or a collage of synth textures. I've listened to a lot of the tunes that Zen has posted in the Creativity section, so I know that he's writing music that does fit within pretty standard parameters.

Asides from that, even the most abstract pieces (if done well) have form and structure in mind. Just about every decent writer will be thinking to some extent (whether consciously or not) about the ebb and flow of energy in the music over the duration of the piece. If they don't, they end up with a pretty flat or awkward sounding tune that will become "filler" at best. That's cool, if that's what they intended and are fulfilled artistically from producing something like that.

artists should make art only to suit themselves

 

You're right, but a lot of artists do appreciate it when other people enjoy their work too.

I paint, myself. I randomly select a colour, hold a paintbrush between my ass cheeks and squat over a piece of paper while masturbating to "Planet of the Apes". I'm wholly satisfied by the artistic process, but it doesn't change the fact that what I've produced is a piece of shit. If I want to produce something decent, I need to put a bit of thought in to it.

So - granting that there may be exceptions, most producers of music do put thought in to their song structure. Why shouldn't that extend to the structure of an album? You've put a lot of effort into crafting your individual tracks - why just plonk them together in no particular order?

I stand by by previous comment:

There's a huge difference between an album and a collection of songs.

 

[chnt]

cool man, nice response, and i agree with you now, i just didnt agree with the first post because of the perceived set of rules.

and yeah it's totally cool to want other people to like your stuff, but if you go down that path you can easily turn into something like this

 

 

cringe

[Zen Peddler]

I wish all artists completely followed their own creative desires and were able to make a significant and relevant contribution to art but artistic merit is usually measured by the viewer rather than the artist. In order to make something that is meaningful and engaging for the viewer, the artist has to examine their viewers, understand what matters to them and create something that reflects on the viewer's worldview.

And the music industry isnt really about art any more and hasnt been for quite a while with a few notable exceptions. And to be a relevant musical artist you have to sacrifice artistic interigy to get noticed - and to get noticed you need to be published by a label that can afford to push your cause - and to that you have to prostitute yourself to some extent.

I view most of my music as trying to bridge the gap between what I think are new and exciting ideas with what is accessable to the average person to a degree.

Ive written a few tracks in 3/4 time by the way

[woof woof woof]

most albums only have 1 or 2 tracks that are considered good,... you'd have to listen to all the tracks to find the ones that really choke yur chicken.(as in being up there in your musical taste standard)

the illuminati decide the order of tracks to make the chance of you buying their condoned brainwashing music more likely.

[Zen Peddler]

True - that is if your signed.

[Distracted]

Track 3 is the magic track. That's where your killer tune should go with your next best tune about 2/3 of the way through.

 

I usually start with track 3, go to track 5, then a track near the end, then listen to the whole album as is.

Cool to see someone else notice that track 3 is usually the best :D

edit: however I think the best albums are one that have a flow from beginning to end. The sort of albums that once you've listened to them in order a few times if someone plays them to you on a device unordered it drives you nuts.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Distracted

[synchromesh]

3 is the best? But what about 4, 7, 8 and 11?

[Zen Peddler]

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. Im working on two things and only really having trouble with one of the two. Im probably just overthinking it from being sick of the thing...

the songs im playing with are:

http://soundcloud.com/user8117698/devils-lettuce

http://soundcloud.com/user8117698/pay

http://soundcloud.com/user8117698/we-mean-you-no-harm

http://soundcloud.com/user8117698/arizona-sedona-vortex-pilot

http://soundcloud.com/user8117698/luv-u-longtime

I mean I could and should go with something to start like Devil's Lettuce because its accessable, but its a pretty chilled track to start with - I assume yoru better off with energy and some more thoughtful, reflective songs coming in later. But I guess it is a demo so best track first??

On the other hand, Pay and We Mean You No Harm are both pretty out there and ballzy - a bit of energy and edge to these guys might be better - or somone might find it weird and chuck it automatically.

I could go with the robot prostitute vocals of Luv U Longtime?? The Arizona track is probably nice and energetic but it doesnt really sound like anything else on the CD....

Fuckin doing my head in... But I have been up for 30 hours...

[Rabaelthazar]

I reckon out of the 5, Luv U Longtime would be a the track I'd most pay attention to as a first track. The track I liked best was Mean You No Harm.

Just my 2 cents.

[chnt]

i'm a real pretentious cunt when it comes to music, but i'm gonna critique your songs.

devil's lettuce: at first i thought i wouldn't like it that much and thought maybe you were gonna over do the beat, but i was wrong, it was nice and simple, everything gelled together nicely and it was nice and chilled, a good first track.

pay: when it comes to vocals in electronic music, i personally dont really dig it, and with yours it reminded me of t pain and the like, and i really hate that stuff, but getting past that.. i liked the rest of it, interesting melodies, nothing too overpowering.

we mean you no harm: this seems like a nice interlude between the beginning and the end of the ep or what ever you'll calling it, if it's the delay you're fiddling with in some parts, i like that in particular.

arizona: probably my favourite track, i think the order you posted these songs is probably how they should be ordered, i like this as a second last track.

luv u longtime: a good finishing track, nice beat, i liked everything apart from the vocals..

apart from the vocals i enjoyed all these tracks, and i think this order should not change.

[Zen Peddler]

Sweat! Thanks for the input fellas. Its been super helpful.

[Psylo]

The move away from album structure and, in fact, the move away form albums is the one thing about the current state of affairs with mp3s and downloads that I find really heartbreaking. An album is a work of art, even more so than the songs that make it up (in my opinion). The combination of the songs, the album structure, the cover art and the liner notes is such a special thing. I think there's going to be a whole generation of kids whose vast majority don't ever experience an album as it was intended.

Anyway.... bottom line is:

There's a huge difference between an album and a collection of songs.

 

+ 100

It's another said & disgusgting reflection on society's dumbing down, and overall short attentuion span. Thank you facebook for making people even more pathetic. There's only one thing with music that I find more disturbing than song-jumping, and that's peole who get strtight onto youtube to look for a song that's in their head, despite them having it at their fingertips on a HD in FLAC format. Shitty. terrible quality soul-less audio streaming instead of a quality version. Ah, you see, Youtube has something interesting to LOOK AT.

FFFFAAAARRRRRKKKKKK

To answer the question, yes it is a significant consideration as to what order the tracks go on an album (artists used to deliberate this very carefully) but these days it's probably only to serve the creator of the work's vision. The audience will neither give a fuck nor ever listen to the entire album without getting itchy ADD fingers.