How important is track sequencing anyway?

Take my example and give me your opinion please.

Put Blood on the Tracks on your iPod. Listen to it in full then a week later do it again but this time shuffle the songs. What's the problem, is there even a problem, can you appreciate the art of that album in random order or did Dylan or whoever artist releases an album really put in the effort to make the tracks co-onside?

Just what is it all about...

EDIT: Don't actually wait a week to give me your answer just use imagination. Thanks.

 

It might depend on the album, or more specifically, the songs on the album. But yeah, I think sequencing is VERY important.

I do listen to some albums on random, just to mix it up some. But as an artistic statement some just won't work as well. Imagine Sgt Pepper starting with A Day in The Life and ending with Good Morning Good Morning. Or Abbey Road starting with The End and ending with Maxwell's Silver Hammer. The songs will be just as enjoyable but the album experience... not so much.

p.s. I'm not familiar with the Dylan album you mentioned (not a big Dylan fan).

 

It used to be important in the old vinyl days,nowadays in the Ipod Shuffle era who cares!

 

If you're 'singles' oriented or 'song' oriented, then I agree with you. But I don't want all of my listening to sound like a random compilation.

 

Running order is vital. It MAKES the White Album and destroys the Finn Brother's debut. I rearranged the latter into an order that I find enjoyable and the whole thing just comes together. The genuine article is virtually unlistenable after the side break.

 

While good sequencing makes an album a pleasure to listen to at any time, I think the most important thing about it is how it affects your first listen. I can think of lots of albums where there was a song I didn't like near or even at the beginning and it coloured my perception of what followed, especially if it was something I had high expectations for. There are albums that were unpopular where I'm convinced that people turned them off after the first or second song and never realized there was good stuff after that.

I'll still create new running orders that I think I would have preferred on the first listen, even though it's too late!

 

In many cases, deliberate pacing and thought is put into sequencing. I think it's very important, when albums mattered.

 

I'm talking about today's cd releases.When you have to fill 80 minutes with no break between sides it gets too long.It's quantity over quality.

 

What did you change it to? I agree the second half is pretty weak, but...

I don't know, I tend to lean myself toward front-loading albums with the good stuff. If you've heard eight good songs already you don't mind so much if there are a couple of weak ones, but if you hear weak songs off the bat it affects your perception of the whole more (see my previous post).

Back in the vinyl days I found that if an album had a good first side I tended to think of it as a good album, no matter what side 2 was like. I don't know that mixing stronger and lesser tracks up works better.

Of course, the quality of a song is entirely subjective so you can never please everybody....

 

Just yesterday I was listening to the new Dark Horse reissue and thinking about the sequencing. George put the two most commercial songs (the singles--Dark Horse and Ding Dong Ding Dong) on the album on side 2. Without being too fussy about it, you could pretty much improve the listening experience by reversing the sides. If CDs had sides

 

I think sequencing is very important, and I say that as someone who has made many mixed tapes and CDR's through the years. The right context can make or break a song. Mixed discs that sound terrific of-a-piece might sound fairly pointless on random play.

At their best, albums are the same. That's not to say there aren't plenty of albums with a bunch of interchangeable/similar tracks.

 

the sequence is the way the artist put it together to make it an album.

otherwise it's just a random collection of songs.

 

As others have said, it's more important to some albums than others. Obvious examples include most "concept" albums like The Wall- pretty darn important. Greatest hits albums are at the other end of the spectrum. There has also been a change with the move from vinyl to CD- used to be the quieter, more subdued tracks were reserved for the ends of a side as you got close to the center of the record for sound quality reasons- not an issue with CDs (which read the opposite direction anyway ).

 

sequencing is important, it creates a certain flow. but than again we have different editions of the same album with bonus tracks placed in the middle or attached at the end.

 

That's kind of what it is, they record a bunch of songs in the same period, then look at them and see what's the best way of arranging them, it's not like they have much choice.

 

Which can drive me crazy- I still can't listen to the UK version of The Cult's "Love" with Little Face & Judith- it just sounds patently wrong to me. I'm sure UK fans would have a similar reaction upon hearing the US release.

 

If you like to listen to albums, sequencing and the attendant context it provides will always be important. From my perspective, a great recent example is "Bagboy" by the Pixies. Initially I encountered it as a video the band posted on YouTube, and I thought it was fair to maybe OK as a stand alone track. But after hearing it in the context of Indy Cindy, I like the track more because it now makes sense to me. On the album, it works as a change of pace as it follows tracks that sound like classic Pixies.

 

I think it's an integral part of an album of all-new music because the songs should compliment each other with their mood & flow, therefore good sequencing is vital. In fact, if I hear an album that I think a certain song would sound better elsewhere on the album, I may burn a cd-r with that change made. Most recently, I did that with Macca's "New".

 

I'm an album guy, so sequencing is very important to me. I don't even really like most greatest hits records. If you're a shuffler or only into pop I would guess it matters a lot less. But there's an art to both sequencing and even writing for a longer format.

 

Very important.
I love resequencing things when applicable.
Every album I've ever made as a musician the sequencing was my favorite part.

 

It's very important. First example that comes to mind is KISS' Music From The Elder, which was first released in Japan in its originally intended order but released in the US in a modified order. My friend and I were so excited to hear the album as originally intended when I found a copy of the Japanese LP. We listened to it a few times and, eek, it takes forever to get going. The US release starts off with the strongest, most rocking song. The Japanese version starts off with a orchestral fanfare and then two slow songs.

The modified US version beats the original/Japanese every time as far as I'm concerned.

 

If The Man Who Sold the World was sequenced in reverse order it's a more commercial album. Starting with Width of a Circle and All the Mad Men was career suicide.

 

Yes, David Bowie could have had a long career if not for that...

Actually, Bowie is somebody whose album sequences I often have issues with. I've tried rearranging almost all of them!

 

You mean, "should have been career suicide"? Bowie seems to have done alright for himself...

 

Sequencing is important. Cause an album is a kind of concert. And you have to create excitement as in a show. Start with a bang, slow down in the middle and end with a bang. But - different sequencing can't rescue a poor album if the songs ain't good. See all those endless and fruitless attempts to rearrange a certain album by a certain band, that overtakes every topic on this forum.....