Album sequencing: a lost art?

I read an interview with Jacob Dylan recently (forget which mag) and a good portion of the interview was spent talking about album sequencing. Great read.

This gets me to thinking about the practice itself. It seems like most music my new artists just cram everything on the disc without any thought what soever. Then there's Fleetwood Mac's "Say You Will." What a mess. Could have been much better if they got rid some of the weaker cuts and re-sequenced the album.

In another interview (Sound & Vision magazine), Tom Petty says that listening to a album should be done from start to finish, an organic process. Which makes me think there has to be an art of crafting an opening and closing number, as well as all the tunes in between.

Then there are the rare re-issues with bonus tracks that actually add to the album.

Anything else I missed?

 

At the same time, it's not set in stone that an artist even has to think of an album in terms of something cohesive. They might just figure on coming up with the 12 best songs they can and then put them on the album. Sequencing might be a slightly different topic in regards to this specific scenario I'm giving here, but I think you can see my point.

Not saying that I think this is common, mind you, but I'm trying to put this perspective out there.

 

I agree it is a lost art.

Many artists leave the decision on sequencing totally up to the producer and never think about it at all.

Maybe the importance of it is decreased with the CD. As Gary said, more and more tracks on a CD these days. Plus, many people will put in a CD and hit the "random" button so doing that makes sequencing unimportant. Personally, I rarely do that as I prefer to listen to the CD as intended.

 

Do enough people really do that? I don't and I've never met anyone that did that, but hey.

 

One of my pet topics. I always felt that the 35-45 minute vinyl album was the best format for rock music. Organically divided into 2 parts (or 4 for a double), it made artists think about what was essential. It also encouraged sequencing that made for a smooth, "organic" flowing listen. This practice fell into dereliction after the advent of CDs.

 

I know that producers and artists go through a wide variety of criteria -- song key, tempo, lyrics, and so on -- try to come up with a song sequence that has a good feel to it. But inevitably, the record label is going to pressure them to put the best song on the album as the first track. This especially is the case with new artists.

The label also gets critical if you try to lump together too many slow songs in a row, or too many fast songs in a row. But I also agree with Gary that avoiding any jarring transitions is the most important thing. It's a miracle, when you think about it, that songs written and recorded over a period of a year or more wind up on an album and then somehow can fit together just "so," like they were always meant to be that way.

No question, sequencing an album was a fine art in the 1960s and 1970s. I think something got lost during the 1980s. Maybe it was CD's fault. Certainly there were a lot of albums that would've been better off at 40 minutes, instead of getting padded out to 65 or 70 minutes with a lot of filler.

 

Early CD's were alright, cause they had the same running order as vinyl.
Sometimes a bonus track was added to entice consumers to buy the CD, or perhaps to buy a CD player.

 

I miss Side 2, Track 1.

 

There are just as many well-sequenced or poorly sequenced albums as there ever were. And if you guys actually followed new music instead of complaining about it, you'd know that there aren't as many excessively long records coming out these days. Fifteen albums I bought this year:

The Magnetic Fields "Realism" 33:37
Vampire Weekend "Contra": 36:37
Laura Marling "I Speak Because I Can" 37:07
"Broken Bells" 37:25
Crowded House "Intriguer" 40:13
Jonsi "Go" 40:15
Midlake "The Courage of Others" 41:41
Spoon "Transference": 43:00
She & Him "Volume 2" 43:12
Band of Horses "Infinite Arms" 45:13
Robert Plant "Band of Joy" 47:32
Peter Gabriel "Scratch My Back" 53:20
Gorillaz "Plastic Beach" 56:46
Arcade Fire "The Suburbs" 63:57
Joanna Newsom "Have One On Me" 123:58

Out of fifteen only four are what I'd call long albums. (The last, of course, is a three disc set.) And the albums by the two oldest artists are closer to the end of the list than the beginning.

And there are only one or two where I would have tweaked the sequence.

 

Album sequencing went out with the CD. Artists and record companies no longer had to worry about a listening experience which could start in one of two places, and the album needed to have a flow because it was inconvenient to skip through to other parts.

Now with CD's and artists who usually have little or no depth beyond hit singles, everything is frontloaded. All the hit singles are placed up front because of the fear that listeners won't get hooked in before then. Why put what should be one of your best songs in a spot where fewer listeners are likely to hear it? Unfortunately, in these days the singles are usually the only worthwhile songs on the album, although that is dependent on the style.

 

I met a girl once who always listened to CDs on random. I'm very much a "listen to an album the way the artist intended", but a lot of people I know don't know anything about album sequencing and don't care. A lot of people listen to their iPods on random also.

 

False. Compact discs had the same running order as vinyl for the first ten years or so.

It's fun once in awhile. There's no harm in trying.

 

Yes but once CD became the unquestionably dominant music media (which wasn't until the mid-90's, as cassettes were still very popular) the tracklists adjusted accordingly.

 

Yeah...it's a lost art for sure.

The vinyl format provided a built-in "intermission" between album sides, and a lot of thought had to go into how sides were gonna start and send and flow in between. Additionally, there were time constraints that have since basically gone out the window. Albums are too frickin' long now. And there's no more more intermission. No wonder bands only put out an album every 3 or 4 years now. Every one is a double album once you add in all the bonus tracks and crap.

 

I'm working on sequencing a new album for an artist right now.

It's a singles market. It's a shuffle market. Few people sit down and listen to an album in its entirety as an artistic experience.

We have struggled, and come up with a sequence which leads the listener on a journey, doesn't have too much stuff in one key or tempo in-order, etc., but still with the songs we want to push at the beginning of the album. We chose 13 out of 22 mostly-finished songs, to keep the overall length reasonable and to have some good songs left over for the next album.

We probably though too much, and should have just thrown the dice for all the songs after the first one, but we'll see.

 

My parents put 5 discs on the carousel and hit the random button when they have dinner and play cards with friends.

Makes little sense in a single disc player. Unless it is an MP3 disc maybe?

 

I remember when cassettes were sequenced as well, usually differently from the vinyl pressing. Even though the tracks were shifted around to get the running time near as equal on both sides, it still had more of an "ebb and flow" than most albums do today.

 

Try the PAUSE button.

 

Sort of. Albums are longer, but that's partially because songs are longer without containing any more melodic ideas than a 2.5 minute song used to have in 1966. Things are just more long-winded whereas in those days, the constraints of radio dictated that everything be short and to the point.

Weezer has proven that you can release a 30-40 minute album a year, and while some have said that has had a negative effect on their music, I've seen tons of artists take 3-4 years to make an album and still have that album be entirely lackluster and devoid of fresh-sounding musical ideas.

 

I don't understand how the flow of an album should profit from the need to have a break after half the playing time. I'm pretty sure that Pink Floyd would have liked it if their concept albums from DSOTM onwards could have been in one piece instead of two (or four). I like the flow of albums like "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" or "Check Your Head". I think they work better as CDs than as double LPs.

If an artist was worried about lack of the listeners attention, they would have to be even more worried about songs on side 2 of a record. If I'm so bored with an album, why turn it around?

 

The context is no longer relevant in the age (they tell us) of songs vs. albums... plus don't forget, the side 1 and side 2 thing are no longer a factor. The side opener, side closer... maybe put the single as the opener on side 2!

It is a lost art, sorry to say.

Somewhat related: a single CD holds max 76mins give or take... that means today's "artists" are cranking out a double album every release if they max out the playing time. Here's a bulletin: they don't have that much to say

 

Because there is a chance that a listener could be hearing the album starting with side 2 for the first time.

 

Are you familiar with Abbey Road? Queen II? There's an endless list of album titles that were specifically sequenced and formatted for that time and to have that break in between.

I'm pretty sure that not all albums are Thick as a Brick.

 

There is? Must be some confused listener.

I'd think the chance for that is so small that most artists won't sequence their albums with that in mind.