Track Sequences that are Just Wrong

[Altitude]

I’d like to come back to the idea of track sequences on albums, maybe a fading art in the time of streaming.

There are certain albums where the track sequence feels obvious and perfect. “Dirt” by Alice In Chains is that way. A number of the Rush albums are too.

But now and then I stumble on what seems to be a missed opportunity on track sequence, such that the album would have been more artistically sound if the band had organized the songs differently.

Two examples (which I realize are both ridiculously successful albums so no harm was apparently done):

On the Cars’ debut self-titled album, “You’re All I’ve Got Tonight”/“Bye Bye Love”/“Moving In Stereo” should have been the first three tracks. Instead they made them the side 2 lineup and kicked off the album with [what they probably expected would be] the three radio singles. Which was not a senseless choice but I think the album would have had more impact with my sequence.

Hard to believe, but go back and look - “Rumours” by Fleetwood Mac does not begin with “The Chain.” That song sounds so much like an opening album track that I can’t believe it. Instead, the album begins with “Second Hand News” which a) in retrospect sounds more like that band had sounded before that album than it sounded after, and b) ended up being a relatively obscure track by that band’s standard.

What others?

 

[MuseChaser]

Not exactly from the same genres, but Michael Franks is a master at arranging tracks to create a wonderful flow throughout an entire album, making for a great complete listening experience. "Dragonfly Summer," especially, is a great example.

 

[Michedelic]

in retrospect sounds more like that band had sounded before that album than it sounded after

What’s wrong with that?

 

[Altitude]

What’s wrong with that?

Not sure anything is exactly wrong with it. I’d usually expect an album opener to be reflective of whatever sonic direction in which the band is headed, and that turned out not to be the case here. But nobody knew that at the time, or else they don’t agree with me.

 

[Code Brown]

Hysteria album by Def Leppard. Every song on side A (obviously for cassette / LP) was a hit. The entire B side was just "filler" songs, with the exception of Hysteria, the title track, nestled right in the middle of the filler tracks.

Standard practice was to listen to side A, then rewind the cassette tape and completely ignore side B.

 

[nickpc]

Duran Duran's Arena. Track 1-4 are live, then the studio version of Wild Boys, then flip the cassette/LP and back to live for the remaining 5 songs. The switch to/from a studio track was more jarring once you had the CD since there wasn't any intervention needed (or that nice loud auto-reverse cassette player CLUNK).

 

[Slade N]

These views; yours and the determiner of the running order, are subjective so they were put in the order they were due to that persons subjective opinion.

 

[markjazzbassist]

i love this thread. i also feel track listing is a lost art, some concept albums where everything flows dynamically just really makes that listening experience that much better.

 

[MCS4]

My band's last EP, and it's my fault. There is a song with an extended intro starting with fuzz bass that was the natural first track, but given that our prior EP also started with an intro based upon a fuzz bass part, I moved this track until later in favor of a song that jumps straight into the verse and vocal right off the bat in order to do something different. I should have just gone with what was best for this set of songs rather than what seemed best when factoring in our past work.

I don't know if this is really relevant other than it shows that sometimes you make track listing choices for seemingly logical reasons but they don't turn out to be the best.

 

[Altitude]

These views; yours and the determiner of the running order, are subjective so they were put in the order they were due to that persons subjective opinion.

Thanks, that’s helpful.

 

[MonetBass]

The producer has a lot of say in the track sequence on an album. And regarding 'hits', sometimes an artist knows which songs will hit but usually not. To your point: I believe the tracks should flow at the very least. It certainly makes the listening experience more enjoyable.

 

[Holdsg]

I'm an old dude, so my choices reflect that.

good ones that come immediately to mind (especially the concept albums):

Moody Blues - Days of Future Passed (maybe that's too easy)

The Who - Whose Next

Jethro Tull - Passion Play. Songs from the Wood

Yes - Close to the Edge

Genesis (almost everything) but I really liked the order in - Invisible Touch

Michael Jackson - Thriller

The Beatles - Let It Be (although I'd have preferred the last song be Long and Winding Road)

Bad Company - Bad Company debut album

Peter Gabriel - So (he even obsessed with the track listing so that he changed the order from 2002 pressings onward to have In Your Eyes be the last song, per Wikipedia)




And notable ones that gave you all the good songs on Side A:

The Police - Ghost in the Machine

Toto - Toto IV Africa being the last song, was the only exception.

Tom Petty - Full Moon Fever

Chicago Transit Authority debut - only side A of 4 sides



I could go on, but that's what immediately came to mind.

 

[trevcda]

At least the examples listed above are for the most part choices made by the artists and/or their producers or labels. What I always hated was when a third party pressing agent haphazardly rearranged the track order on a concept album to fit a format, because they didn't see it as anything but random bunch of songs.

 

[Slade N]

I cant tell if this a sarcastic answer or straight reply.

Thanks, that’s helpful.

 

[eeyorebass]

My old singer/songwriter agonized over track order sometimes. On one album, he recorded himself flipping a record and put it in the "negative time" before "Side 2" of the CD started. That way, if you listened straight through, you got the pause and sound effect telling you the mood was shifting. But, because it wasn't part of any proper track, you didn't get it if you listened on random.

 

[Michedelic]

At least the examples listed above are for the most part choices made by the artists and/or their producers or labels. What I always hated was when a third party pressing agent haphazardly rearranged the track order on a concept album to fit a format, because they didn't see it as anything but random bunch of songs.

When did that happen? If a band got to the point where the label and producer would enable/indulge them to have a true “concept album” with a certain flow, the sequence would have been discussed and agreed upon. Whoever does the pressings doesn’t have the clout to make that call, unless you’re referring to 8-track tapes.

 

[mambo4]

It was artistically valid to give due consideration to the track order back when Albums were still a thing
most people stream songs not LPs
If I listen to a whole LP these days it's either nostalgia or Charley Crockett

 

[BunchyMutt]

These views; yours and the determiner of the running order, are subjective so they were put in the order they were due to that persons subjective opinion.

helpful and enlightening. thank you. Up till now, I thought track orders were more of an Abrahamic religion thing

 

[Altitude]

Peter Gabriel - So (he even obsessed with the track listing so that he changed the order from 2002 pressings onward to have In Your Eyes be the last song, per Wikipedia)

I’d actually noticed that and wondered. What a great album though.

 

[Altitude]

Sometimes track order is so good that two otherwise unrelated songs seem like part of one larger work. For whatever reason I noticed this a lot in the grunge era:

- “Them Bones” and “Dam That River” on Dirt
- “Cherub Rock” and “Quiet” on Siamese Dream
- “Sweet Sweet” and “Luna” also on Siamese Dream
- “Breakerfall” and “God’s Dice” on Binaural

All of these, if you listen to the first in the sequence you have to listen to the second. Or else.