The Skill of Album Track Order

[mjzee]

Some random thoughts:

1) One show biz axiom (not confined to musical performers) is "Leave 'em wanting more." Hard to do that on a 60 - 70 minute CD.

2) While Blue Note often put a "Sidewinder"-type tune as the first track, they also often had an odd habit of ending the album with a ballad. To my ears, this often left the album feeling unfinished.

[Shawn]

I've been saying that CD's were too long since the very beginning. I was still listening to rock at the time, when there started to be 13-15 songs per disc it just killed your ears and invariably the end of the disc would sound weak. Nothing wrong with the songs themselves, but by the time you finally get to them you're on sensory overload and don't have the capacity to truly appreciate them. The fact that the nature of digital also adds to ear fatigue (due to your ears having to fill in the gaps) it just made the problem worse.

Anywhere between 40-50 minutes seems to be the sweet spot. My opinion of course.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Shawn

[John L]

Unless you are already a very well-established artist, I would suggest putting the strongest material first on the CD, unless there is a real compelling reason to do otherwise.

Edited April 20, 2008 by John L

[jon abbey]

CDs are not inherently too long, I have way more problems with the inherent length limitations of LPs (as Chuck touched on) than on the wider range of possibilities allowed by a CD. most of AMM's catalog wouldn't fit very easily on vinyl, with single 60 or 70 minute tracks, not to mention something like Feldman's For Bunita Marcus or Triadic Memories.

[Teasing the Korean]

While CDs are not inherently too long, many of us came of age during the LP era. I have become conditioned to the 20-or-so minute LP side as a substantial yet digestible serving of music.

[medjuck]

I always liked the way the original release of And His Mother Called Him Bill ended with Ellington alone at the piano playing

Lotus Blossom. I could never figure out the reasoning for the order of the cuts on the Phil Specter Back to Mono box set until my wife pointed out that it's programmed for a teen dance party ending with slow-dance songs.

[A Lark Ascending]

While CDs are not inherently too long, many of us came of age during the LP era. I have become conditioned to the 20-or-so minute LP side as a substantial yet digestible serving of music.

It's not as if you need to take a 15 minute tea break. Just the act of getting up and changing the record had the effect of putting in a natural pause.

I still 'hear' the breaks when I play CDs of albums I had on vinyl. Especially double LPs.

[BillF]

Very occasionally in the LP era, separate tracks weren't an issue. On Miles Ahead the music doesn't ever stop. A transitional chord carries you to the next piece. In those days, when record store owners would allow one track only to be played as a sample before purchase, I remember quietly advising an intending jazz purchaser to select Miles Ahead.

Edited April 20, 2008 by BillF

[reg]

reading the thread - AotW - Sonny Clark - Cool Struttin' and thinking about the length of CD's compared to LPs. I'm glad to have the two extra tracks from that day's session but does the album lose or gain from the extra length? CDs can sometimes give a better/bigger picture, think Hank would have liked the CD of Friday/Saturday Night at the Blackhawk better.

Also dont like alt takes in middle of Album. at the end please, think most CDs are like this now.

[jon abbey]

While CDs are not inherently too long, many of us came of age during the LP era. I have become conditioned to the 20-or-so minute LP side as a substantial yet digestible serving of music.

well then "many of you" should realize that CDs have been around for 20+ years now and adapt yourselves to the current reality. all of us grew up having to sit through commercials on TV too, but it doesn't take long with a DVR (or a VCR) to realize you can fast forward through them. do you walk out of concerts after 20 minutes also?

Edited April 21, 2008 by jon abbey

[Niko]

While CDs are not inherently too long, many of us came of age during the LP era. I have become conditioned to the 20-or-so minute LP side as a substantial yet digestible serving of music.

well then "many of you" should realize that CDs have been around for 20+ years now and adapt yourselves to the current reality. all of us grew up having to sit through commercials on TV too, but it doesn't take long with a DVR (or a VCR) to realize you can fast forward through them. do you walk out of concerts after 20 minutes also?

you don't want to know how often i've tried to fastforward commercials while watching ordinary tv... not much to add, i prefer 40 minutes and 7 tunes but if the artist has good reasons to deviate that's fine with me... if cds are much longer however for me they often lose the album feel and rather feel like a bunch of music (nothing wrong with that, badly described), for older jazz i like the idea of listening to one session at a time...

[marcello]

While CDs are not inherently too long, many of us came of age during the LP era. I have become conditioned to the 20-or-so minute LP side as a substantial yet digestible serving of music.

well then "many of you" should realize that CDs have been around for 20+ years now and adapt yourselves to the current reality. all of us grew up having to sit through commercials on TV too, but it doesn't take long with a DVR (or a VCR) to realize you can fast forward through them. do you walk out of concerts after 20 minutes also?

Somrtimes I want to, but there arer other senses that help hold your attention at a live concert.

Good programing is good programing.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Good programing is good programing.

Aha! A clue!

MG

[Teasing the Korean]

... do you walk out of concerts after 20 minutes also?

I've often wanted to.

[Shawn]

Live events are a different animal than albums, what works live doesn't naturally carry over to the studio and vice versa. I know that CD's have been around for over 20 years...but that still doesn't mean they're not too long.

[jon abbey]

Live events are a different animal than albums, what works live doesn't naturally carry over to the studio and vice versa.

no one is more aware of this than me.

I know that CD's have been around for over 20 years...but that still doesn't mean they're not too long.

maybe you should be listening to better CDs then?

[AllenLowe]

well, as Chico Marx said in some movie as he sat playing the piano:

"Our first number is Number One."

[AllenLowe]

all seriousness aside, the biggest problem with jazz CDs is that, in order to keep the publishing and not have to pay Harry Fox, jazz people want to write all their own songs; most were not cut out to be serious composers (this, of course, from the guy who put out a 2 cd set with about 30 of his own compositions) -

Edited April 21, 2008 by AllenLowe

[Shawn]

maybe you should be listening to better CDs then?

It's just my personal preference, has nothing to do with the quality of the CDs. Cool?

[A Lark Ascending]

While CDs are not inherently too long, many of us came of age during the LP era. I have become conditioned to the 20-or-so minute LP side as a substantial yet digestible serving of music.

well then "many of you" should realize that CDs have been around for 20+ years now and adapt yourselves to the current reality. all of us grew up having to sit through commercials on TV too, but it doesn't take long with a DVR (or a VCR) to realize you can fast forward through them. do you walk out of concerts after 20 minutes also?

I've heard very strong arguments for the greater concentration the 3 minute 78 inspired. Listening to the Elgar Violin Concerto in 3 minute chunks must have been a bit strange but I bet people really knew those 3 minute chunks inside out.

I don't think anyone is arguing for a return to 20 minute discs. Merely that with all the advantages of the CD, there are perhaps one or two losses (I'd add the 12 inch sleeve art).

On balance I think CDs are great. Though I'm rapidly converting to the virtues of the download.

***********

An afterthought - I'm sure that the dedicated listener has little difficulty with the 60+ minutes. But, in my experience, most listeners don't want to sustain that degree of concentration (not intended as a criticism - they have other priorities). Maybe the length of CDs is one of the things that has seen recorded music become of less interest to the general public - the album has become less of an overall experience because fatigue sets in before it's half over.

[medjuck]

You can consider cds as just the hard disc way of storing your music. You can play as much of it as you like order you like.

Of course, having said that, I usually put on a cd and listen to it all the way through.

[jon abbey]

as someone who's pretty obsessed with putting CDs together, for me a pretty good analogy is books. a LP would be the equivalent of maybe a 200 page book, the 3 minute 78s cited earlier would be a short story. with a CD, you have the possibility of a 400 page book, and I'll personally always take a great 400 page book over a great 200 page book, just for the potential scope. the longer something is, the more of a major statement it can (potentially) be. a fantastic, cohesive double CD is more exciting to me than three or four fantastic, cohesive single CDs.

and sure, if your preference is 20 minutes at a time, that's a personal thing, but I have trouble understanding how you sit through a film or a concert or anything longer than that. I have attention span issues at times too, but if something is fantastic, the longer the better IMO. there's also no one holding you at gunpoint to devote 100 percent attention to the music every second that it's on, it's an environment that you live in for however long it lasts (or however long you want to keep it on).

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

as someone who's pretty obsessed with putting CDs together, for me a pretty good analogy is books. a LP would be the equivalent of maybe a 200 page book, the 3 minute 78s cited earlier would be a short story. with a CD, you have the possibility of a 400 page book, and I'll personally always take a great 400 page book over a great 200 page book, just for the potential scope. the longer something is, the more of a major statement it can (potentially) be. a fantastic, cohesive double CD is more exciting to me than three or four fantastic, cohesive single CDs.

and sure, if your preference is 20 minutes at a time, that's a personal thing, but I have trouble understanding how you sit through a film or a concert or anything longer than that. I have attention span issues at times too, but if something is fantastic, the longer the better IMO. there's also no one holding you at gunpoint to devote 100 percent attention to the music every second that it's on, it's an environment that you live in for however long it lasts (or however long you want to keep it on).

I agree with all that. Except some geezers can't really DO a two CD set filled with great (or even very good) music.

Mg

[jon abbey]

I agree with all that. Except some geezers can't really DO a two CD set filled with great (or even very good) music.

if you mean musicians, definitely, most can't even make 10 minutes of great music, let alone a full LP or CD or double CD. most films and books suck too, that doesn't change my point/s.