How important is track order to you?

When listening to albums, does track order matter or is it just a way of ordering songs? Im with the latter Obviously you dont want to kick off an album with a ballad or slow song, but for tracks 3-whatver its fine. Also, are there any albums that could be improved by changing the track order in your opinion?

For me, it depends on the album. However, there are certain principles that I think matter with track order. For instance, putting 2 or more ballads in a row tends to kill the momentum of an album.

It matters a lot to me, now that I think about it. I bet it comes from buying cassette tapes and vinyl as a kid and expecting the first track to be explosive (or w/intro), the end of side one to be an appropriate interlude (such as a ballad), the beginning of side two to be even more explosive, and the final track to be a fitting end. However, a lot of cassettes had the track listing randomized. My copy of Balls to the Wall had the title track at the end rather than the beginning, and I've always preferred it that way (save the best and biggest for last). So I think its more how I grew up with my collection rather than how the artists intend it to be.

In the end, though, track listing can be of great benefit to the flow of an album.

Track order is important to me, even when I make up a playlist I'll usually spend way to much time making sure the songs flow nicely from one to the other. I don't hold to a specific formula for an album order, I just like it when the progression of songs compliment one another as the disc moves along. Of the most part I think bands do a pretty decent job of this. Where they run into trouble is when bands load way to many songs onto an album and some o the songs just don't really fit anywhere. One that I can think of is heaven and Hell's "the devil you know." A great album bit could have used one of the more upbeat songs somewhere closer to the front end o the disc.

DevZor wrote:

Track order is important to me, even when I make up a playlist I'll usually spend way to much time making sure the songs flow nicely from one to the other. I don't hold to a specific formula for an album order, I just like it when the progression of songs compliment one another as the disc moves along. Of the most part I think bands do a pretty decent job of this. Where they run into trouble is when bands load way to many songs onto an album and some o the songs just don't really fit anywhere. One that I can think of is heaven and Hell's "the devil you know." A great album bit could have used one of the more upbeat songs somewhere closer to the front end o the disc.

I think this is why I can't do random lists and to a lesser extent greatest hits. I prefer instead to make my own list or better yet hear full albums. When I randomized my ipod (when I was using it) the shifts would be abrupt at times. Same thing with Rhapsody. On a side note, I hate the ipod's random option because it tends to repeat songs.

For most of my favorite records, absolutely vital. I love records that take me on a journey.

Not important. Whatever order the artists put the tracks is generally fine by me.

The only time I like to mix it up is when it's an album that I've played to death and know every track by heart. I might shuffle it up for sh*ts & giggles.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Not important. Whatever order the artists put the tracks is generally fine by me.

The only time I like to mix it up is when it's an album that I've played to death and know every track by heart. I might shuffle it up for sh*ts & giggles.

Same here, on greatest hits album it sometimes bothers me, if they random just select tracks without paying attention to how the album flows, but on studio albums, whatever the artist and producer deceide is fine with me

corplhicks wrote:

On a side note, I hate the ipod's random option because it tends to repeat songs.

Oh, man, I hate that. It's worthless. Seems to me it should be a no-brainer to program some kind of memory software into it that makes it not repeat songs it's already played. Especially with today's technology.

I like the random feature on the ipod, but i do agree it gets annoying when it repeats songs. Thankfully i have over 700 songs on mine so it doesnt do that as much.

Not important at all. In fact, I've never even given it a second thought til I read this thread.

Not particularly, unless an album is reissued or re-released with the tracks in a different order than I'm "used" to.

Case in point: the first Crimson Glory album. When I first bought it on cassette years ago (on the PAR Records label) the track "Dream Dancer" was the leadoff song (and my favorite on the entire album).

When Roadrunner picked up the album for European release, they dropped "Dream Dancer" from the album entirely (it eventually wound up on the B-side of a single) and then mixed up the order of the rest of the tracks. I was so pissed that I boycotted any and all CD versions of that album for years 'n' years. At one point I downloaded all the songs incl. "Dream Dancer" off of a blog and made a CD-R version with the tracks in the "original" running order rather than buy the butchered version.

When Metal Mind reissued the album a couple of years ago I picked it up cuz at least "Dream Dancer" was re-instated as a bonus track at the end... but dammit, it still isn't the SAME!!!

Boris2008 wrote:

For most of my favorite records, absolutely vital. I love records that take me on a journey.

Well said.

manny wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Not important. Whatever order the artists put the tracks is generally fine by me.

The only time I like to mix it up is when it's an album that I've played to death and know every track by heart. I might shuffle it up for sh*ts & giggles.

Same here, on greatest hits album it sometimes bothers me, if they random just select tracks without paying attention to how the album flows, but on studio albums, whatever the artist and producer deceide is fine with me

I tend to like my greatest hits discs to go chronologicly if possible, but it's not something I get my undies in bunch over.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

manny wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Not important. Whatever order the artists put the tracks is generally fine by me.

The only time I like to mix it up is when it's an album that I've played to death and know every track by heart. I might shuffle it up for sh*ts & giggles.

Same here, on greatest hits album it sometimes bothers me, if they random just select tracks without paying attention to how the album flows, but on studio albums, whatever the artist and producer deceide is fine with me

I tend to like my greatest hits discs to go chronologicly if possible, but it's not something I get my undies in bunch over.

VH's Best of Both Worlds was ruined because of this, with both Sammy and Dave songs mixed together. It was so maddening to get all excited over a classic Dave song and then get smacked in the face with a 5150 tune. Of course, the studio was to blame for this as it was unintentional in the first place (and why the hell would you put the new songs up front at the start of the album?).

Bjork's Best Of (I'm sooo metal ) Didn't follow any kind of chronological order but it was clear that she wanted it to flow like any other record and a lot of thought had been put into it and it worked really well.

However, if there is a period of a bands history that you hate, I suppose that it could be annoying. There again, if there is a period of a bands history that you hate, wouldn't you be better off buying the records that you like rather than a best of?

Exactly. Which is why I generally avoid greatest hits.

I usually avoid Greatest Hits because if I like the band, I'll end up getting their albums. If I hate the band, I won't ever listen to the Hits.

Doesn't matter to me. I listen to everything on shuffle.

MetallicSeminarian wrote:

For me, it depends on the album. However, there are certain principles that I think matter with track order. For instance, putting 2 or more ballads in a row tends to kill the momentum of an album.

This.

You get use to hearing a certain album in a certain order. Aerosmith Toys in the Attic is a good example. I'm just use to hearing the songs in that order. Changing the order would be criminal IMO.

I also agree about the 2 or more ballads rule. Halestorm - The Strange Case of … is a perfect example. The first four songs roar along then BAM, four boring ballads in a row. And when I say boring, I mean American Idol trite, paint-by-number ballads. One would have been good, two would have been tolerable, four is just boredom.

Even Aerosmith's latest is drug down by far too many ballads, even though they are not all together in a row. Again, two would have been fine. Four is overkill.

How about when a ballad comes too early? One example is Iced Earth, Something Wicked. Technically it's not a ballad, but Melancholy being the second track after such a pummeling starter is just too abrupt a change early on. Great song, and I understand it being a concept album may vindicate this choice, but I would have preferred it later it on.

Stryper did this too, can't remember if it was Devil or Yellow Black. Can't remember the song. Stryper was a looooong time ago for me. Except for Against the Law but that's beside the point.

corplhicks wrote:

How about when a ballad comes too early? One example is Iced Earth, Something Wicked. Technically it's not a ballad, but Melancholy being the second track after such a pummeling starter is just too abrupt a change early on. Great song, and I understand it being a concept album may vindicate this choice, but I would have preferred it later it on.

Stryper did this too, can't remember if it was Devil or Yellow Black. Can't remember the song. Stryper was a looooong time ago for me. Except for Against the Law but that's beside the point.

For me personally, Something Wicked has too many ballad-ish tracks overall, even if many of them are pretty good. The Dark Saga is still my favorite IE.

It is important, especially on albums I grew up listening to.

4 cases in point:

SLAYER - Show No Mercy - I had the cassette in the 80s, and Aggressive Perfector was Track 6, between Face The Slayer and Black Magic. None of the CD pressings have it this way. I have both Show No Mercy and Haunting the Chapel on CD, so I ripped both of them to my PC, then arranged the songs properly (yes, properly, dangit!) in my music file so whenever I load it onto my mp3 player or whatever, the songs play like I'm used to them playing. Aggressive Perfector's supposed to be on Show No Mercy; not Haunting the Chapel, lol...

RUNNING WILD - Under Jolly Roger - had the tape in the 80s, and the songs were in a totally different order than they are on any CD pressing I've seen. Funny thing is, on the back cover of the CD, the songs are in the right order, like the old cassette, but on the disc itself, they're all out of order. I don't see the reasoning behind that...it's not like they changed them so they'd fit better on each side, lol....

W.A.S.P. - s/t - back in the day, my cassette didn't have F*** (Like An Animal) on it as the first song. I hunted the original CD pressing down on purpose because it doesn't have that song on it. All subsequent CD pressings have it added, under the excuse of "it was supposed to be on the first album but was cut because of obscenity", or some such thing. Well, it wasn't on my tape back then, so it doesn't belong on my CD now! Ha!

NUCLEAR ASSAULT - Game Over - my cassette had 'Lesbians' on it between After the Holocaust and Stranded In Hell. None of the CD pressings OR vinyl pressings have it, but instead have replaced it with the ultra-lame 'Mr. Softee's Theme'. Sorry, not gonna have it....I downloaded Lesbians and put it where it's supposed to be in my files, since that's the right way, doing away with Mr. Softee's Theme.

corplhicks wrote:

How about when a ballad comes too early? One example is Iced Earth, Something Wicked. Technically it's not a ballad, but Melancholy being the second track after such a pummeling starter is just too abrupt a change early on. Great song, and I understand it being a concept album may vindicate this choice, but I would have preferred it later it on.

Stryper did this too, can't remember if it was Devil or Yellow Black. Can't remember the song. Stryper was a looooong time ago for me. Except for Against the Law but that's beside the point.

The second track on yellow and black attack is "From Wrong to Right" which isnt a ballad but it is significantly lighter than "Loud N Clear".

Hadley wrote:

corplhicks wrote:

How about when a ballad comes too early? One example is Iced Earth, Something Wicked. Technically it's not a ballad, but Melancholy being the second track after such a pummeling starter is just too abrupt a change early on. Great song, and I understand it being a concept album may vindicate this choice, but I would have preferred it later it on.

Stryper did this too, can't remember if it was Devil or Yellow Black. Can't remember the song. Stryper was a looooong time ago for me. Except for Against the Law but that's beside the point.

The second track on yellow and black attack is "From Wrong to Right" which isnt a ballad but it is significantly lighter than "Loud N Clear".

Thank you; that's right it was very happy.