Tracks order in an album

[Jevil]

Once you've finished recording and mixing all your tracks it is time to decide which order is the best for your songs. It is more important than you think! How do you choose which song goes first, which in the middle and which at the end?

After many years of research and investigation with the most respectable scientists of the NASA, I've come to some conclusion... for example commercially talking, most of the megahits pop and rock artists and producers put the best songs in the beginning of the CD... cause they catch listeners better.
Do you do the same?

I like this way, many bands of classic and power metal have similar estructure.

0. Intro: if included, this is the first one obviously)
1-2 Tracks: Fasts and powerful songs to give the listener a good opening.
2-3 Tracks: Probably the singles, catchy and commercial songs
...
5-6 Tracks: The ballad or mid/tempo should be here.
6-7: Another fast song after the ballad to show you're not only a gay balladist.
7-X: The worse songs.
Last Track: The longest. 15 min epic song works perfect.

 

[slashvanyoung]

Yeah, that stems from the day and age when people actually had physical records the listened to from the beginning. People who went into record shops to put on some headphones and to check out the releases were meant to be exposed to the possible singles/most popular tracks on an album first.

But I think everyone should take the "Reign In Blood-approach": 1-10 = all killer, no filler! Just got to write your own RIB first.

 

[The-Zeronaut]

I cant live without 15-20 min epic power metal songs >.<

 

[Chryst Krispies]

I like this way, many bands of classic and power metal have similar estructure.

0. Intro: if included, this is the first one obviously)
1-2 Tracks: Fasts and powerful songs to give the listener a good opening.
2-3 Tracks: Probably the singles, catchy and commercial songs
...
5-6 Tracks: The ballad or mid/tempo should be here.
6-7: Another fast song after the ballad to show you're not only a gay balladist.
7-X: The worse songs.
Last Track: The longest. 15 min epic song works perfect.

This is the fuckin recipe for success as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Force666]

Attention for listeners is decreasing. First song = Best song. The rest is pretty accurate though.

 

[Skinny Viking]

my only question is ..

what happened to song #4?

other than that .. here's my take on it:

1. Intro
2. very dynamic powerhouse tune ... basically get people excited and heavy grooving right from the start
3. fast tune ... you got them amped up a bit from song 1, let them unleash in a killer fast tune
4. Something catchy
5. Now we can get serious. Put the more involved piece here, or more progressive. Its ok if its a little longer too.
6. Something soft
7. Fast
8. Catchy
9. Progressive
10. Catchy or bad tune
11. Epic long song or at least another fast one

 

[HandsOfDespair]

It reminds me of the Ride the lightning- master of puppers - ajfa, same exact structures on them, and I think these albums did great

 

[Torniojaws]

I always rinse and rinse my album structures. Call me old-fashioned, but to me an album is an ALBUM, not a collection of tracks-by-numbers. I always adjust the full album so that it flows well to my ear If that means that some of the "hit songs" will be last on the album, then so be it. It's not like the album is going to sell much anyway First and foremost, I act as an artist, not as a worker - that is the blessing of hobbyism You don't have to please any CEOs or know-it-alls - just do what you yourself like, without needing to think if it will sell or not. That is what art is, to me.

But to give some examples... here's how my past few releases have been structured:

Vortech - Posthumanism

1. short build-up intro, extremely fast song, dark chorus with lots of diminished harmonies
2. even faster, relentless speed, melancholic chorus
3. hit song, a bit slower compared to the first two, driving song all the way, catchy chorus
4. darker, kind of progressive and somewhat fast, a bit longer
5. small breather intro (slow with spoken words), before the song launches, driving song, melancholic and dark chorus
6. distant, ambient intro, before a full-on attack launches, one of the fastest songs, melodic chorus
7. a synth intro, "hit structure" at first, a bit slower, melodic and lush chorus
8. very aggressive and dark song
9. driving song, an uplifting chorus, dark verses
10. another "hit song", with classic structure, a bass break before launching into the final chorus
11. the fastest song on the album, dark and eerie, very driving and to the point

Vortech - Deep Beneath

1. Building intro into the chorus without leads, dark and mysterious, thrashy song
2. Lead intro, fast blasting, somewhat hit song, very progressive
3. Tricksy song, very unhitlike (what a word ) by structure, multilayered chorus, somewhat slower
4. fast, thrashy song, uplifting hit chorus
5. driving song, with a wild structure, catchy chorus
6. aggressive and driving, mysterious, dark chorus that builds and builds towards the end
7. followed by a 6 minute eerie ambient track, giving the listener a breather from the mauling
8. quick synth intro, into the fastest song on the album, lots of blasting
9. uplifiting and progressive chorus, kind of Katatonia-like verses
10. Very dark and depressing song, quite fast, the outro part goes to half-tempo and with a build-up towards the end

 

[slashvanyoung]

@ Juha: You know what would be super-über-epic?! If those descriptions would be the actual song titles!

 

[Skinny Viking]

@ Juha: You know what would be super-über-epic?! If those descriptions would be the actual song titles!

 

[Torniojaws]

It's something Karl Sanders would/could do

 

[16S]

@ Juha: You know what would be super-über-epic?! If those descriptions would be the actual song titles!

great man!!!!!

 

[DanLights]

I dislike intros, 95% of the time I find them totally useless and skippable in an album, probably becasue 95% of the time power/symphonic bands make a crappy symphonic 30 second piece that has nothing to do with the album. I like a long song as the first track, probably even a slow one. I know it´s wierd, but it works for me. Of course I dont listen to that much traditional/power metal, this applies more to other more extreme genres

 

[Jevil]

I still like intros if the intro is good. Many bands have done very stupid intros just to fill more space into CD's,
BTW Dan, I can see that you are in Coruña yet, welcome to the olde europe!

 

[Suicide_As_Alibi]

0. Intro: if included, this is the first one obviously)
1-2 Tracks: Fasts and powerful songs to give the listener a good opening.
2-3 Tracks: Probably the singles, catchy and commercial songs
...
5-6 Tracks: The ballad or mid/tempo should be here.
6-7: Another fast song after the ballad to show you're not only a gay balladist.
7-X: The worse songs.
Last Track: The longest. 15 min epic song works perfect.

I couldn't disagree more with this. It reeks of writing to order and other peoples expectations. The songs should go in the order that works for that particular set of songs, and the songs should be the ones you want; not ones that fit some pre-defined set list you've got in your head. It shouldn't be any different than a suite of classical songs, an opera or a good book.

Surrounding ballads/more melodic tracks with faster and harder stuff "to show you're not only a gay balladist" doesn't make any sense either. If you write a ballad that you think is good enough to go on your album, you should be proud of it - not try to hide it amongst heavier songs like your ashamed of it. If you don't want to be seen as a "gay balladist", don't write ballads.

Putting the "epic long song" at the end is a cop out; it's making the assumption that the majority of people listening to the album don't have the patience or attention span to deal with a long and more complex song. If I'm listening to an hour long album, the last thing I want right at the end is the longest, most draining song.

And packing out the last third of the album with "worse" songs is pathetic. If you record a song and you think it's weak, don't put it on the CD. You should think every track is a great song.

My band's next track listing is:

1 - 10 minute epic
2 - 2:30 minute 'hooky' song
3 - Lighter half of a 2-song piece
4 - Heavier half
5 - Acoustic ballad
6 - 2 minute full band instrumental
7 - Probably the most obvious single
8 - Acoustic instrumental
9 - 2 minute reprise of the opening track

It sets the scene, builds things up, drops down to a more sombre tone, kicks back in with the catchiest song, slows things back down, and then comes full circle with something that's already familiar - infinitely more interesting than 'fast, slow, rubbish, long'

Steve

 

[DanLights]

BTW Dan, I can see that you are in Coruña yet, welcome to the olde europe!

Thanks man! Care to pm me your msn address or someway to speak to you? I need Spanish friends, I have none hahaha

 

[Fragle]

first things first: i DESPISE intros. simple reason: when skipping through the mp3 player, in the car for example, i just HATE it when i can't tell right away which album i'm currently listening to, especially when skipping through the albums in search of a specific one. but even aside from that, i just don't quite get what those pseudo-atmospheric intros could add to the music of the album. i'm not even a fan of quiet interludes between the songs, but if it's well done it's still way better (and makes more sense imho) than a 30sec noise intro at the start of the cd.
nevermore - tge had a perfect way of starting the CD.....just a singe snare hit, BAM, and thrashing right away.

other than that, i prefer faster songs as the first track, and it should also be one of the best if not THE best track on the cd. imagine this, you go to the cd store and check out an album...if the first song isn't kicking my ass right away i'll much rather put the cd back into the shelve.
the second song should be a more straightforward one, and also shorter, giving me time to relax after the massive sonic assault the first song was.
more progressive songs are best put as 4th or 5th....past that is filler time (if there are any), maybe also a slower anthemic song depending on the music. the last song should also be one of the best. remember, it's the last thing you hear on the CD, you need to be left with a real WTF feeling when it's finished. an epic song works pretty well, too.
come to think of it, nevermore's TGE is a prime example of what i just wrote....

 

[ParsonsMatt]

I couldn't disagree more with this. It reeks of writing to order and other peoples expectations. The songs should go in the order that works for that particular set of songs, and the songs should be the ones you want; not ones that fit some pre-defined set list you've got in your head. It shouldn't be any different than a suite of classical songs, an opera or a good book.

...

Steve

I totally agree here. In my opinion, every piece of continuous art (art that occurs over time, ie film, music, literature; but even visual art can be considered like this if you look at it the right way) needs to have an introduction (setting the stage), body (the main story), climax (victory!!! or defeat...), and resolution. I try to structure every one of my songs like this, and my new CD has this format as well and it really makes a huge impact. If you were to scramble all of the songs on "DLP", it wouldn't be nearly as good, just because each song introduces and builds up to the next, all while being cohesive individually, and then the final songs just pay off with this resolution/ending/concluded feeling.

I hate listening to CDs that don't do that. They've failed as a "CD", even if the songs are really good.