RE: track listing | from AndrewDec 02 2004 - 20:59
You're fucking nuts Alex. It's good to see people talking about this subject because tthere are way too many cds that sound like a singles collection.
Idaho music Message boardYou're fucking nuts Alex. It's good to see people talking about this subject because tthere are way too many cds that sound like a singles collection.
Goddammit...
Yep, that's where you can find my derivative, mindless drivel from when I first started doing pop (i.e. non classical-oriented) up until the very beginning of this year.
I'll let you know when my real music is out of my computer and onto the internet, or better yet, a CD.
Hey Dean, you can find the wonderful music of Alex Niedt at http://www.soundclick.com/bands/1/alexniedt.htm
Sorry Alex.
Dean - Not any good ones that should ever be heard, no.
alex, right on, bro. i don't think artistic things always come naturally or are always obvious to us. sometimes these things need to discover us instead of us discovering them. they just sort of happen to us. you're making a statement when you release a body of music. there should be some thought to it. and hearing what other people do is very, very important... at least to me anyways.
Hey Alex: can I find your songs on the net?
They're not books with instructions on how to sequence an album. They're mastering books with sequencing suggestions from people who've made some of the greatest albums of all time. Most people don't know half as much about this shit as they think they do. And what's wrong with seeing how other people do stuff and taking their suggestions? It's like saying fuck music theory. That's just stupid. It's all a base of knowledge and ideas with many obvious things that most people usually overlook. I always thought all that shit was just a stupid waste of time because I already knew how to make cool chords, and I knew about cool "instrumentation", and I knew how to sequence an album, ad infinitum. But now that I sit and read and take classes on all this stuff, I realize I'd be a fucking idiot not to take advantage of these things. I used to be able to approach sequencing an album in about ten different ways, and they were all great. But now I could think of at least thirty. I knew how to make cool chords. Now I really KNOW how to make cool chords. My point is, reading all this stuff, even what seems like moronic bullshit, always opens your mind and makes you think about what you could be doing differently. Never a bad thing, and it's exactly what most people who make music should be doing. If they did, music probably wouldn't fucking suck like it does right now. But that's another discussion...
Sheesh. I can't believe there are actually books with instructions on how to sequence an album. Anyone who actually needs something like this shouldn't be even be making music.
when i've been in bands before, we always paid close attention to the setlists and would practice different orders for songs and that eventually would lend itself to helping select a tracklisting for releases. some songs are always just obvious good openers and closers for a release.
iPod directory structure;-
Artists>Albums>Songs, or you can organise your music however you want.
Just like at home with your vinyl, because you know that track 3 by band 'A' sounds great when it is preceded by track 7 by band 'B', and followed by track 1 by band 'C'.
Just like those mix tapes you used to make for your friends.
Yep, especially when people just randomly load songs into their Ipods and all that crap. That always makes me sad. But they don't know the difference, so whatever. Ron, I know I have a couple books somewhere with cool sequencing info/ideas. I'll shoot you an email if I can find them, and maybe post a bit here.
exactly. i totally agree. albums anymore are just collections of songs with no relation to each other. i think our songs on this album all have a central theme. there's no doubt about that. i just wanted to know how the rest of you do it.
Hi there...
Don't mean to be a bummer because this is all interesting stuff - but no matter how long you spend working out the perfect flow for your album you never know who's gonna try and tamper with it!
http://www.slidingpast.com/press/misc/tracking.htm
Quite shocking stuff, really. Especially seeing as anyone in their right minds should see that part of Idaho's charm is the flow of each album.
As far as I'm concerned, it is fast becoming a lost art - creating a complete entity from what could otherwise just be a selection of tracks - and I think a thread like this is a healthy thing! So I guess this isn't that negative a post after all.
cool. thanks guys. there are going to be some more harsh instrument changes for this album we're (the peachbones) doing. (do a search on soundclick.com for some song samples.) the basic musical theme of the album is pretty polarized. there are some great slower, darker songs, but then there are some full-on rock songs with loud guitar, crazy synth, and stuff like that. we thought about using the "polarized" theme for the album and making that polarization very overt. i had an idea to call the album "synthesis" because we somehow manage to make the two styles blend well together... keep the thoughts coming, please!
i guess it really depends on *WHAT* kind of songs you are writing, or what kind of album it is going to be, as a whole. but as for my stuff it all pretty much goes in the order of the happening of the lyrical content of the songs. what i mean is, the first song is about the beginning of the end, and the last song is about the end of the end. i'd guess that my "type" of albums don't really reflect the average album, so maybe it isnt really anything to consider. but to me the chronological order is kinda necessary for the album's "story" as a whole to trace play itself out, from point A to point Z.
personally i like harsh transitions. unexpected flow interruptions, stuff like that (alot of it on "Hope Was".) but again, i prefer that because it represents a more realistic timing-sense of chaos and unpreparedness which is more fitting of an album focusing on the neurotic mayhem of a f***ed up relationship falling apart. no break up is ever finely polished and perfectly arranged. but again, i guess that's probably genre-specific.
just my two cents.
I let the songs dictate an order. Some things just sound good; some don't. On the most basic level, things like tempos and keys can decide running orders. You probably don't want to have five 50 bpm songs in a row (unless you're Low). People will fall asleep. And you don't want two songs in a row with completely clashing keys. The transition will sound bad. Of course, the more time you have in between two songs, the more your brain is cleared and such transitions will sound less harsh. Also, if you have radical changes in instrumentation, it needs to be taken into consideration. Do you really want four solo acoustic songs in a row followed by six full band songs? Also, song structures are an important consideration. If you have four songs with the same structure, try to space them out, so it doesn't sound like you only know how to write one type of song. But there aren't any hard rules. If it sounds good to you and makes you happy, stick with it. But it won't hurt to get other musically-inclined people to listen, take notes, and provide suggestions for alternate sequences, fades, spacings, etc.
i'd like to hear your ideas about deciding on a track listing for your recordings... idaho fans and idaho members alike. in other words: how do you guys do it? how do you decide what goes where?
photo by Lara Porzak, all rights reserved.
webdesign by Roadsign Studio / hosting: Godaddy
messageboard.idahomusic.com - Idaho music 2024, all rights reserved.