Album Construction: what’s important to you?

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I consistently find that one of the most important aspects of a record is its scheme of construction. Things like song order, intros and outros and intermissions, dealing with the halfway point (especially for vinyl), narrative arc (even in non-concept albums), transitions between songs, and all that sort of stuff. Together with the packaging and advertising for the record, its overall assembly has an astounding impact on how I understand and listen to a record.

 

What do you like in an album? What kinds of songs make good intros, outros, closers, etc.? How should a record flow? What are some examples of albums you think work very well on this level?

[blueschica]

I have to think a little on some examples but I know this is one reason I enjoy albums from the late 60's and the 70's. Song order and intro/outro were important to most artists and it really added to the feeling when you would listen to a whole side at a time on vinyl. I know Geddy had said in interviews that it was something Rush spent a lot of time on in production.

[greyfriar]

I like it when an album has a side-long epic, a song with a little bit of French lyrics in it, a ten minute instrumental and finally a song about trees, fighting for sunlight. That's what makes an album perfect to me!

[HemiBeers]

Fast loud song

Slow quiet song

Rinse and repeat

 

In seriousness, that's pretty much it...good albums have dynamics. For example, what bugs me about GUP is the first tracks all sound the same.

 

One of the best album openers is AIC Them Bones. Layne's scream just slams your head. After 5 seconds you know the album will kick ass.

 

If you have some weak shit, bury it towards the middle so you kinda forget about it after the album is done.

Edited October 19, 2019 by HemiBeers

[invisible airwave]

[bluefox4000]

this is tough. cause if i like an album i just like it.

 

but.....i prefer to have an album be a nice killer 45 minutes. i can do an album over an hour but i'm picky. if your gonna go 50 mins-to an hour or more. have your A game.

 

i hate sitting through an hour album where it's maybe they have 45 mins of great. then the rest is wasting my time with filler THAT'S THERE FOR NO REASON!!!!! exept to make a long album.

 

i HATE that.

 

so much, lol and truth be told. most bands/artists cannot pull of an hour. There are some yes. but MOST.......no.

 

Mick

Edited October 19, 2019 by bluefox4000

[ytserush]

Songs that don't sound the same that are organic and not forced and presented in such a way that that you discover news things with repeated listens. Also, the lyrics have to be better than average.

[Segue Myles]

this is tough. cause if i like an album i just like it.

 

but.....i prefer to have an album be a nice killer 45 minutes. i can do an album over an hour but i'm picky. if your gonna go 50 mins-to an hour or more. have your A game.

 

i hate sitting through an hour album where it's maybe they have 45 mins of great. then the rest is wasting my time with filler THAT'S THERE FOR NO REASON!!!!! exept to make a long album.

 

i HATE that.

 

so much, lol and truth be told. most bands/artists cannot pull of an hour. There are some yes. but MOST.......no.

 

Mick

 

Nightwish are about it for me, in regards to bands with long albums that I never skip.

[goose]

this is tough. cause if i like an album i just like it.

 

but.....i prefer to have an album be a nice killer 45 minutes. i can do an album over an hour but i'm picky. if your gonna go 50 mins-to an hour or more. have your A game.

 

i hate sitting through an hour album where it's maybe they have 45 mins of great. then the rest is wasting my time with filler THAT'S THERE FOR NO REASON!!!!! exept to make a long album.

 

i HATE that.

 

so much, lol and truth be told. most bands/artists cannot pull of an hour. There are some yes. but MOST.......no.

 

Mick

:goodone:

 

40 minutes is tough, 60 is near impossible. Late-career RUSH really fell victim to too much filler.

 

[Entre_Perpetuo]

this is tough. cause if i like an album i just like it.

 

but.....i prefer to have an album be a nice killer 45 minutes. i can do an album over an hour but i'm picky. if your gonna go 50 mins-to an hour or more. have your A game.

 

i hate sitting through an hour album where it's maybe they have 45 mins of great. then the rest is wasting my time with filler THAT'S THERE FOR NO REASON!!!!! exept to make a long album.

 

i HATE that.

 

so much, lol and truth be told. most bands/artists cannot pull of an hour. There are some yes. but MOST.......no.

 

Mick

:goodone:

 

40 minutes is tough, 60 is near impossible. Late-career RUSH really fell victim to too much filler.

 

(and some shoddy lyrics @Counterparts, T4E, and SnA)

[JohnnyBlaze]

Not sure it matters for most albums.

 

I was 9 when Moving Pictures came out. I had no idea what the cover meant. It only looked cool to me because it was a big, new glossy album in my hands. I had known of Rush for a few years already but wasn’t invested in them. I heard most of the songs out of order and one by one. None of that mattered. It immediately became my favorite album and they became my favorite band.

It’s still (possibly) my favorite album of all time.

[IbanezJem]

As often was the case, early Van Halen got it right. Fair Warning being the obvious and best example, as thematically the album is consistent with an air of threat and menace, from the album cover to one of the greatest intros in music, DLR`s lyrics throughout, continues through the sleaze/air of violence of Dirty Movies, Unchained, Push Comes to Shove, and fades out with more Dave aggression and Eddie madness, just like it came in. Wrapped up in 31 minutes, but you`re going to listen to it again straight away so it doesn`t matter :haz:

[goose]

As often was the case, early Van Halen got it right. Fair Warning being the obvious and best example, as thematically the album is consistent with an air of threat and menace, from the album cover to one of the greatest intros in music, DLR`s lyrics throughout, continues through the sleaze/air of violence of Dirty Movies, Unchained, Push Comes to Shove, and fades out with more Dave aggression and Eddie madness, just like it came in. Wrapped up in 31 minutes, but you`re going to listen to it again straight away so it doesn`t matter :haz:

I immediately thought of early VH as well. They always left you wanting more, which is what a great album does, IMO.

 

Album art mattered to me when I was collecting vinyl. Studying the cover and liner notes was part of the experience back in the day. Cheap Trick's Budokan album is a wonderful example of that.

[custom55]

The Who - Tommy

 

The original double album was configured with sides 1 and 4 on one disc, and sides 2 and 3 on the other, to accommodate stacking the LP's on a record player. One flip was required when listening to Tommy in its entirety.

 

Very thoughtful

[goose]

The Who - Tommy

 

The original double album was configured with sides 1 and 4 on one disc, and sides 2 and 3 on the other, to accommodate stacking the LP's on a record player. One flip was required when listening to Tommy in its entirety.

 

Very thoughtful

All the World's A Stage was that way, too. :)

[Nova Carmina]

It's a good question. It's probably something sort of inexact, though, innit, like most great art?

 

I do like when the running order of the songs changes pace, mood, level of aggression/quiet -- there should be a sort of symphony-like movement to the songs in the lift and the shift, telling a story (not necessarily in the "concept" sense).

 

Rush seemed -- for a while there, anyway -- to do something a little different, sort of a coda to things, as the last track. Some of my favorite Rush songs are last songs ("Vital Signs," "Countdown," "Mystic Rhythms," "Available Light, "Everyday Glory"). A little sense of melancholy ("The Garden" or -- my personal favorite -- Pink Floyd's "High Hopes") is a good landing well stuck.

[taurus]

Ah yes, this is a topic I can always geek out on. The subtle art of track selection and sequence. This is a fading concept now with streaming taking over but being the age I am, I often think of consuming music with the parameters of vinyl/cassette or cd. I think of consuming music in 16-22 minute clusters and often compile my car listening using those guidelines.

 

Some of the best album flows imo

 

Pink Floyd - WYWH

Rush - MP

Led Zeppelin - IV

 

Loved Zappa's modular capabilities where it seems you could cut his stuff up endlessly to come up with varied and interesting results.

[Rick N. Backer]

As often was the case, early Van Halen got it right. Fair Warning being the obvious and best example, as thematically the album is consistent with an air of threat and menace, from the album cover to one of the greatest intros in music, DLR`s lyrics throughout, continues through the sleaze/air of violence of Dirty Movies, Unchained, Push Comes to Shove, and fades out with more Dave aggression and Eddie madness, just like it came in. Wrapped up in 31 minutes, but you`re going to listen to it again straight away so it doesn`t matter :haz:

 

Fair Warning is when they really started to realize they hated each other. It comes through on the album. For them, it worked. Black Sabbath and Never Say Die! is an example of it NOT working.

[ytserush]

this is tough. cause if i like an album i just like it.

 

but.....i prefer to have an album be a nice killer 45 minutes. i can do an album over an hour but i'm picky. if your gonna go 50 mins-to an hour or more. have your A game.

 

i hate sitting through an hour album where it's maybe they have 45 mins of great. then the rest is wasting my time with filler THAT'S THERE FOR NO REASON!!!!! exept to make a long album.

 

i HATE that.

 

so much, lol and truth be told. most bands/artists cannot pull of an hour. There are some yes. but MOST.......no.

 

Mick

:goodone:

 

40 minutes is tough, 60 is near impossible. Late-career RUSH really fell victim to too much filler.

 

(and some shoddy lyrics @Counterparts, T4E, and SnA)

 

In many cases with Rush the lyrics got better and more focused.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

this is tough. cause if i like an album i just like it.

 

but.....i prefer to have an album be a nice killer 45 minutes. i can do an album over an hour but i'm picky. if your gonna go 50 mins-to an hour or more. have your A game.

 

i hate sitting through an hour album where it's maybe they have 45 mins of great. then the rest is wasting my time with filler THAT'S THERE FOR NO REASON!!!!! exept to make a long album.

 

i HATE that.

 

so much, lol and truth be told. most bands/artists cannot pull of an hour. There are some yes. but MOST.......no.

 

Mick

:goodone:

 

40 minutes is tough, 60 is near impossible. Late-career RUSH really fell victim to too much filler.

 

(and some shoddy lyrics @Counterparts, T4E, and SnA)

 

In many cases with Rush the lyrics got better and more focused.

 

When? In their later albums? I tend to disagree.

[TexMike]

Order the songs so that similar tempos and longer songs are spaced apart for a varied listening experience. Like with a good live setlist, start and end on a high note (fast or high energy songs that don't meander and that leave the listener with a buzz).

[Mystic Slipperman]

I know that albums are "out of fashion", but we don't care.

 

When assembling the Heliopolis record (and now the soon-to-be-released AmuZeum record) --- song sequence and flow from track to track is extremely important.

[GeddyLeeRoth]

First of all you need good songs. Lol. But to answer your question, I've always been a huge fan of albums that have a song cycle and continuity. I heard this term 'song cycle' a long time ago, and the way I think of it is an album having variation, continuity, a beginning, middle (typically a centerpiece song) and an end (or denoument). In other words, it feels like you are taking a journey. Good examples of these are:

 

Hemispheres; obviously a strong beginning--18 minutes worth! a middle--the 2 shorter songs serving as an interlude-like middle before one of the best album closers of all time.

 

Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son; Great songs w variation starting with an ear catching intro, a stellar centerpiece song in the title track, a nice interlude song with The Prophet and a romping finish with Only The Good DIe Young. Incredible continuity from song to song, with the themes really tying the album together.

 

Led Zeppelin IV; Grand opening with one-two punch Black Dog and Rock & Roll, incredible variation from song to song, ie. The Battle Of Evermore, a awe-inspiring centerpiece song, Stairway To Heaven, Four Sticks has an interlude feel to it, and possibly the greatest closer ever with When The Levee breaks. This album feels is like experiencing a change of seasons. This is why I've always held it in a little higher regard than Physical Graffiti, cohesiveness and undiluted excellence from song to song.

 

Great albums don't have to have this song cycle quality to them, but when it does it only can make it better.

[ytserush]

this is tough. cause if i like an album i just like it.

 

but.....i prefer to have an album be a nice killer 45 minutes. i can do an album over an hour but i'm picky. if your gonna go 50 mins-to an hour or more. have your A game.

 

i hate sitting through an hour album where it's maybe they have 45 mins of great. then the rest is wasting my time with filler THAT'S THERE FOR NO REASON!!!!! exept to make a long album.

 

i HATE that.

 

so much, lol and truth be told. most bands/artists cannot pull of an hour. There are some yes. but MOST.......no.

 

Mick

:goodone:

 

40 minutes is tough, 60 is near impossible. Late-career RUSH really fell victim to too much filler.

 

(and some shoddy lyrics @Counterparts, T4E, and SnA)

 

In many cases with Rush the lyrics got better and more focused.

 

When? In their later albums? I tend to disagree.

 

Yes. The later albums. Not all of it, but most. It's OK to disagree.

[goose]

this is tough. cause if i like an album i just like it.

 

but.....i prefer to have an album be a nice killer 45 minutes. i can do an album over an hour but i'm picky. if your gonna go 50 mins-to an hour or more. have your A game.

 

i hate sitting through an hour album where it's maybe they have 45 mins of great. then the rest is wasting my time with filler THAT'S THERE FOR NO REASON!!!!! exept to make a long album.

 

i HATE that.

 

so much, lol and truth be told. most bands/artists cannot pull of an hour. There are some yes. but MOST.......no.

 

Mick

:goodone:

 

40 minutes is tough, 60 is near impossible. Late-career RUSH really fell victim to too much filler.

 

(and some shoddy lyrics @Counterparts, T4E, and SnA)

 

In many cases with Rush the lyrics got better and more focused.

 

When? In their later albums? I tend to disagree.

 

Yes. The later albums. Not all of it, but most. It's OK to disagree.

I think Neil's lyric writing got better AND worse. Maturity and experience gave him better insight into the human experience which led to some amazing post-classic era lyrics. He also put out some less than amazing lyrics though, as he explored non-traditional or era-specific topics and worked to fill cd-length albums.