Song Sequence on an Album

[Klaus & Rooster]

Steely Fans,

the other day I was listening a couple SD albums on my iPod while
riding the train. For some reason the songs were correctly sorted by
albums, but the sequence of the songs for each album was completely
shuffeled around. I guess while ripping the songs the track numbers
got lost, or whatever.

First I was annoyed - then I kind of enjoyed listening to the songs in
a different order. That made me wonder: How much effort, if any at
all, is invested by Donalsd and Walter to determine the order of the
songs as they go on an album ? Does this have any impact at all ?

Cheers
Klaus & Rooster

[etherbored]

don't kid yourself. the running order of a recording is of paramount
interest and concern to any artist.
walter and donald are intimately involved in determining the track
sequencing of their recordings.
does it have any impact at all?
think of a recording as a book with each song as a chapter.
yes, it has monumental impact.

[Klaus & Rooster]

Does this also apply to compilations ?

Klaus & Rooster

[Warren B.]

I was wondering this myself, as the otherwise killer 1993 boxed set
_Citizen Steely Dan_, which contains every officially released song up
until 1980 (including "FM" and "Here at the Western World", plus an
early demo of "Everyone's Gone To The Movies"), put the tracks in
order by album, but within the albums the songs are in a different
order from the original albums. For that matter, are the remastered
discs that came out in the late '90s in the same order as the original
albums? I forget.

-- wb

[etherbored]

i would say in 99.9% of compilations, no. one assumes this based on the fact
that compilations simply aren't a direct creative sculpture of the artist.
they're label revenue chasing vehicles.

[Klaus & Rooster]

Mmh, I am wondering if this is true looking at basic copyright ruling.
The authors still have control over the publication of their material,
unless the have signed a corresponding deal. But You say that D&W had
no say if it comes to the release a Greatest Hits album ?

How about the previous post ? I don't have Citizen, so I can't
confirm. The remasters all had the material in the same sequence then
the original albums.

Klaus & Rooster

[etherbored]

oh, i'm not saying they "have no say". i'm saying that, generally speaking,
i don't see many artists very involved in compilations. for all i know,
walter and donald could be the exception. but i doubt it. how about that
awful comp last year from universal with the band name in grafitti on the
cover?

[jonphred]

This was surely subject to compromise back in the days when the delivery
medium (vinyl/cassette) needed to be "turned over".

A really long piece might have to be taken out of the preferred sequence
because it just wouldn't fit on the side and might be shifted later in the
sequence so as to be on the other side with some other juggling being
needed to create the required changes of mood/tempo/whatever between
tracks (or otherwise) that resequencing involves. This would presumably
have been less of an issue with albums of just 30 minutes or even shorter
duration.

I wonder if modern albums also intended for release on vinyl are sequenced
with this in mind or does anyone know of an example where the vinyl
release differs?

Listening to S.F. Sorrow (Pretty Things) or similar narrative recordings
on "shuffle" would be a nonsense - haven't cared to try it on Kamakiriad
or the like.

--
JonPhred

[IanKR]

> I was wondering this myself, as the otherwise killer 1993 boxed set
> _Citizen Steely Dan_, which contains every officially released song up
> until 1980 (including "FM" and "Here at the Western World", plus an
> early demo of "Everyone's Gone To The Movies"), put the tracks in
> order by album, but within the albums the songs are in a different
> order from the original albums.

I think they re-sorted tracks slightly where an album straddled two discs in
the set, where a shorter track that was out of order on the orignal vinyl
would fit at the end of the disc, e.g. with Aja.