To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen in
strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a single
track. Anyway, it seems there are two schools of thought now that downloads
are all the rage and tracks are stored en masse on MP3 players. See the
phrase "The £12,000 speakers were revealing little nuances of sound that
some of us had not heard before." in this interesting article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12209143


What goes around, comes around! :-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen
in strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a
single track.

Likewise. I don't use an mp3 player and I don't use "shuffle" on the CD
player.

Anyway, it seems there are two schools of thought now that downloads are
all the rage and tracks are stored en masse on MP3 players. See the phrase
"The £12,000 speakers were revealing little nuances of sound that some of
us had not heard before." in this interesting article:

I reckon it's far more likely that it was the setting, the fact that
everyone was concentrating on the music that explains the hearing of
previously unheard "little nuances", rather than the £12,000 speakers.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen
in strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a
single track.

Likewise. I don't use an mp3 player and I don't use "shuffle" on the CD
player.

Anyway, it seems there are two schools of thought now that downloads are
all the rage and tracks are stored en masse on MP3 players. See the
phrase "The £12,000 speakers were revealing little nuances of sound that
some of us had not heard before." in this interesting article:

I reckon it's far more likely that it was the setting, the fact that
everyone was concentrating on the music that explains the hearing of
previously unheard "little nuances", rather than the £12,000 speakers.


Good point!

On 18/01/2011 21:12, Keith G wrote:

To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen
in strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a
single track. Anyway, it seems there are two schools of thought now that
downloads are all the rage and tracks are stored en masse on MP3
players. See the phrase "The £12,000 speakers were revealing little
nuances of sound that some of us had not heard before." in this
interesting article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12209143


What goes around, comes around! :-)

As a prog fan I always listen to an entire album at once.
But in many cases it is unnecessary. As for 'all of Led Zeppelin',
it really applies only to the first album. Physical Graffiti and Coda
should be split up and the tracks added to the albums they were rejected
from in the first place.

"These are works of art at their greatest level.
You can pick up a Dickens book and read a little bit of it
and get some pleasure but you will not get the same pleasure
as you would picking it up and reading it from beginning to end."

Is it physically possible to read a Dickens novel in a sitting?
Without amphetamines, of course. I'm not referring to speed-reading.

--
Eiron.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen
in strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a
single track. Anyway, it seems there are two schools of thought now that
downloads are all the rage and tracks are stored en masse on MP3 players.
See the phrase "The £12,000 speakers were revealing little nuances of
sound that some of us had not heard before." in this interesting article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12209143


What goes around, comes around! :-)

Since getting a Squeezebox, I now have two modes of listening. For classical
and most Jazz, I'll listen to a whole work all the way through. I HATE the
ClassicFM mode of only playing the popular bits of any work. However for
most rock (a few albums excepted, like DSOTM), I use a playlist shuffled.
It's like having my own radio station with no chatter, just playing my sort
of music, but with the added frisson of "wonder what come next"

I don't think I've played a CD in many weeks. I do play the odd record, but
it's getting increasingly rare, in spite of having four turntables.

S.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen
in strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a
single track. Anyway, it seems there are two schools of thought now that
downloads are all the rage and tracks are stored en masse on MP3 players.
See the phrase "The £12,000 speakers were revealing little nuances of
sound that some of us had not heard before." in this interesting article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12209143


What goes around, comes around! :-)

I find that buy playing albums right through I start to learn the track
sequence, so that as one track comes to an end the next one comes into my
mind
before it starts playing.
(I wish I could learn other things so easily!)


--
Michael Chare

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen
in strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a
single track.

Likewise. I don't use an mp3 player and I don't use "shuffle" on the CD
player.

Since most of what I listen to is 'classical' music I do tend to listen to
sections/movements/acts in the order which (I assume) the composer and
performers intended.

That said I did discover a while ago that a CDR I'd made had the movements
in 'reverse order' due to an oops on my part when editing the recording.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen
in strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a
single track. Anyway, it seems there are two schools of thought now that
downloads are all the rage and tracks are stored en masse on MP3 players.
See the phrase "The £12,000 speakers were revealing little nuances of
sound that some of us had not heard before." in this interesting article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12209143


What goes around, comes around! :-)


Morning Keith

Interesting thread.

Albums which fall under the category of "concept" are
written to follow a sequence (Floyd, Moody Blues etc)
so it seems logical to play them back in the intended order.

This applies also to classical music and jazz suites, and as
you say the order of tracks is indeed sacrosanct.

Pop records are a different thing all together, when a dozen
or so individual titles are assembled on one CD.

It is usually the producer who comes up with the running
order, which is approved by the artist. As as recording engineer
or editor, I have on many occasions been able to add my
"two pennnyworth" regarding running order preferences.

The first two titles are usually the strongest, (especially if they have
been issued as singles, or been placed on air-play lists) In the case
of vinyl LPs it was traditional for the "lesser" titles to follow, with
band six being a better title than band five, to encourage you to
turn the LP over. B1 was always a strong title too (an earlier single
or perhaps the latest single B side)

A large percentage of recorded releases are compilations.
Artists and composers seem to need to "fill the CD to the
brim" where usually twelve titles suffice for one sitting.
Similarly in classical music, it seems that most people find
a symphonic work of three movments of about10 mins
each to be a sufficient dose.

I wonder how many people sit without talking or doing
something else, to listen to a complete CD of 60mins.
Probably not a large percentage? People these days seem
to have a shorter attention span and many more distractions.
People don't seem to be able to resist talking at classical
concerts, and many, even though their mobile phones are
switched to silent, seem to find it necessary to send and
receive text messages during the performance!

I have often wondered how the audience would react
if the orchestra did the same!

If the 4th trombone has 224 bars rest, wouldn't that
be a suitable time for him to send a text
message home enquiring if the kids are tucked up
safely in bed, and the Chablis decanted? :-)

Deciding the running order for an album is an interesting
challenge. I try to look a bit deeper, and image the entity
as opposed to a collection of individual tunes. A simple thing
like matching keys has an affect upon the overal all result.
In analogue recording there was not much one could do
with pitch, but it is a simple task to digitally pitch shift a
track (while not affecting the tempo) to make it a better
match with the previous title and the one following it.

As regards downloads. From what I have been told, few
people seem to download a whole album but pick their
favourite tracks into DIY compilations.

I enjoy talking with my neghbour's children about
music. They each have thousands and thousands of
songs on their iPods. When I ask them to play me
a favourite (the list seems to change daily:-) they rarely
play a song right through without saying "listen to
this next one - even better"

I use an .mp3 player when outside, chopping logs (or
shovelling snow:-(( and then I usually set it to shuffle
mode - I like the element of surprise:-)

Iain

Albums which fall under the category of "concept" are
written to follow a sequence (Floyd, Moody Blues etc)
so it seems logical to play them back in the intended order.


ISTR that the film of The Wall (Bob Geldorf as "Pink"?) had the tracks in a
different order from the original Pink Floyd LP. Am I right? If so, why
did "they" do that?

Geoff MacK

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

To me, the order of tracks on an album is sacrosanct and I always listen
in strict sequence, even when it's a CD, unless I just want to play a
single track. Anyway, it seems there are two schools of thought now that
downloads are all the rage and tracks are stored en masse on MP3 players.
See the phrase "The £12,000 speakers were revealing little nuances of
sound that some of us had not heard before." in this interesting article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12209143


What goes around, comes around! :-)


Morning Keith


Afternoon Iain!



Interesting thread.

Albums which fall under the category of "concept" are
written to follow a sequence (Floyd, Moody Blues etc)
so it seems logical to play them back in the intended order.


I think ordinary compilations should be played in the correct sequence.
Don't you 'know what's coming next' when you listen to a track? It's not
right if the track is followed by something different on say a different
compilation!



This applies also to classical music and jazz suites, and as
you say the order of tracks is indeed sacrosanct.

Pop records are a different thing all together, when a dozen
or so individual titles are assembled on one CD.


Yes, pop music is different. I don't listen to it and I don't see how it
could matter the order in which it's played.




A large percentage of recorded releases are compilations.
Artists and composers seem to need to "fill the CD to the
brim" where usually twelve titles suffice for one sitting.
Similarly in classical music, it seems that most people find
a symphonic work of three movments of about10 mins
each to be a sufficient dose.


It's my contention that no-one listens to all the music on a CD - especially
if there's a remote control!



I wonder how many people sit without talking or doing
something else, to listen to a complete CD of 60mins.
Probably not a large percentage?


Yes, see above.


People these days seem
to have a shorter attention span and many more distractions.


Many people think the duration of a 'pop' tune was set by the available
space on a 78 record - it wasn't, the length of a song has to do with
people's attention span and their ability to memorise/learn it.

Similarly, a YouTube video has to be very good to be longer than 2 minutes
in my book!



As regards downloads. From what I have been told, few
people seem to download a whole album but pick their
favourite tracks into DIY compilations.


Makes sense if you are being charged 'physical prices'!!



I enjoy talking with my neghbour's children about
music. They each have thousands and thousands of
songs on their iPods. When I ask them to play me
a favourite (the list seems to change daily:-) they rarely
play a song right through without saying "listen to
this next one - even better"


Yep.


I use an .mp3 player when outside, chopping logs (or
shovelling snow:-(( and then I usually set it to shuffle
mode - I like the element of surprise:-)


I suspect 90% of people do 90% of the time - not while chopping logs though!
:-)