Picking the arrangement of songs for an album and the argument I had...

[God]

Okay. We all know that when you arrange the song sequence for an album there's a simple BS formula that most label execs or producers know. It kind of goes like this:

First song: upbeat/uptempo
Second song: kind of the same upbeat song
Third song: a little slower... maybe the ballad or a song w/lower bpm.
Fourth: If you didn't put the slow ballad song on the album yet... put it here.
Fifth: another upbeat song

Repeat.

Last song is a slower/low bpm song to "finish" the album.

Everyone knows that you arrange the album in "sets" or three to four songs with energy of album tapering off by the third or fourth song (which is usually a slower tune) and then picking up the tempo after it.

I think that's BS.

People (meaning the unsophisticated music listener) doesn't buy an album to listen through it completely.

With the internet age people WANT THE HOT SINGLE. I am a FAN OF FRONTLOADING THE ALBUM with the HOTTEST SINGLES.

I've gotten into arguments. "No... it screws with the overall pace of the record."

True.

"It messes with the general feel of the album."

True.

But my response is:

You're not Radiohead, you're not Pink Floyd. Your act has one or two decent radio singles. FRONT LOAD THE ALBUM BECAUSE BECAUSE A 13 YEAR OLD KID WHO READS/SPEAKS AT THE 5TH GRADE LEVEL LOOKS AT THE FIRST COUPLE SONGS ON THE LIST.

They have ADHD anyway.

"No, it screws with the pacing."

Response: People buy singles, not albums anymore. Give the people what they want.

"You'd just release singles to cut overhead and not release albums."

Response: You're probably right. Singles sell. People don't buy full albums anymore unless the entire album is HOT.

"You're twisted."

Response: Tell me something I don't know.

Look-- people want the hot single... at least the general public (i.e. think of your dumbest friend, they're the target demographic.) Internet chops out album filler.

If YOU'RE IN THE STUDIO and some exec or producer is shouting at you about the "arrangement" before you redbook that ish...

Have them read this post.

It's about the hot single. You're not pink floyd, you're not radiohead. Don't get a bigger ego than you already have.

 

[Sanova]

makes sense

 

[dahkter]

Arrangement is a crazy game. You're getting into millions or billions of different possible song sequences when you lay it down on paper (example, with 12 tracks = 12 * 11 * 10 * 9 * 8 * 7 * 6 * 5 *4 *3 * 2 * 1 = 479,001,600 different possible ways of arranging those songs).

If it's art for commerces sake (meaning to make money first and foremost) I agree with you, put the hot shit first. The market is so saturated, most people only listen to the first five seconds of the first song, then they make a decision if they like it or not. If they get through four tracks on your album it's an accomplishment.

If it's art for arts sake, then I would disagree, tell a story, make it flow, make it enjoyable for someone to light a blunt or go on a midnight drive, hit play on the first song and let it ride out for 45 or 60 minutes. Glad you mentioned Dark Side of the Moon, probably the best arrangement of any album ever made.

 

[Relic]

I agree with you God, we just always try and make the album flow like a story.
I'll keep this in mind.

 

[wrightboy]

i agree with this post. put the hottest radio singles first. this is what the consumer wants anyway. me personally, being anti-radio, i usually don't know what the radio singles are because i don't listen to the radio unless i'm in someone else's car, or i never listen to the radio singles when i buy an album. but for the average consumer, why the hell not?