Name 5 artists who intentionally created albums with that track

What the fuck are you talking about?

>>74013928
90% of albums are literally just the best 10-12 songs since the last albums sold in albums for easier profit.

Cardiacs' discography since their record label is managed by the band itself.
OP status: proven wrong.

>>74013967
They want 5 artists tho. Unless you're counting each member of The Cardiacs individually.

>>74013888
Without concrete evidence it's all speculation, but you can believe within reasonable argumentation that it happens for many albums.

If album order is vital why don't bands all play full albums in order when live?

File: todd-rundgren-hermit-of-mink-hollow-1509294.jpg (138KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 600x600px

The original back cover of Todd Rundgren's Hermit of Mink Hollow had Todd's preferred running order. It's not a huge deal because there's really no concept to the album, but I do think Todd's version flows better because all the similar-sounding songs aren't clumped together.

Amusingly, this also caused Robert Christgau to cast misguided disdain for Todd:

>Only a weight as willfully light as Todd can be trusted to put his smartest song ("Onomatopeia") on "the easy side" and his dumbest ("Bag Lady") on "the difficult side."

>>74013989
Sure.
Cardiacs, Sea Nymphs, William D Drake
And its not difficult to find other artists in the same situation.
Frank Zappa did the same together with the artists signed to his label like Captain Beefheart.
So there you have 5 artists already.

Shiina Ringo (Kalk Zamen Kuri no Hana is the most meticulously sequenced album I know)
Kate Bush (Hounds of Love)
Nine Inch Nails (Downward Spiral)
The Avalanches (SILY)
Radiohead (OKC and Kid A)

File: Mellon Collie.jpg (407KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 600x600px

Judging by the amount of care that went into the presentation, both on the CD/cassette and vinyl versions, I'm guessing the order of songs here is at least somewhat intentional.

Bob Dylan supposedly listened to just about every variation of Blonde on Blonde track order wise and I wouldn't be surprised if he does this for most of his albums. The first, middle and last songs of his albums are almost always the most memorable, even after the day and age of sides defining albums.

>>74014068
>14! = 87178291200

i doubt it

>>74013888

As someone that works in a fairly prolific recording studio, I can safely say that outside of obvious pop efforts (across genres: edm, hip hop, rock, etc), most track listing is pretty intentional, especially since fewer people make the effort to put together a cohesive album anymore. The only artists who are going to put out an "album" where the track arrangement doesn't matter are artists who actually make money off of selling music directly, hence the pop distinction. Everyone else has to make their money touring/performing, so the more artistically cohesive everything is, the better off they are in that way.

File: doubt.png (31KB, 300x162px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x162px

>>74014093
Goddamit. I was literally typing this exact comment when you posted that.

>>74014048
All of those were done under a big label marketing team.
Shiina Ringo makes a good point because of the palindrome track titles however.
TDS is a concept album so it doesn't really count.

>>74014064
No lol

>>74014068
Liar

Radiohead: There's that golden ratio meme that happens in In Rainbows and the alphabet meme that happens in AMSP but besides that, both OKC and Kid A have a nice emotional flow to them.
Beach House: They said in an interview for their B sides collection that they like quite a few songs on there but felt like they didn't fit with the albums.
MBV: I feel like the track ordering in their last album had to have been intentional as it progresses from Loveless 2.0 to something totally bonkers.
Swirlies: Entirety of of Salons flows really well together, with random interlude tracks that tie it all together.
Can: Placing the three monster tracks in the middle and ending it off with a shorter one ensures that you end with a non-bitter taste in your mouth, especially if you're not into Peking O. Also he says the titles of the first three tracks in order in Halleluwah.

>>74014048
Oh, and funny thing (actually two)
Avalanches' record label did change the track order and even deleted some tracks from the original version (Zomba Promo or something like that)
And regarding Kid A, Thom admitted that the track order was chosen at random.

>>74014158
>And regarding Kid A, Thom admitted that the track order was chosen at random.
So it was intentionally done and not by the record label marketing team huh

>>74014141
>TDS is a concept album so it doesn't really count.
>No lol

this post is hot garbage

>>74014172
without defending trash opinions, OP did say no concept albums

>>74014182
TDS doesn't get to call itself a concept album because it's like a 13-year-old's idea of good unifying idea

>>74014141
Fair point on the labels. KZK was almost certainly sequenced by Shiina though. It's more than just the track titles too. The instrumentation on each track is mirrored too. As are lyrical themes. And I wouldn't count TDS as a concept album. Well, it's a concept album in the sense something like DSOTM is. It's more abstract and less narrative.
>>74014158
Kid A was at random? Huh. Never would have imagined that. I knew about The Avalanches though and I don't think that changes the intentionality of the sequencing. Just because they changed it doesn't mean it wasn't done with purpose.

>>74014168
Random wasnt the right word. Just check out the story behind it and you will understand.

>>74014172
>I can't read
Kill yourself

>>74014196
It's a concept album without a doubt.

>>74014207
It's fair on Ringo, but TDS is definitely a concept album and very narrative at all, come on...

Regarding Avalanches, they literally changed the sequencing as ordered by their record label. Literally. Avalanches was one of the wort examples you could think of to prove the OP wrong.

Why would the label change the track order? Nobody is going to buy the album just because the hit song is track 4 instead of track 7.

All of The Cure except Three Imaginary Boys

>>74014158
but ok computer directly effected the ordering of in rainbows.

>>74013888
>Obvious concept albums
all albums are concept albums

This whole threads exists because plebs who lack the attention span required to sit down for 40 minutes and listen to an album all the way through KNOW deep down that they're plebs for only listening to singles, and they want to bring everybody else down to their level because they're insecure and misery loves company.
>inb4 somebody calls me a "rockist"

Now name 5 non-rock albums this applies to.

>>74014155
>Swirlies: They Spent Their Wild Youthful Days in the Glittering World of the Salons
everyone says this album a hidden gem classic bc chris ott, and its prettygood but man it really gives up 2/3rds into it.

>>74014158
>Thom admitted that the track order was chosen at random.
It shows.

>>74014481
your g-y