>Album puts its best track first

File: 1459621911999.jpg (35KB, 415x503px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 415x503px

>17 track album
>12 songs and 5 interludes

>>74235750
>best track
according to who m8? its all preferential

File: 1465307424334.jpg (27KB, 600x476px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x476px

>>74235750
>best track has a shitty hidden track at the end

>>74235804

Exactly, so if your favourite track is right at the start, on a first listen the rest of the album ends up being really disappointing by way of not living up to the expectations set.

>>74235843

True, but I've heard a shocking number of albums where the first track is wildly above everything else in terms of quality. Like they wrote one good song and were so stoked to release it they just rushed out a bunch of unmemorable mush to fill the disc after it. It's honestly so common it's not even worth listing examples, why do people do this?

>>74235892

I usually contend that the best written, catchiest, and most condensed songs are usually tracks 2 or 3. Especially 2.

Sometimes track 1 is also good, but I find is more often an appetizer for track 2 and 3. Then most albums go to shit unless the band/artist is a good musician/songwriter.

>best track has a 2 minute intro

>>74235926

Though, sometimes tracks 1 and 2 are great, while 3 is terrible, and then 4 picks it back up again.... only for 5+ to be garbage.