Cocept albums.

If they're continuing into eachother anyway I couldn't care less. Except one track won't give me the gaps in between songs

isn't there a special edition of Passion Play that divides the parts so you can choose, but still plays the album as recorded when listened to wholly?








Edited by Atavachron - April 17 2010 at 22:12

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: It's preferable the way the author decided to release it.   If it's a 75 minutes track or 20 related 2 minutes tracks, I don't care, as long as the artist released the way he considered it should be listened and sounds great.   Iván

Some valid points there

I'm just thinking, that quite many listeners would see the 1 track and think ah f##k it, might be good ridance though
Not that prog is the most radio friendly music, but the few stations that play prog would probbably not be inclined.

I'm okay with dividing parts of songs, but sometimes I wish they wouldn't give each part a different title.  Some people might be mislead into thinking it's an album of seperate songs, and choose not to listen to it in order.

If I were to do it personally, I'd probably do something like Fates Warning did with A Pleasant Shade Of Gray, and just have them titled Part 1 to 12.  That way, to people who are unaware of the nature of the album, it's more obvious that it should be listened to as a continuous piece


Edited by Repner - April 26 2010 at 17:15

Repner wrote: I'm okay with dividing parts of songs, but sometimes I wish they wouldn't give each part a different title.  Some people might be mislead into thinking it's an album of seperate songs, and choose not to listen to it in order. If I were to do it personally, I'd probably do something like Fates Warning did with A Pleasant Shade Of Gray, and just have them titled Part 1 to 12.  That way, to people who are unaware of the nature of the album, it's more obvious that it should be listened to as a continuous piece

I was thinking of doing it like this.

Album title

and then call the "tracks" example: part I (the awakening) part II (the battle) and so on, hoping thisa would let the listener know that the record should be listened to as one.

I prefer the split-tracks method because it gives you the option of listening to the piece as a whole or going to a particular section if you don't fancy listening to a 45-minute song. As Mike Portnoy said once, the novelty of seeing the CD timer reach 42:00 will probably wear out quickly.

Nakatira wrote: Repner wrote: I'm okay with dividing parts of songs, but sometimes I wish they wouldn't give each part a different title.  Some people might be mislead into thinking it's an album of seperate songs, and choose not to listen to it in order. If I were to do it personally, I'd probably do something like Fates Warning did with A Pleasant Shade Of Gray, and just have them titled Part 1 to 12.  That way, to people who are unaware of the nature of the album, it's more obvious that it should be listened to as a continuous piece I was thinking of doing it like this. Album title and then call the "tracks" example: part I (the awakening) part II (the battle) and so on, hoping thisa would let the listener know that the record should be listened to as one.

Yeah, that idea is good as well, if the titles begin with "Part #", then a subtitle, (if desired)

I've seen some people refer to the tracks on Transatlantics The Whirlwind, or Edge Of Sanity's Crimson II as "songs" rather than "parts" or "sections". Crimson II makes it even mopre misleading, because the seperate "chapters" are themselves split up into seperate tracks


Edited by Repner - April 27 2010 at 15:14

Nakatira wrote: is it preferable to have only 1 track on the record, or divide it into tracks but still have the tracks "cross over" to eachother?

Some examples of this are Porcupine Tree's most recent album, The Incident, in which the title track is a 55 minute epic made up of suites, which are seperated into sections (for convenience) but optimized for gapless playback, to allow it to be easily listened to either way.