What's your favored sweet spot for music albums?

[erwinrafael]

While I was listening through the Dream Theater discography again, I was amazed at how they seemed to master how to end albums with a bang. Of course there are albums where my personal favorite is not at the tailend of the album (like for I&W), but I acknowledge DT's effort to close with an epic, or an epic + epilogue. So much so that if I am asked to choose either the first halves or the second halves of DT albums, I would definitely pick the second halves.

I guess it's also one reason why many were disappointed with TA. A lot of DT fans might have been conditioned to expect a strong second half or last third of the album as the sweet spot, which was not the case for TA.

Now I thought that this is a prog thing, but I was mistaken. Looking through the Yes and Rush albums, for example, their albums are largely frontloaded, with many of the fillers at the end of the albums. Other artists in other genres also frontload their albums. Metallica almost always starts their albums with the stronger songs. Another of my favorites, Savatage, also has the first part of albums as the sweet spot.
 
Personally, I prefer the sweet spot at the latter part. I am a full album listener, and I love ending my listening experience with a smile on my face. But I could also understand the logic of frontloading, because being forced to go though weak songs just to reach the sweet spot could make the listening experience a chore.

[Elite]

It's a 'pop music' thing to have your strong songs at the beginning, but usually there has to be some sort of good song at the end, or else the listener is left with little satisfaction. What you'll usually see (and DT is no exception) is that the album's (lead) single is often the first or second track on the album. This way, people that hear the album for the first time have a song they recognise at the beginning.

I really don't mind. If an album has its strongest song at the start, fine. If it's at the end or halfway, fine as well. I just prefer the full album to be good. I'm not a casual listener of Dream Theater at all anymore. In fact, the only albums of theirs I occasionally put on are Images & Words and Awake (not surprisingly my two favourites) and that's not to hear a single song, but because I think they're all good. Octavarium is a good example of an album with a strong tail-end, but the rest of the album doesn't interest me, so I'm not bothering listening to the full thing.

Lately I've listened to a lot of Radiohead and Ulver and both bands (while stylistically not the same) tend to make the full album an experience, with no clear 'strong' openers or closers. I think I prefer full albums, rather than individual highlights.

[ChuckSteak]

I prefer the sweet spot to be on the whole album.

[King Postwhore]

In the bedroom while the album is playing.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

My sweet spot lies between 1986 and 1991.

[Stadler]

My sweet spot is between...  oh. 

Here's one for the old timers... remember when albums had the unofficial formula of

SIDE A
Single
Third Single/Concert Favorite
Album Track
Album Track (maybe)
Epic

SIDE B
Second Single
Fourth Singe/Concert Favorite
B-side
Oddball (maybe the drummer/bass player sang this one.  Or it was instrumental!)
Ballad

[MirrorMask]

It's a 'pop music' thing to have your strong songs at the beginning, but usually there has to be some sort of good song at the end, or else the listener is left with little satisfaction.

Do people who follow those kind of bands where the first 4 songs on the album are the 4 videos released on MTV even bother to reach the end of the album?   

[Samsara]

Older album sequences sometimes were dictated by labels and what singles they were going to release. Because people wanted to get straight to the tracks they heard on the radio.

Nowadays, with music consumption mostly being digital, that doesn't matter much, so the tracklist isn't something labels aren't all that worried about (although some still try to get the first single near the beginning of the record).

For me, there's no real sweet spot. I just like a good flow to an album. I'm an album guy, so for me, it's about hearing where a band is at, at a certain time period, and just sort of taking that all in. So I like albums to ebb and flow, pace-wise.

[MirrorMask]

Saying this on a prog forum is preaching to the converted, but really, the idea that people can't be bothered to sit through an album because all they want is the nice sweet hit single they've heard on the radio is disheartening.

Like those promo labels you still see nowadays on albums, "Contains [Hit Single] and [Second Future Single]"... like "hey, buy this album, it has the only song you'll ever care about!"

[TAC]

Well, back in the day, the word "single" actually meant something. It was THE selling point of an album.

[Elite]

Here's one for the old timers... remember when albums had the unofficial formula of

SIDE A
Single
Third Single/Concert Favorite
Album Track
Album Track (maybe)
Epic

SIDE B
Second Single
Fourth Singe/Concert Favorite
B-side
Oddball (maybe the drummer/bass player sang this one.  Or it was instrumental!)
Ballad

Sounds pretty accurate. In a way, a lot of albums still follow a (kind-of) similar formula, which is what I hinted at as well.

[RoeDent]

We seem to have quite a few albums over the last few years where the "epic" comes second-to-last, usually followed by a somewhat softer track as a comedown.

Steven Wilson - Grace for Drowning (Raider II > Like Dust...)
Dream Theater - A Dramatic Turn of Events (Breaking All Illusions > Beneath the Surface)
Big Big Train - English Electric Full Power (East Coast Racer > Curator of Butterflies)
Big Big Train - Grimspound (Mead Hall in Winter > As the Crow Flies)
Southern Empire - Southern Empire (The Bridge That Binds > Dreams & Machines)

Just five examples. What happened to the good old days when the epic came last?

[cramx3]

I like having the single early, the ballad towards the end, and the monster track last.

I love albums that end with a bang, hate the ballad endings or the ones with a lackluster song near the end. 

[Architeuthis]

Every album should come in with a bang and go out with a bang, yet be solid the whole way through.
 I was in a band and we made an album. It was decent but the first two tracks are the worst tracks on the album imo, and the singer/bass insisted it be in that order.    perhaps that's the reason I haven't gotten alot of feedback from friends that I gave a copy to.
 If the music doesn't catch someone's attention right away, they won't listen to the rest.

[Lowdz]

I've always thought an album should flow well. A bit of a rocker to start, a mix of tempos, end on an epic or big ballad.
The old days (and again now I guess) of vinyl had to flow over two sides too.

[RoeDent]

Another point which is worth mentioning (though not worth starting a whole thread over) is how many albums seem to have returned to the length of a single vinyl, despite the space that the compact disc format gives you. There were plenty of 70-minute-plus albums in the 90s, when the CD format was in its prime and artists took advantage of the freedom that offered, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But nowadays many artists feel like even though they have that space to fill, they don't have to fill it.