A fun counterpoint to the "albums weren't meant to be shuffled" argument is Apollo 18 by TMBG.

On the track list, "Fingertips" is track 17, followed by "Space Suit" at track 38. That's because Fingertips is actually 21 mini songs (mostly 10 seconds or less), each with their own track, that are supposed to appear randomly between full songs when you listen on shuffle.

On the other hand, modern streaming services usually just have a single track for Fingertips, so I'm now used to hearing those 21 mini songs in the original, "play it straight through" order.

I don’t think there is any “proper” way to do something you enjoy so long as you enjoy it. I don’t like the idea that if you’re going to do something like listen to music that you have an obligation to it in a specific way. Art and experiencing art are both subjective acts, there may be a lot of ways to do it wrong, but there is no way to do it “right.”

except Tool's Lateralus while on psychedelics, absolutely skip that last song.

This varies. Some albums are absolutely meant to be listened to back to back in order. Others are just a collection of songs and nothing is lost by missing them into a random playlist.

I got a record player and have been buying vinyl recently, so listening to whole albums is pretty much default, and it's been amazing, I agree. But that's not a necessity with the CD changer I got to stack under it, or streaming. I do love returning to real album listening, but music is a very personal thing.

Great Refused album though.

Yeah unfortunately I disagree. There are plenty of albums where I like literally one song and don't much care for anything else on it.

Are you referring to Pink Floyd’s A Collection of Great Dance Songs?

That's quite an arrogant thing to say. Why do you think you have any saying in how other people consume art?

There are maybe a dozen albums I like enough to listen to from head to toe.

If a lot of cases, the band knows they only have a few really good tracks and struggle to put enough on the album for it to sell.

I’m a novice musician, producer, and sometimes rapper because I can’t sing for shit but I agree.

An album is like a film to me, songs are scenes and they fit because it’s a piece of a bigger story. My favorite hip hop albums are The Cool by Lupe Fiasco and APOS by Cunninlynguists (it flips to their newer two sometimes) but I love those so much because they tell stories (they’re technically concept albums) and feel great by themselves too. So on the opposite side, it’s hard to make an album that is cohesive together and amazing individually. Not all artists are that impressive.

I hate the shortening of songs and even I have fallen to it but I feel good musicians try to make good albums and not just singles. Doesn’t even have to be a concept album. I really like Kendrick’s last two albums, prior more than latter as the beef will age the latter but flow is also important.

I can talk forever on this but it may just be a sign of the times changing art for the worst.

No, not at all. There are usually only a few pieces i like.

Totally agree - some artists dependig on the genre, eg Katatonia (their Dead End Kings is 👌) have very nicely crafted albums.

I think it depends on the artist and the time. Im a big jethro tull fan and they crafted their albums very specifically. You could sorta see it in particular in this period as they always ended with these short songs that were kinda a goodbye. Its kinda hard to describe but when you listen to their stuff form the 60-80 its pretty clear. What gets me is streaming. The thing with streaming is if I call up an album it will default to remastered one which pretty much adds back things from the cuttting room floor appened to the end. Which completely ruins the experience. Drives me nuts.

While I agree that there definitely are albums where listening to them in their entirety enhances the experience (Metropolis 2, Octavarium), I generally prefer picking out the best songs of an album and listening to those instead.
Not all albums are made of bangers and have songs I’d never listen to a second time.

I generally agree. However, especially nowadays (and back in the early 60s before Pet Sounds and Rubber Soul), not all albums are written to be listened to as a whole. We've gone back to (many, not all) albums just being a collection of singles.

For better or worse (worse imo).

unless its pop

I believe that this was the reason Tool took so long to go on streaming platforms.

Depending on the album.

Some albums are made like that, as a cohesive work.

Others are just a bunch of songs put together by approximately release date.

Eh, dont agree. Yeah, I think listening to a whole album is important on occasion and can give a cool perspective. But I've found that the range of things I enjoy increases with shuffle. There's so much stuff that I love... in unexpected short spurts. Im not talking hits, but just random decent stuff. I think there's something lost when an album has to be good enough that you intentionally pull it off the shelf and listen to it for an hour. Hordes of cool things won't meet that level.

Oh, hey, I just had this thought while listening to Rammstein yesterday

Absolutely not, most albums have a bunch of skippable junk between the interesting stuff, and exist best as a few tracks on a mixtape. There are a small number of albums that are best experienced as a single piece - e.g Pink Flag, In The Court Of The Crimson King, Woof. - but they're exceptions rather than the norm.

Listening to album is a way to listen to a full story. While I listen to some Bollywood movie album, it feels like watching the movie again and going through that story