<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Brian Risk's Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brianrisk.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brianrisk.com</link>
	<description>Can it be?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:22:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How many songs should be on an album? by Michael</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/how-many-songs-should-be-on-an-album/comment-page-1/#comment-35697</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=603#comment-35697</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the input! I&#039;ve never thought of trying shuffle as a way to test individual tracks. 

But furthermore, as recording and writing are still in the process (while recording my computer hard drive decided to take a vacation from functionality) having all the tracks so far along, I&#039;m at a loss as whether or not to finish the songs dynamically and theme wise according to track order and flow as they stand FOR the record, or to try to chase them down individually first, then let the tracklisting define itself and lend to changes later, and therefore, in my opinion, risk the flow. It doesn&#039;t seem like they can be done at once, because once a good idea for a song clashes with its place in the album, either the idea or the flow will win out. To me, focusing on one song at a time helps find the idividual life of the song, its own sort of essence. However, occasionally, the changes can disagree with the album altogether, and although they make the song better, they can even kick some of my good songs out because they no longer seem to be capable of coexisting amicably. I&#039;ll tell myself, &quot;well thats what EPs are for&quot;, but then again, why wouldn&#039;t I put my best songs out there? Its a shame, getting just 10 songs to agree with each other often times seems like trying to walk 10 hungry rambunctious German Shepherds through a meatpacking factory.

So in todays day and age, is it?

Song substance &gt; Album flow
or
Album flow &gt; Song substance</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the input! I&#8217;ve never thought of trying shuffle as a way to test individual tracks. </p>
<p>But furthermore, as recording and writing are still in the process (while recording my computer hard drive decided to take a vacation from functionality) having all the tracks so far along, I&#8217;m at a loss as whether or not to finish the songs dynamically and theme wise according to track order and flow as they stand FOR the record, or to try to chase them down individually first, then let the tracklisting define itself and lend to changes later, and therefore, in my opinion, risk the flow. It doesn&#8217;t seem like they can be done at once, because once a good idea for a song clashes with its place in the album, either the idea or the flow will win out. To me, focusing on one song at a time helps find the idividual life of the song, its own sort of essence. However, occasionally, the changes can disagree with the album altogether, and although they make the song better, they can even kick some of my good songs out because they no longer seem to be capable of coexisting amicably. I&#8217;ll tell myself, &#8220;well thats what EPs are for&#8221;, but then again, why wouldn&#8217;t I put my best songs out there? Its a shame, getting just 10 songs to agree with each other often times seems like trying to walk 10 hungry rambunctious German Shepherds through a meatpacking factory.</p>
<p>So in todays day and age, is it?</p>
<p>Song substance &gt; Album flow<br />
or<br />
Album flow &gt; Song substance</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How many songs should be on an album? by Brian Risk</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/how-many-songs-should-be-on-an-album/comment-page-1/#comment-35345</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Risk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:33:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=603#comment-35345</guid>
		<description>Hi, Michael.  I feel many would agree that Dark Side of the Moon is the ultimate album&#039;s album, if you get what I mean.  Songs stand up on their own, but in the greater context the emotional journey is simply excellent.  This is can be done with your album as well, and I&#039;m sure you&#039;re already paying attention to very important factors such as:  track order; song spacing and transitions.  There&#039;s so much to &quot;track order&quot;, that I should be a bit more specific for it to have any meaning at all.  By track order, I mean pay attention to the ebb and flow of energy dynamics and themes between songs.  Sometimes contrast between adjacent songs is ideal; sometimes a certain degree of homogeneity can lend to the feeling that two separate songs are extensions of each other.  Of course there are no hard rules.  This is art, after all.  Listen to your album over and over.  Listen to it on &quot;shuffle&quot;.  A good album will hold up time and again. 

As for album length, again, there are no hard rules.  I do feel 40 minutes is just about ideal, though.  It is long enough to convey several, multi-texutured ideas while its brevity avoids monotony.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Michael.  I feel many would agree that Dark Side of the Moon is the ultimate album&#8217;s album, if you get what I mean.  Songs stand up on their own, but in the greater context the emotional journey is simply excellent.  This is can be done with your album as well, and I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;re already paying attention to very important factors such as:  track order; song spacing and transitions.  There&#8217;s so much to &#8220;track order&#8221;, that I should be a bit more specific for it to have any meaning at all.  By track order, I mean pay attention to the ebb and flow of energy dynamics and themes between songs.  Sometimes contrast between adjacent songs is ideal; sometimes a certain degree of homogeneity can lend to the feeling that two separate songs are extensions of each other.  Of course there are no hard rules.  This is art, after all.  Listen to your album over and over.  Listen to it on &#8220;shuffle&#8221;.  A good album will hold up time and again. </p>
<p>As for album length, again, there are no hard rules.  I do feel 40 minutes is just about ideal, though.  It is long enough to convey several, multi-texutured ideas while its brevity avoids monotony.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How many songs should be on an album? by Michael</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/how-many-songs-should-be-on-an-album/comment-page-1/#comment-35334</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2012 03:26:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=603#comment-35334</guid>
		<description>Hey Brian, I am in the business of writing, recording, and producing a rock album by myself, and its coming along very well. Its inspired by progressive rock and art rock experimentation, and by the likes of Alternative and Indie rock bands. Its my first record, so seeing as how you only have one shot at a debut, I&#039;d like to do this right. 

In my limited knowledge of record mechanics I&#039;ve come to the idea that fewer tracks and more substance is what makes for a better record. I more often find that its albums like Dark Side of the Moon that are concise with 10 tracks and full of quality music that are the albums I am more drawn to as a whole. That being said, Coldplay&#039;s album &quot;Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends&quot; actually takes this a step further. Beyond the 10 tracks, 3 more are found either mentioned subtly or hidden entirely. Furthermore, all 10 tracks were designed very differently from each other, so that although from start to finish it functions well as a whole, I never felt like the tracks got monotonous, and never treaded previous ground. That being said, I feel it is a risky concept. Someone falls in love with the hidden track after a track they dont like, and the album could be difficult to operate. Furthermore, if there are 13 songs in a 10 track album, why not just include all in the tracklisting giving the listener more freedom to go where they want to go? Beyond this, I am also convinced shorter albums are much easier to focus and control from start to finish. I would rather have 50 minuts of music packed into 40 minutes rather than 60 minutes packed into 50. The attention span of a listener willing to check out a whole album seems to hover around 40 to 45 minutes. Albums that stretch out longer for me seem to lose focus and increase the likelyhood that I&#039;ll skip tracks halfway through to save time. 

Anyways, beside the rambling, my apologies for the shotgun questions. In your opinion, is it better for an album to have fewer tracks and a more densly packed quality (be it heavy or sparse content depending on the song), and better to contain unmentioned and/or bridged material(like double song tracks and hidden tracks) lending to more music for your buck? And what in your opinion is the best amount of time for a record to have assuming there are no filler songs and it retains concise structure, that the listener would be more likely to listen to it all the way through without stopping?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Brian, I am in the business of writing, recording, and producing a rock album by myself, and its coming along very well. Its inspired by progressive rock and art rock experimentation, and by the likes of Alternative and Indie rock bands. Its my first record, so seeing as how you only have one shot at a debut, I&#8217;d like to do this right. </p>
<p>In my limited knowledge of record mechanics I&#8217;ve come to the idea that fewer tracks and more substance is what makes for a better record. I more often find that its albums like Dark Side of the Moon that are concise with 10 tracks and full of quality music that are the albums I am more drawn to as a whole. That being said, Coldplay&#8217;s album &#8220;Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends&#8221; actually takes this a step further. Beyond the 10 tracks, 3 more are found either mentioned subtly or hidden entirely. Furthermore, all 10 tracks were designed very differently from each other, so that although from start to finish it functions well as a whole, I never felt like the tracks got monotonous, and never treaded previous ground. That being said, I feel it is a risky concept. Someone falls in love with the hidden track after a track they dont like, and the album could be difficult to operate. Furthermore, if there are 13 songs in a 10 track album, why not just include all in the tracklisting giving the listener more freedom to go where they want to go? Beyond this, I am also convinced shorter albums are much easier to focus and control from start to finish. I would rather have 50 minuts of music packed into 40 minutes rather than 60 minutes packed into 50. The attention span of a listener willing to check out a whole album seems to hover around 40 to 45 minutes. Albums that stretch out longer for me seem to lose focus and increase the likelyhood that I&#8217;ll skip tracks halfway through to save time. </p>
<p>Anyways, beside the rambling, my apologies for the shotgun questions. In your opinion, is it better for an album to have fewer tracks and a more densly packed quality (be it heavy or sparse content depending on the song), and better to contain unmentioned and/or bridged material(like double song tracks and hidden tracks) lending to more music for your buck? And what in your opinion is the best amount of time for a record to have assuming there are no filler songs and it retains concise structure, that the listener would be more likely to listen to it all the way through without stopping?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How many songs should be on an album? by Tate</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/how-many-songs-should-be-on-an-album/comment-page-1/#comment-32222</link>
		<dc:creator>Tate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=603#comment-32222</guid>
		<description>Thanks. I was planning to have mostely song that are well know, and having only a few that I have written, maybe my polka and the jig I am working on. The rest will be popular tunes, and I think doing 16 (which was my plan) of these tunes I have picked will suffice. Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks. I was planning to have mostely song that are well know, and having only a few that I have written, maybe my polka and the jig I am working on. The rest will be popular tunes, and I think doing 16 (which was my plan) of these tunes I have picked will suffice. Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How many songs should be on an album? by Brian Risk</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/how-many-songs-should-be-on-an-album/comment-page-1/#comment-32217</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Risk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 19:19:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=603#comment-32217</guid>
		<description>Tate, yes, you bring up a good point.  So far the assumption has been that each song follows basic western-radio standards of being about 3 to 4 minutes long.  I did a little iTunes browsing and found that many traditional Irish music albums have greater than 20 songs, but I understand that you are new to songwriting and an album of this length is probably not feasible.  Honestly, I&#039;d take a cue from punk rock albums.  Many punk songs are in the 1.5 to 2 minute range and they maintain a fairly high energy level for all songs.  Punk albums tend to ignore the 40-minute album and keep the song limit under 16 songs.  As a basic principle, you, as an artist, need to create what you think is a cohesive work of art.  An album with one 30 minute song might be a masterpiece.  Do what feels right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tate, yes, you bring up a good point.  So far the assumption has been that each song follows basic western-radio standards of being about 3 to 4 minutes long.  I did a little iTunes browsing and found that many traditional Irish music albums have greater than 20 songs, but I understand that you are new to songwriting and an album of this length is probably not feasible.  Honestly, I&#8217;d take a cue from punk rock albums.  Many punk songs are in the 1.5 to 2 minute range and they maintain a fairly high energy level for all songs.  Punk albums tend to ignore the 40-minute album and keep the song limit under 16 songs.  As a basic principle, you, as an artist, need to create what you think is a cohesive work of art.  An album with one 30 minute song might be a masterpiece.  Do what feels right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How many songs should be on an album? by Tate</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/how-many-songs-should-be-on-an-album/comment-page-1/#comment-32161</link>
		<dc:creator>Tate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 04:36:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=603#comment-32161</guid>
		<description>Hello Brian. I am trying to record an album of traditional Irish Music, but I have a few problems. Traditional Irish songs are usually short, and two or three parts that area repeated, but variation of chording and bass gives it more tolerable to listen to for longer. I can make them longer but it can be difficult to stand listening to a repeating song. I could play in medleys, of two or three songs together, but then people don&#039;t know which song they are listening to on the track. I have read here and there that 45 minute total is best for an album. Having an about 45 minute album boils down to having about 22 songs. That is far from the average 10 to 13 song per album that has been recommended here and there. So far I have written a few Irish songs, but not enough to fill an album yet. I have only played Irish music for about a year, and have only written music for a few months, and progress is slow. so some songs people are familiar with and maybe one of my songs is best, but 22 is too long. Another problem is the Irish music I play is mostly Instrumental. Only one of my song choices have lyrics. I can sing, but I am a bass of limited range, which is not fair when I am only 13. I have the songs set up so that there are a few more songs in Major mode than in Minor or Dorian keys to keep the emotion balanced, like you said. This is most of the issues, thanks for you help</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Brian. I am trying to record an album of traditional Irish Music, but I have a few problems. Traditional Irish songs are usually short, and two or three parts that area repeated, but variation of chording and bass gives it more tolerable to listen to for longer. I can make them longer but it can be difficult to stand listening to a repeating song. I could play in medleys, of two or three songs together, but then people don&#8217;t know which song they are listening to on the track. I have read here and there that 45 minute total is best for an album. Having an about 45 minute album boils down to having about 22 songs. That is far from the average 10 to 13 song per album that has been recommended here and there. So far I have written a few Irish songs, but not enough to fill an album yet. I have only played Irish music for about a year, and have only written music for a few months, and progress is slow. so some songs people are familiar with and maybe one of my songs is best, but 22 is too long. Another problem is the Irish music I play is mostly Instrumental. Only one of my song choices have lyrics. I can sing, but I am a bass of limited range, which is not fair when I am only 13. I have the songs set up so that there are a few more songs in Major mode than in Minor or Dorian keys to keep the emotion balanced, like you said. This is most of the issues, thanks for you help</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Very funny, BP by Josh</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/very-funny-bp/comment-page-1/#comment-32028</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/very-funny-bp/#comment-32028</guid>
		<description>Yes, very funny.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, very funny.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How many songs should be on an album? by Brian Rivera</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/how-many-songs-should-be-on-an-album/comment-page-1/#comment-31824</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Rivera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:03:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=603#comment-31824</guid>
		<description>Brian (you have a great name by the way), I completely agree with you on the points you brought up here.  I have discovered so many beautiful, personal, intimate little songs that feel like they were written just for me to relate to by purchasing an entire album instead of just track by track.  My general rule is that if I really love the band like let&#039;s say Smashing Pumpkins or The Shins, I&#039;ll buy the whole album, where if it is a band I don&#039;t really like but I care for one of there songs, I&#039;ll buy track by track.  

One of the richest experiences I live for is driving down to my local Rasputin (record store) and going to the indie clearance isle (where they sell CD&#039;s for $.25 each) and just pick up about 20 CD&#039;s, listen to them and discover all kinds of new music.  So in conclusion, I think there is still a place for albums and I also apreciate the ability to purchase one track at a time.  I couldn&#039;t agree with you more on the idea of an album being an emotional journey and Dark Side Of The Moon is a perfect example.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian (you have a great name by the way), I completely agree with you on the points you brought up here.  I have discovered so many beautiful, personal, intimate little songs that feel like they were written just for me to relate to by purchasing an entire album instead of just track by track.  My general rule is that if I really love the band like let&#8217;s say Smashing Pumpkins or The Shins, I&#8217;ll buy the whole album, where if it is a band I don&#8217;t really like but I care for one of there songs, I&#8217;ll buy track by track.  </p>
<p>One of the richest experiences I live for is driving down to my local Rasputin (record store) and going to the indie clearance isle (where they sell CD&#8217;s for $.25 each) and just pick up about 20 CD&#8217;s, listen to them and discover all kinds of new music.  So in conclusion, I think there is still a place for albums and I also apreciate the ability to purchase one track at a time.  I couldn&#8217;t agree with you more on the idea of an album being an emotional journey and Dark Side Of The Moon is a perfect example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Most recognizable bass lines of all time by Bucho</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/most-recognizable-bass-lines-of-all-time/comment-page-1/#comment-31591</link>
		<dc:creator>Bucho</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=466#comment-31591</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d like to throw in, Longview by Greenday. (Off the only Greenday album worth listening to, in my opinion)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d like to throw in, Longview by Greenday. (Off the only Greenday album worth listening to, in my opinion)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How many songs should be on an album? by Jimmy Spice Curry</title>
		<link>http://brianrisk.com/how-many-songs-should-be-on-an-album/comment-page-1/#comment-30274</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy Spice Curry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2011 09:40:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brianrisk.com/?p=603#comment-30274</guid>
		<description>Tons of reasons to have an album. 1) Some songs have various mixes (DJ club mix, Radio mix, Clean mix, instrumental, a capella).  2) Some songs and themes go together well.  3) Gives opportunity for fan to save money and buy all 18 songs (for example) rather than per song (costs more).  But they also have option of only buying the songs they want.  4) Graphics can be consistent and easily used on various songs (with slight text/name adjustments if desired by the songwriter/producer and/or graphic designer).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tons of reasons to have an album. 1) Some songs have various mixes (DJ club mix, Radio mix, Clean mix, instrumental, a capella).  2) Some songs and themes go together well.  3) Gives opportunity for fan to save money and buy all 18 songs (for example) rather than per song (costs more).  But they also have option of only buying the songs they want.  4) Graphics can be consistent and easily used on various songs (with slight text/name adjustments if desired by the songwriter/producer and/or graphic designer).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

