Don't know if this has been discussed before as I'm fairly new to this board but I was wondering if any of you had thoughts one way or another on this question. For the most part, I prefer chronological compilations as they can tell the story of an artist's growth (or sometimes their downfall) musically. If I want to hear the tracks in a more random order I can always hit shuffle play.

Having said that, I do think a non-chronological collection, if intelligently done, can be an interesting listening experience. One example would be Everything But The Girl's "Like The Deserts Miss The Rain" which mixes tracks from their early acoustic stuff with their later electonic material, allowing the listener to more readily hear those qualities that have remained consistant (songwriting, Tracy's wonderful voice) through the group's career.

I prefer a chronological arrangement as well, partly for the reason you mentioned, and partly because comps that jump from time period to time period can be a bit jarring, especially with artists whose sound changed significantly over time.

And partly because I'm just plain anal.

chronologically...without question.

renny

I always hit 'random' after a first listen anyway.

Strictly chronological.

I wanna trace that growth and/or decline - the trajectory of trash, the apex of art!

I really dislike compilations that are not chronological. As good as the Rickie Lee Jones compilation sounds i usually only want to hear songs from the first few albums, and i have to trudge through two discs to hear what i want. The idea behind using song titles alphabetically is interesting, but only that - far too arbitrary.

When there are demos and other things it becomes a little more complicated, i probably like that stuff best on a separate disc, since i don't listen to them as often (exept for the early Elvis Costello demos, i listen to them a lot)

Wynn

Could never say it any better than that!

Rick A.

For me it depends. I have a few complilations that are non-chronological but organized in such an interesting way that there's a great "flow" from song to song.

Occasionally chronological compilations become a study in watching the degeneration of a band through time. But others, like the 2cd Who Greatest Hits or The Essential Bob Dylan, work very, very well as chronological studies in a band moving through different phases.

As with most things the devil is in the details, I think.

Witchgirl

Agreed. I tend to do my own comps in a semi-chronological way, yet random at the same time. I'll put 15 tracks spanning a time period, but mix them up. Strictly chronological doesn't work for me.

Typically I prefer chronological, however I think Depeche Modes new Comp works (and with the bonus DVD version you do get a chronological - and longer, with - get this - moving pictures! - comp to boot.)

Strictly chronological for me as well....

Chronolgical in most cases. In some, like the Linda Ronstadt Box Set, a different technique works ok but like others commenting here, I really enjoy tracing the career of the artist from start to finish/present.

Sometimes I'll make compilations in reverse chronological order.

Anybody else?

If I'm buying a greatest hits CD, of a band where I only like the 5-6 famous tracks, it doesn't matter to me, since I won't listen gate to gate anyway. But for band I love, not only do I prefer chronological compilations, but I like to think of their career in blocks of time: for example, when I think of the Stones, I think in terms of 64-67, then 68-72, then 73-81, etc etc.

I imagine most of you are like me-- I make my own comps, usually, so I can put the songs I love that the band doesn't on there.

How about that for a cool thread? Pick a band, and design a comp-- you choose the length.

Hold on, I'll start it.

Definitely chronological-largely due to the jump in production values and mixing. Some songs really sound bad sonically up against each other. Box sets are a must chronologically as well!

I agree with Jeff on this one. It depends on how much I'm into a particular artist. For a band that I am moderately into, the sequence of tracks doesn't matter much to me.

When it comes to a band that I am really into, I MUCH prefer to hear the music in chronological order even if there are times that strict chronological order creates an inconsistent listening experience (as can occur with the inclusion of live cuts and demo tracks.) In terms of sheer entertainment value, I find it difficult to listen to the Beatles Anthology Volume 1 because of the rough-sounding, live cuts mixed in with the studio cuts. But, since the historical importance of that release is equal to (or possibly greater than) its entertainment value, I think that EMI was wise to release the music chronologically as it did.

Once again I am in the minority, it looks like...I don't mind a compilation that goes in chronological order, but I still think Dylan's "Biograph" set is one of the best boxs ever, primarily because of it's non-chronological look at the first 20 years of Dylan's career...unfortunatly, so many anal-retentive fans bitched about it, the technique has never been tried again. It's the obsessive-compulsive fan aspect that bothers me more than anything. I could definately put together a compilation or two of my favorite Elvis Presley odds and sods (to steal the title from another classic non-chronological compilation...)

Sometimes I'll make a custom compilation in alphabetical order--I love how certain seemingly unrelated songs can segue in interesting ways.

Rickie Lee Jones did that with her comp. Seems like an interesting idea.

chronological

Chronological! And IP you are correct about the sonic issues with the different production values. Look at how bad Van Halen's Best of Both Worlds sounds. Not only do you have the very different sounding vocalists but due to a 20 year spread the switching back and forth makes for a very drastic sound drop on the DLR ones after the higher pitched/mastered SH ones. For a comp of fantastic songs it truely sucks and is one I wish I hadn't bought. I didn't read one good review on it because of this complaint. But of course Psyco Eddie defended it the whole way. Moron.

Count me in on a vote for chronological.