Because it makes literally no musical sense.

This is such a weak justification and I expected better. I don't believe the middle three tracks lead particularly logically or fit reasonably between the two ostensibly connected pieces (which I should note Pink Floyd encourages by listing them as containing multiple parts of a similar piece). It would make no sense for a peroformance of Beethoven's 9th to have say the Egmont overture and some movements from his string quartets stuck between movements three and four of the 9th Symphony (which I should note asks exactly that you listen to one long piece after another). And before you object yes the 9th Symphonies movements all can stand alone. They very much more widely in tone than the two parts of SOYCD (and I should also note the album as a whole). I'm not disputing that the cut off between the first track doesn't work nor that the beginning point of the last track is a direct continuation of a sentence from the previous track so the split into two mega parts is fine (and if there are technical limitations that forced the split well that is that although I should note it could have been broken into further tracks to get around this problem).

But the only justification for splitting them onto the two ends of material that is not part of them is if the material connects the two parts in a musically coherent and logical manner. It does not. To me when I listen to the album all the way through I feel like I have a musical thought that is then completely veered away from in unrelated material before returning to the though (like a person who began a speech stopped at a spot that seem fine, talked about a few other things, and then resumed the speech they were giving earlier). What you are describing for writing works if the ideas are coherent and flow together (I suppose unless you are going for the feeling of complete incoherence). In any case the ideas must flow together logically. This is why I think they used a cheap means to generate cohesion. I don't think the album is particularly cohesive (which doesn't really matter as you can have a fantastic album with no cohesion whatsoever) and people wouldn't think of it as such if SOYCD was either at the end or the beginning.

I think they did run into the exact problem you described. They didn't think anyone would want to listen to both of the tracks (or if you will all nine parts) back to back because it would be too ponderous and samey. And they couldn't figure out where such material would go logically because it would make one side of the album too heavy (I think they were going for a cohesive effort). So they settled on what I think is a weak musical compromise to generate the feeling of cohesion by throwing highly related material on both sides of the album. This does generate a somewhat cohesive feel but a weak one because I think ultimately the other songs do not create a natural transition of the musical material. Which is why I agreed with Lacuna that pairing down SOYCD to a more manageable length and either opening or closing with it (I'd opt for opening and ending with WYWH) would have created a stronger album and made more musical sense. For an example of how this can work on an album if you balance the material properly is Our Fortress is Burning Pts. I-III that closes out Agalloch's Ashes Against the Grain or She Painted Fire Across the Skyline which opens Pale Folklore. Yes this isn't as long as SOYCD but I've already established that I think the song needed pairing.

Next time you send me off into such a miasma of verbiage I hope you edit your argument down a little more. Jeez louise.



We are talking about a concept-light album by an indulgent but talented rock band, not a symphony by arguably the greatest symphonist of all time. The songs between the parts of SOYCD are under no obligation to create a natural transition bridging them. The placement of the different parts of SOYCD do not have to create a "strong" sense of cohesion. The totality of the material only has to be placed on the album in a way that is (1) technically possible and (2) as interesting as possible, taking what the band has decided they want to publish as a given. If you are a fan of the music they performed in the studio (something you don't seem to qualify as anyway, and which many other people do happen to be) then the way they organized it is as technically reasonable and interestingly varied as it possibly could be. That it doesn't live up to the simultaneous cohesion and variation of Ludwig van Beethoven's greatest symphony is a distraction of an argument; no one expects such a thing and it would be unreasonable to, even rhetorically. Your suggestion that the parts of SOYCD could have been split into two more parts to solve the technical problems reveals just how little you have engaged with the material as well as the extent to which your argument is a bunch of hot air. If two related ten minute rock songs sound better spaced apart then they do placed together, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There would be something wrong, however, with placing them together if they sound worse that way just because they are related.

Of course it does. The first part is a complete piece of music unto itself. The second part is another complete piece of music unto itself. They're no more than part one and part two. They don't have to be combined into one track. The first part has a clear ending. The second part has a clear beginning. So what's the problem? Do you have this problem with "Another Brick In The Wall"? If not, why not? What wouldn't make sense would be if the first half of "Won't Get Fooled Again" was the first track on Who's Next while the second half closed the album.

I remember writing something like "pot calling kettle black here" but I guess I removed it for effect.

Nicole Kidman is average.

Average compared to what? She's definitely much more attractive than the average woman.