Next time you send me off into such a miasma of verbiage I hope you edit your argument down a little more. Jeez louise.
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).
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.
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.
Yeah so I dived back into WYWH earlier this week and I disavow most of my argument above. I listened to it all the way through as written and then listened to SOYCD as a unified whole in context with the music. In fact I like the album far more than I've ever liked it on hearing and will now put it above anything else by Floyd. Actually the first four tracks have a great sense of cohesion. And the lyrical subject matter actually works really well with SOYCD and WYWH having similar emotional tone and the middle two tracks having similar emotional tone as well.
Here is the part of my argument I maintain. My view on cohesion was wrong but my view on SOYCD being together and shortened was not. I think the split doesn't work. Not because it is artificial necessarily but because I think the album should end with WYWH. I think that would be the perfect closer for the albums tone and build up. It does not help that Track 2 of SOYCD is significantly weaker than Track 1 or anything else on the album. Specifically, Pts. 6 and eight are in need of major editing. Far from being an artificial way of creating cohesion it actually weakens the albums cohesion both from a quality perspective and and tonal perspective. So I think it shold have opened the album as a unified track with much of Section 6 and Section 8 merged into the other sections. That would have shortened it to a reasonable front end length and I think Pt. 5 would flow almost perfectly into Pt. 7. I will also note that Gilmour did want SOYCD to be one track but was outvoted by the other members.
I do want to emphasize how wrong I was about the albums overall quality. My opinion came mostly from a disappointed long ago listen (particularly on Welcome to the Machine and Wish You Were Here I was very wrong). I just think SOYCD as a return is unnecessary.