10/27/97: This design depends on printing in non-CYMK colors. The added costs are prohibitive.
Songs will not be individually indexed. Why should the listener be able to access individual songs in a "random" sequence? We spend alot of time putting the songs in a specific running order. If the listener is so smart that they think that they can do better then let them get their own stinking band. Options are:
We can hide tracks on the album by placing them at the end of the sequence after 5-10 minutes of silence. We should consider cutting down the length of the visible sequence. Though people will say they want long albums they actually grow resentful and fretful without understanding why once the playing time creeps above 45 minutes.
Excerpts from an email from the pseudo-Persians concerning the index issue...
>Surely you don't object to people playing (or repeating) individual songs?
Absolutely. It's our art so it's our way or the highway. You're so smart get your own stoopid band. It's the same as saying "I really like that song FILL IN THE BLANK." My reaction is never pleasure at the compliment. No, instead the whole episode is an annoyance. I think, "Well, what's wrong with the others? Why don't you like them?"
>Rewind/fastforward is a pain in the neck compared to an indexed CD. (A CD >is much more like a tape than vinyl in the way one interacts with it - you >can stand over a record player and drop the needle where it looks like >you'll want it, but w/a CD? Hah!)
Good point.
>"All songs are 3:22 long, i.e. indexes are placed every 3:22 regardless of >"actual" song length." > >Why? Just to torture those who do use their randomizer?
Absolutely. And why not? Actually there's an art reason: cut & paste. Also look at the number. Always look at the number.