What was the first record with "movement" titles on it?

[GuitarGeek]

OK, so I remember reading back in the 80's that on the Grateful Dead record Anthem Of The Sun, the track That's It For The Other One was split into four "movements" for publishing purposes. That is, they did it to get more publishing money, because each "movement" was treated as a separate title, hence they got paid more money. Without the movement titles, they'd have gotten paid as if there were only five songs on the album (which there were, though the record clocks in at circa 39 minutes). By adding the movement titles, the record now had 8 titles (9 if you count That's It For The Other One itself).

After reading that, I started to suspect that maybe that's why some of those early prog records had similar motivations behind such titling. I'm thinking of things like Close To The Edge, A Plague Of Lighthouse Keepers, and Supper's Ready.

Fripp has confirmed at least once that all the "including" subtitles on the first four King Crimson records were indeed for the same reason.


Now, for awhile, I thought Anthem Of THe Sun was the first record that had such titling. But then I realized that maybe that was the same reason Frank Zappa broke King King into 7 individual tracks (something he retained, for whatever reason, on the CD edition). So I thought perhaps King Kong came first. But just now, checking Wikipedia, I realize Anthem Of The Sun came out like a year before Uncle Meat!

So, as the post title asks, was Anthem Of The Sun the first "rock" album to have movement titles, or was there someone else before the Dead?

[Halmyre]

How does splitting long songs into short songs earn more money? Would Mike Oldfield have got more money if Tubular Bells was divided into eight 'movements'?

[GuitarGeek]

How does splitting long songs into short songs earn more money?

Because those "short songs" or "movements" or whatever you want to call it, are each counted as a separate piece. So you get more publishing money, than if there was just the single title. Don't ask me why it works that way, it just does (or used to, anyway).

Would Mike Oldfield have got more money if Tubular Bells was divided into eight 'movements'?

Depends. Using the model used before about 1973 or so, Tubular Bells would have earned Oldfield the same kind of publishing revenue as a 7" single. Assuming he had that kind of a contract, dividing each LP side on each of his first four albums into shorter movements, would have earned him more publishing revenue. Note that on Ommadawn, On Horseback isn't indexed or properly identified, despite obviously being separate from Ommadawn Part Two. That's an obvious instance where he could have been paid for at least three songs, instead of just two.

Now, here's the thing: back in the 50's or 60's, I believe it was Miles Davis who worked out a deal with Columbia, whereby he got paid based on the length of the individual tracks. Note that on records like Bitches Brew, there's no movement titles on the lengthy tracks. Even on At Fillmore, where each LP side comprised excerpts for various shorter pieces that Miles was playing each night, each LP side just bares one title (e.g. Wednesday Miles, Thursday Miles, etc).

Again, going back to the 80's, I remember reading the Grateful Dead eventually had a similar contract renegotiation, reputedly being the first rock group to do such a thing. Again, after Anthem Of The Sun, you don't see movement titles on the longer tracks on any of their records, except for Terrapin Station (maybe someone forgot to include that clause in their initial Arista deal?)

So, perhaps at some point after 72 or so, bands like Crimson, Yes, Genesis, etc also did the same. Note that The Cinema Show, Gates Of Delirium, Starless, and the respective long tracks that VDGG recorded for Godbluff and Still Life bare no such movement titling.

Yeah, I know, I'm probalby the only person who cares about this dren. Maybe this is an indication of how sad and pathetic my life is, that this is the kind of crap that ricochets around my head at 2:00am. And dammit, I could have been listenign to Jeff Beck while typing this up! D'OH!

[Dave (in MA)]

I dunno about first, but:

"Help, I'm a Rock (Suite in Three Movements)
I. Okay to Tap Dance
II. In Memoriam, Edgard Varèse
III. It Can't Happen Here"

"The Return of the Son of Monster Magnet (Unfinished Ballet in Two Tableaux)
I. Ritual Dance of the Child-Killer
II. Nullis Pretii (No Commercial Potential)"

[AndiSexgang]

It depends partly on how far stylistically you want to cast your net. I'm thinking of some of the early electronic and tape music composers that often get coralled into the prog sphere.

[GuitarGeek]

It depends partly on how far stylistically you want to cast your net. I'm thinking of some of the early electronic and tape music composers that often get coralled into the prog sphere.

I'm thinking more of rock music, rather than "serious" academic music, which is what you're talking about there. Stockhausen and other composers who worked in that field used movement titles for actual artistic reasons, as those guys actually studied classical music structure and actually knew the difference between a scherzo and a minuet, and what "andante non troppo" means.

Of course, one could argue that both Frank Zappa and at least Phil Lesh also knew all that too, so maybe the difference is academic. (shrug)

[flowerking]

I would go with the Mothers (Zappa) Freak Out as Dave pointed out. This was June 1966, preceding Anthem of the Sun by 2 years. It also precedes Procol Harum's Shine on Brightly (with In Held Twas I) by 2 years and Days of Future Passed by over a year and King Crimson by 3 years.

King Kong, by the way, is not really in movements so much as there are different soloists being spotlighted.

[MrXindeed]

I'm thinking Bach or Mozart or someone like that may have been the first to divide their pieces into movements. ;-P

[JKL2000]

How does splitting long songs into short songs earn more money? Would Mike Oldfield have got more money if Tubular Bells was divided into eight 'movements'?

I think I read that this practice made it easier to split up the writing credits among multiple band members, and that was a reason for it. Everyone could get credit for a movement of a large suite.

[GuitarGeek]

King Kong, by the way, is not really in movements so much as there are different soloists being spotlighted.

Well, yes, it's not "movements" the same way as That's It For The Other One or Supper's Ready, but one suspects the real world reason was the same, i.e. to squeeze more publishing money out of a long track.

[GuitarGeek]

I think I read that this practice made it easier to split up the writing credits among multiple band members, and that was a reason for it. Everyone could get credit for a movement of a large suite.

Well, no, for that to happen, you'd have to put everyone's name in the byline. When you see records where it all the band members' names are listed on all the songs (like Genesis or Marillion), it's so that everyone gets publishing money, more so than that all five band members actually contributed to every composition. Queen also did that on The Miracle and Innuendo, because they had a lot of fights over whose songs got onto a given album, whose songs got to be on the next single, "Hey, you nicked my bit for your song", etc. Brian May once said this was one of the main reasons that bands break up.

[yesman1955]

Not the first certainly, but YES did the same with their long tracks such as CTTE and Tales, probably to net more publishing money.

[GuitarGeek]

Not the first certainly, but YES did the same with their long tracks such as CTTE and Tales, probably to net more publishing money.

They didn't use movement titles on Tales From Topographic Oceans, beyond each LP side having it's own title.

[LeFrog]

I would go with the Mothers (Zappa) Freak Out as Dave pointed out. This was June 1966, preceding Anthem of the Sun by 2 years. It also precedes Procol Harum's Shine on Brightly (with In Held Twas I) by 2 years and Days of Future Passed by over a year and King Crimson by 3 years.

King Kong, by the way, is not really in movements so much as there are different soloists being spotlighted.

Days of Future Passed is different I think, because each movement is named according to the moment in the day, to follow the concept of the album, but the individual tracks (subtitles) are listed with their respective authors and are not musically related at all.
For example "Evening: a) The Sunset b)Twilight Time": The Sunset and Twilight Time are in fact 2 musically unrelated tracks written by 2 different people, but grouped together for the sake of the album concept because they both refer to the evening.

[infandous]

I'm thinking Bach or Mozart or someone like that may have been the first to divide their pieces into movements. ;-P

Didn't know they made records way back then.....

[Mister Triscuits]

They didn't use movement titles on Tales From Topographic Oceans, beyond each LP side having it's own title.

Correct, although they did also give each side a subtitle ("Dance of the Dawn," etc.). Still not the same as breaking the pieces into movements.

[Dave (in MA)]

I would go with the Mothers (Zappa) Freak Out as Dave pointed out. This was June 1966, preceding Anthem of the Sun by 2 years. It also precedes Procol Harum's Shine on Brightly (with In Held Twas I) by 2 years and Days of Future Passed by over a year and King Crimson by 3 years.

King Kong, by the way, is not really in movements so much as there are different soloists being spotlighted.

Does anyone know if FZ was really going for extra publishing royalties on Freak Out, or was it just some kind of mock pomposity?

[Mister Triscuits]

Does anyone know if FZ was really going for extra publishing royalties on Freak Out, or was it just some kind of mock pomposity?

The latter, I'm sure. There was also the matter of "It Can't Happen Here" appearing as a song title in its own right on a single.

[GuitarGeek]

Does anyone know if FZ was really going for extra publishing royalties on Freak Out, or was it just some kind of mock pomposity?

The latter, for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised is if it was both.