Maybe you're being facetious, but here goes anyway:

Many times albums were created as works themselves, with songs as components. Rock operas like Pink Floyd's The Wall and The Who's Tommy as obvious examples. Each produced great singles, but the album was the creation. Even less cohesive albums were created with a song order in mind, so listening to them as a unit was the artist's intention. A small example: ELO's "please turn me over" lyric at the end of Mr. Blue Sky, telling you to turn the record over.

Thanks for the answer. Not remotely facetious and your suspicion that I was suggests we may be too far apart to understand each other.

The fundament of it for me is I like particular tracks, not albums, not artists, not genres (although I have preferences in each). I listen to what I like, I skip what I don't. I couldn't care less about the artist's intention, song ordering or anything - they are so peripheral I have never thought about them. That's all.

I think what put my back up about the original post was "...super easy for them to skip/change, and lots of what was "relation to artist/album" is lost". I don't expect everyone to necessarily understand the musical tastes of others, but should always respect them, which this quote seemingly didn't.

It's like going to Amazon and getting paragraphs instead of books. Or how we get just headlines instead of deeply informative news articles.

If you are going to get defensive about someone pointing out something you didn't know, that might be a sign of insecurity.

If that's what I want, that's my choice. Don't tell me it's wrong just because it's not yours. (and music is entertainment, not informational).

I can't see what it is I don't know, or am getting defensive about, and implying "insecurity"? That's a childish comeback.