How can I get iTunes to display the tracks from a CD in their original (album) order?

Question

To be absolutely honest, I don't really understand what this box is for, so I shall just use it to repeat and expand on my question. (I have already sent a "Feedback" comment on the same topic).
How can I get iTunes to display the tracks from a CD in their original (album) order?
It seems to me that there is something very basic wrong with the way iTunes handles CD Tracks.
Professionally produced CD tracks are seldom if ever in a randomised order. Why then does iTunes seem unable to display the tracks in the order they appear on the original CD source - whether from a personally owned CD or from a download from the iTunes Store?
Some music demands a specific, non-alphabetic sequence in order to make sense. Why does it seem that iTunes only offers Alphabetic, or reverse alphabetic order - both of which make a nonsense of the original, often intended order of tracks?
Why not replace the so-called "cover-art" in the bottom left hand corner if the iTunes window - which, while it may look attractive to some, gives the barest of information concerning the original disc, with a list of the original CD tracks in their original order, so that the user can easily reestablish the order in which they should be played.
As I would expect legibility might be a problem with doing this, why could not the original contents, (in their original order), at least, be displayed when the "cover art" is double clicked-on - the result of which at present gives me an enlarged version of the "Cover Art". While on the subject of the contents of the source disc, what about all the album notes which someone takes trouble to write in order to increase the appreciation of the music on the CD and the listener's general background knowledge of the artists involved. Such notes, it seems to me, have considerable intrinsic value in their own account. I would, I think, normally be prepared to buy such "Sleeve notes" - so long as a "taster" was supplied (as it is for the music) - for something like the cost of a single 'Tune" on iTunes.
These two aspects let Apple iTunes down enormously, in my opinion. I think that by chopping even quite protracted sequences of music up into bits does no one any favours - except perhaps Apple's already quite substantial bank balance. People have to be aware that two and a half, to three and a half minutes is a very short time to develop a piece of worthwhile music, and that there are many, many composers, not all of whom are alive today who have written music that huge masses of mankind value for the enrichment of their lives and the human condition in general.
Please make the viewing of iTunes tracks in their correct order by default possible. By all means have the alphabetical variations available as offering a different approach to the music, but not the sole approach to it - PLEASE.
Frustratedly yours
Alan Whitaker
PS I work at my old 24" iMac Intel Core 2 machine which runs OS "Tiger" - because it is more beautiful to look at, the screen is more pleasant to work on, and because, in some ways it is more capable (it will run FreeHand MX without needing a "patch"), than my more recent 21.5" which runs "Snow Leopard". (I don't find it that much slower, either).

Answer 1

Dear Mike
Thanks for the support. I am utterly amazed that after all the hype about how good iTunes is that it cannot play a downloaded CD in the correct order, and that what that order should be is not available directly from within one's own iTunes installation. (I know that one can go back to the iTunes Store to check what the order should be, but having downloaded the tracks surely iTunes is clever enough to retrieve this important information.
My iTunes to differ from yours in that I have also noticed that it seems unable to download copies of my "talking books" in the correct order either. But in my case it downloads them - from a CD - in order, but with the first track downloaded first - so that it appears at the bottom of the column of tracks so that it would get played last! (At least this is, while being inexplicable, a relatively "logical" bit of blundering and because of this is relatively easy to put right!).
I like many genres of music, some of which are not really programmed except perhaps by the artist performing them. I know that Frank Sinatra was very careful to programme his album songs to obtain a particular effect and in relation to the keys of the music. iTunes presumes to know better.
Film scores may be totally randomly put together, in some cases, but in others the order is vital to one's appreciation of the music as a whole and how it relates to the plot of the film.
In symphonic music most works are divided into sections and are conceived by the composer that way. Some individual sections may gain a life of their own if played separately, but they are never complete in the sense that the composer envisaged them without being placed in their proper context.
Opera and probably most choral music too, is similar except that the words may well become meaningless if the order is changed at the whim of a piece of ill-written computer code, while ballet music has to be heard totally within its sequential context or it becomes meaningless.
Finally, I would venture that iTunes, by jumbling up the order of the tracks as recorded on a CD, does an immense disservice, not only to the music on a particular CD, but to music in general, by expressing everything in terms of "Songs" - which it seems to interpret as stand-alone items of between 2 and 4 minutes whatever the genre. Even the way the iTunes publicity speaks of how many "songs" it can store instead of how many minutes or hours of recorded sound. This has to be another brick in the wall of "dumming-down" of people's expectations, and the shortening of their attention spans.
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel betrayed by Apple over this. Perhaps the look, feel and general presentation of an item are not the most desirable features of a consumer product. Maybe it should be judged more on it fitness for the purpose for which it was sold. There is one other possibility - that Apple are trying to redefine "Music" - and that everything that lasts longer than about 3.5 minutes or is in the form of what could for want of a better term be called symphonic in the broadest sense is something else - not "Music" within Apple's new definition, at all!
Well that's off my chest! now I can get down to creating some sort of order in my iTunes Libraries, knowing that I have to reconsult all the sources in order to confirm the source playing order.
Anyway thanks again. At least I know that it is not just me
alanfromthatcham