| Author |
|
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 30 November 2021 at 9:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Oh well, at least Don McLean's 1972 song "American Pie (Parts I & II)" got almost 50 years of uninterrupted bliss as the longest timed song to hit #1.
I take it that radio didn't play this or funnel a radio edit for it....
Now back to the Adele show and her album bomb....
Edited by PopArchivist on 30 November 2021 at 9:57pm
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
eriejwg
MusicFan
Joined: 10 June 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3509
|
| Posted: 30 November 2021 at 10:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The song hasn't even been serviced to Promo Only or Top
Hits U.S.A. and I'm not sure Taylor would allow an edit.
__________________
John Gallagher
John Gallagher Wedding & Special Event Entertainment
Snapblast Photo Booth
Erie, PA
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 5:11am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I don't know about anybody else, but there always was an
asterik next to "American Pie" for me as the longest timed
#1 song, since it was spread out over both sides of the
45. Yes, I know the combination of the running times for
each side put it at well over 8 minutes, but it's not like
"Hey Jude" where all 7 minutes were on just one side of
the 45. That's just me, though...
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
thecdguy
MusicFan
Joined: 14 August 2019
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 5:31am | IP Logged
|
|
|
eriejwg wrote:
The song hasn't even been serviced to Promo Only or Top
Hits U.S.A. and I'm not sure Taylor would allow an edit. |
|
|
I haven't heard the song, but there appear to be two versions on the "Red (Taylor's Version)" album that just came out, one
running over 5 minutes and the other being the 10 minute version. Is this 5+ minute version just an edit of the longer 10 min.
one?
__________________
Dan In Philly
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 7:10am | IP Logged
|
|
|
thecdguy wrote:
eriejwg wrote:
The song hasn't even been serviced to Promo Only or Top
Hits U.S.A. and I'm not sure Taylor would allow an edit. |
|
|
I haven't heard the song, but there appear to be two versions on the "Red (Taylor's Version)" album that just came out, one
running over 5 minutes and the other being the 10 minute version. Is this 5+ minute version just an edit of the longer 10 min.
one? |
|
|
The 10 min made #1 on Billboard due to a live performance on Saturday Night Live. The 5 minute is her album version redone for Red due to the labels unwillingness to allow her access and ability to purchase her masters...
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Paul Haney
MusicFan
Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1742
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 10:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Technically, the point total for BOTH versions of the song were combined to rank it at #1. The 10+ minute version
accumulated more points, thus it gets "credit" for the #1 spot.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Regarding "the labels unwillingness to allow her access and ability to purchase her masters," can someone please point me to some factual info that backs up this claim?
As I understand it, Taylor wanted to buy her masters, but the label and her did not come to an agreement. It's unclear to me why, but from the accounts I've read by the former owner of Big Machine, she had every opportunity to own her masters, her materking images/photographs, etc. It sounds to me that she was simply not willing to pay what the label wanted. Big Machine was sold for $300 million, including the T. Swift catalog, which I understand accounted for 80% of the label's revenue.
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
aaronk wrote:
Regarding "the labels unwillingness to allow her access and ability to purchase her masters," can someone please point me to some factual info that backs up this claim?
As I understand it, Taylor wanted to buy her masters, but the label and her did not come to an agreement. It's unclear to me why, but from the accounts I've read by the former owner of Big Machine, she had every opportunity to own her masters, her materking images/photographs, etc. It sounds to me that she was simply not willing to pay what the label wanted. Big Machine was sold for $300 million, including the T. Swift catalog, which I understand accounted for 80% of the label's revenue. |
|
|
Same reason Paul McCartney wanted the rights back to his Beatles stuff and Michael Jackson swooped in and bought the entire catalog because he met the asking price.
Taylor has put the spin out that she offered up a "reasonable" amount but was told that it would be tied to producing more albums for Big Machine, each album earning back etc. That's my understanding Aaron.
We are just fans, we have no idea what actually goes on. I am not a Taylor Swift fanboy, I just think she was unwilling to meet the terms that Big Machine put in front of her. When the time came they just took $$$ from the 300 million sale.
Taylor is no different then other artists in past eras who re-recorded hits they lost the ability to generate revenue over/lost rights etc. I would say re-recording her hits actually is getting her WAY more attention and success now then putting out a new album. It is actually backwards of how you think it would go.
Here's the link Aaron
https://inews.co.uk/culture/music/taylor-swift-masters-scoot er-braun-selling-rights-music-rerecording-row-explained-7624 11
Swift had been trying to buy her master recordings from Big Machine for years before this, but founder Scott Borchetta refused to sell unless she signed on with the company for another long contract – something Swift was unwilling to do, as she knew the label was for sale.
Another link directly from Taylor's twitter:
https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/1328471874318311425 ?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E132847 1874318311425%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F d-32028686761606530388.ampproject.net%2F2111152338002%2Ffram e.html
Edited by PopArchivist on 01 December 2021 at 4:50pm
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well, technically she never "lost the ability to generate revenue." When an artist signs a contract with a record label, the label typically owns the master recording, period, end-of-story. Some major artists have been able to negotiate for master recording ownership, but when an artist is starting out, they don't have that kind of leverage. That doesn't mean the label controls everything. It just means the label makes money off that particular recording when it comes to licensing, especially regarding record sales. (I'm probably oversimplifying, but you get the point.) The artist can still perform those songs and receive songwriting royalties if they also wrote the songs. Now, there are cases when artists signed themselves up for a bad deal and basically get no royalties or licensing from their master recordings, but they can still make money by touring/performing, selling merchandise, etc.
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
aaronk wrote:
| Well, technically she never "lost the ability to generate revenue." When an artist signs a contract with a record label, the label typically owns the master recording, period, end-of-story. Some major artists have been able to negotiate for master recording ownership, but when an artist is starting out, they don't have that kind of leverage. That doesn't mean the label controls everything. It just means the label makes money off that particular recording when it comes to licensing, especially regarding record sales. (I'm probably oversimplifying, but you get the point.) The artist can still perform those songs and receive songwriting royalties if they also wrote the songs. Now, there are cases when artists signed themselves up for a bad deal and basically get no royalties or licensing from their master recordings, but they can still make money by touring/performing, selling merchandise, etc. |
|
|
She wants nothing to benefit the guy. So its understandable. You are right the new artists until they are established don't have that kind of pull to ensure they have rights to their first few albums as songwriters.
Edited by PopArchivist on 01 December 2021 at 4:56pm
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aaronk
Admin Group
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6513
|
| Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
PopArchivist wrote:
| Swift had been trying to buy her master recordings from Big Machine for years before this, but founder Scott Borchetta refused to sell unless she signed on with the company for another long contract – something Swift was unwilling to do, as she knew the label was for sale. |
|
|
Correct, and why would the former own devalue his company by selling off the portion of it that generates 80% of its revenue? That would be the dumbest business move anyone could make. Swift is the richest female performer in the United States and one of the richest of all singers in the world. I'm sure she had the resources to buy Big Machine outright if she wanted to prior to it selling to Ithaca Holdings.
__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 02 January 2022 at 12:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Discogs has a 9:30 time. Anyone know what is up with that? It says it is a live acoustic version.
https://www.discogs.com/release/20999152-Taylor-Swift-All-To o-Well-10-Minute-Version-Taylors-Version-Live-Acoustic
Plus what is this Sad Girl Autumn Version?
https://www.discogs.com/master/2384629-Taylor-Swift-All-Too- Well-Taylors-Version-Sad-Girl-Autumn-Version
As said above my understanding the hit version times in at 10:12 it isn't live.
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Hykker
MusicFan
Joined: 30 October 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: 02 January 2022 at 5:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
What kind of frosts me about this is that at least one of the big radio chains (I-Heart) has replaced all of her songs in their library with the
retread versions, all in the name of "supporting the artist". I wonder what kind of backroom deal went down to make this happen?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
PopArchivist
MusicFan
Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted: 02 January 2022 at 5:43pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hykker wrote:
What kind of frosts me about this is that at least one of the big radio chains (I-Heart) has replaced all of her songs in their library with the
retread versions, all in the name of "supporting the artist". I wonder what kind of backroom deal went down to make this happen? |
|
|
Money $$$. That's sad, the originals are what they are. Replacing them with re-recordings (unless that specific version is a hit in its own right) is just wrong.
__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board
Topic: All Too Well (Taylors Version)
