What Was The Major Labels Logic Behind...

<I thought I once heard that short versions were also a matter of money--that if a song ran longer than 5 minutes, the station had to pay more royalties to use it, which is why most songs were edited down to under 5 minutes. Is there any truth to that? >

As a songwriter who's had a song on CD that clocks in at 5:03, I can tell you that record labels do have to pay more money for a song over 5 minutes! However, as far as radio airplay for songs over 5 minutes - I don't know if radio stations have to pay more for that to ASCAP/BMI, or if ASCAP/BMI have to pay more to songwriters. My guess is no on both counts. I believe radio stations play a blanket fee (i.e. a standard flat fee) per year to ASCAP/BMI, and the amount may be based on their Arbitron ratings. Whether or not the year's worth of music includes a 5+ minute song and whether that really makes any difference in what they pay, I don't know. The fees paid are probably based on the radio stations' income, which directly ties in to their Arbitron ratings (i.e. the more listeners that a station has, the more they can charge for ads to air). The more I think about it, the stations don't pay on a song-by-song case, meaning a 5+ minute song doesn't mean anything to them one way or another, so it's doubtful radio stations would care to have a 5:10 or 4:10 version of the song - in terms of what they pay for airing music. They would care in the sense that they can squeeze more 4 minute songs in an hour than 5 minute songs, and that's something that the stations probably find appealing.

Edited by EdisonLite