What Was The Major Labels Logic Behind...
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4382
Printed Date: 15 June 2025 at 8:16pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What Was The Major Labels Logic Behind...
Posted By: Jody Thornton
Subject: What Was The Major Labels Logic Behind...
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 11:28am
|
On some stock 45s, they used the radio edit, but others they used the LP version.
What was their rationale for putting on the radio edit in most cases, but in some others, they only placed the album version on the 45? Does anyone know if there was some formula applied here? ------------- Cheers, Jody Thornton (Richmond Hill, Ontario) |
Replies:
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 12:05pm
|
Sometimes there was a radio edit, a commercial 45 version and an LP version. "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits immediately comes to mind. There were also many instances where the 45 was mixed differently than the album, despite being more or less the same length.
I'm sure the decision on what version to put on the commercial 45 was made on a case by case basis. Indeed, there are instances where you could buy 2 copies of the commercial 45 and get a different version on each. See the "Indiana Wants Me" thread. |
Posted By: jimct
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 12:34pm
| Jody, based on my many years inside the radio biz, I always got the impression that almost all of the recording artists strongly disliked ever having their songs edited at all. And once some of them reached "superstar" status (Elton John and Guns 'N Roses are two that immediately come to mind), they could/would then sometimes insist that their "longer" single releases not be edited at all. But radio is, first and foremost, a business, and running commercials was our sole source of revenue at that time. On the Top 40 side, we always preferred to at least have the option of playing a shorter edit of a song. Especially during morning drive, with all of our DJ comedy bits/news/traffic elements to also squeeze in. And, with stations always charging the highest ad rates of the day in the morning, (because the most folks would usually be tuning in), music simply is forced to become a lower priority then, for all of these reasons, for those who program the station (although usually not for the listeners, of course! :) ) Since the edited versions were created just about entirely for radio, the labels would often, although obviously not always, opt to issue commercial 45s with the song intact, especially for their "rock" acts. Most folks who liked a song enough to buy it (except for us strange geeks here on this Board, of course!) probably preferred to receive as long a version of a song for their money as possible. And it probably made any bands who were "plugged in" to this degree much happier as well, knowing that their fans were getting the "proper" version, and that the "hack jobs" done to their "Picassos" was limited to radio, whose concerns simply HAD to be adressed. Back in the day, no radio airplay meant no sales, no royalties, no success, no career, no nothing. That's my take, Jody. But we've got lots of other "radio types" here, and I encourage any/all of them to also chime in here as well. |
Posted By: bwolfe
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 1:30pm
|
To confuse things even more why did one single have an edit and maybe another have the full length version.
1985's "Freeway Of Love" by Aretha Franklin comes to mind. "Signs" by Five Man Electrical Band, "Killing Me Softly" by Roberta Flack, "Give It To Me" by J. Geils Band, etc. ------------- the way it was heard on the radio |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 2:16pm
| Jim's detailed explanation is dead on. Nowadays, radio edits are not only for length, I think, but also content and lyrics. |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 3:40pm
Jody, you used the words "major labels" and "logic" in the same sentence. You're much braver than I am. ;)
Very true, except for one major collective purchaser of commercial 45s: the jukebox operators. "Time is money" was just as applicable to them as it was to radio stations. The longer the song, the fewer the coins dropped into that box. |
jimct wrote:Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 4:37pm
Not to mention mechanical difficulties of the jukebox record changers being able to play really long singles. There also was the issue of level...by necessity the longer the song, the lower the level it was cut at. Not an issue in radio where air chain processing made up the difference, but in a restaurant, pool hall, etc. some of these songs would be nearly inaudible.
There are also different mixes for different formats...a version with guitar mixed way down for an AC station, a rhythmic mix perhaps, etc. for songs the label wants to have become multi-format hits. This of course can backfire when someone hears a song they like on the radio & goes out & buys (or downloads) it and gets a totally different version. Edits for content & lyrics aren't new either. The earliest example that immediately comes to mind is the mono side of the promo copy of Pink Floyd's "Money". Granted, these are more common today, especially with hip-hop/rap and altrock tunes. |
Posted By: Jody Thornton
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 7:02pm
LOL - actually I'm a former announcer myself, and I'm a radio geek too, so I fully understand the need in radio to have a short edit, given you need to fit in personality bits, spots, and what not. Very nice to meet your acquaintance Jim. ------------- Cheers, Jody Thornton (Richmond Hill, Ontario) |
Posted By: Jody Thornton
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 7:09pm
|
There was another interesting point made about multi-format edits (some songs had a CHR mix and an AC mix). In those cases, they should have just placed the AC mix on the B-side - that would have made sense...lol!
------------- Cheers, Jody Thornton (Richmond Hill, Ontario) |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 9:59pm
Take the 1992 American Pie unedited 45 reissue of Don McLean's "American Pie." On my Seeburg, it is substantially quieter than anything else on the jukebox. In a crowded cafe, it would go unheard, for all practical purposes. Interestingly, in spite of the compromises caused by its 7:20 length (and because it was mono) the original Dunhill 45 of Richard Harris' "Mac Arthur Park" was still mixed with enough extra punch that it had more bass presence than the lackluster stereo LP mix. Elsewhere on the Seeburg, I have a mid-'70s Motown Yesteryear series copy of the Four Tops' "It's The Same Old Song." This one was cut loud, of course, but whoever cut the reissue set the groove spacing too wide. The song ends up being cut too close to the label, and the Seeburg dutifully trips the change cycle at the exact same spot on the song, only seconds from the fade. Jukebox tripping points were set more on the aggressive side in order to avoid an endless ka-chunk ka-chunk ka-chunk... |
Posted By: satchdr
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 10:02pm
|
I am very glad that Jody started this thread and also agree that Jim's response hit the nail on the head. I worked on my college radio station but never got back into radio until, as a lawyer, I have represented a number of stations and got a much closer look at the business side (as opposed to the music side) of their operations.
As I've indicated in a post for another thread, I'm one of the guys who prefers the "Picassos" to the "hack jobs" (using Jim's terminology) because the unedited versions were really what the artists intended, as opposed to that of a programmer or a label executive. That being said, I agree with the necessity for radio edits (especially in the period through the mid-70s when AM radio was a much stronger force.) For example, I can remember vividly the first time when I heard the LP version of "Light My Fire." The approximately four minutes of extra instrumental break was fabulous and changed the entire nature of the song (but, again, I could understand why it was edited for top 40 radio consumption.) Other "minor" edits have always confounded me (where 10 or 15 seconds of a single were cut.) Two that come to mind are The Association's "Cherish" (with the second "and I do cherish you" cut) or the Buckingham's "Susan" (with the very unique, for its time, orchestral break cut.) I also thought that it was interesting that any number of Motown 60's single versions were slightly longer than the stereo LP versions. The Temptations' hits seemed to be particularly susceptible to this treatment. Sorry to ramble a bit but I really love this topic! |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 11 November 2008 at 10:44pm
| For me as a kid buying 45s, it wasn't a matter of wanting the radio edits because of some rule or some collector mentality. When I bought a record I heard on the radio, if it had sections in it that I'd never heard before, I was not happy about it. If I already loved a song from hearing it on the radio, then when I went out to buy it, I wanted the song the way I loved it; therefore, I (in most cases) was a fan who wanted the edit and not the long version. There were some cases, like "Sometimes When We Touch", where I'd heard both versions on the radio quite frequently, and in that case, I would choose which version I liked more. But in general, I didn't want the long version. Am I that much of a rarity as far as 45 buyers go? |
Posted By: jimct
Date Posted: 12 November 2008 at 1:33am
| Gordon, my personal feelings parallel yours 100%. I wanted to buy exactly what I heard played on my Top 40 radio station - it was almost always the first version of the song I'd heard, and it became for me the "definitive" version as a result. I, too, would get very frustrated at not being able to buy the exact same versions I'd heard. SO much so, in fact, that my #1 reason for both initially getting into radio, and then staying with the Music Dept. of one station for 30 years, was maintaining continual access to promo copies. Yeah, being on-the-air, working with many great folks, and the overall radio experience was all great, of course. But I've never met anyone else who initially got into radio for this reason I did - what can I tell ya? |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 12 November 2008 at 6:29am
I don't know it that's the ONLY reason I got (and stayed) into radio, but that was a pretty major one for me as well. |
Posted By: Yah Shure
Date Posted: 12 November 2008 at 8:36am
|
Jim, I'll sponsor you if we ever form a Vinylholics Anonymous promo 45s chapter here. :)
Promos weren't at all a reason why I opted for radio. But once hooked... well, I joined my college station as a junior, then stuck around for seven years; the last several as "singles director." The last year there, I witnessed enough of the slippery side of the record business while working at Heilicher Brothers to realize that radio was where I belonged. |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 12 November 2008 at 10:31am
|
Half of my radio career was spent as just a 'jock', so access to promo 45's/LP's while on the air in the evening or overnight, when I did those shifts, was unavailable. Locked music offices.
When I did become a music director and/or program director, guess I didn't realize I should have been storing promos for my own collection like a squirrel stores nuts. I was oblivious to what I had in MY office. It wasn't until stumbling onto this forum that I did 'doh!' heard round the world. Nowadays, I'm realizing how valuable those precious promos are. |
Posted By: torcan
Date Posted: 12 November 2008 at 6:08pm
|
I always wanted as long a song as I could get for my money! Back when I started getting into pop music (around 1980), I was still in high school and didn't have a lot of disposal income. I rarely bought albums and preferred the 45s, but it was kind of annoying for a while that I usually got a shorter version of the song.
One of the first rock records I bought was Bob Seger's "Against the Wind". I always heard the album version on my radio station and thought that was what would be on the 45 - until I bought it - glorius picture sleeve and all - and saw a 3:45 timing. I eventually broke down and bought the album because I loved the song so much! :) In some cases I preferred the 45 version depending on the edit (Atlantic Starr's "Secret Lovers"), or if it was remixed (Billy Joel's "Keeping the Faith"). Or, if longer album versions were on the 45s (Canadian oldie-series singles for Fleetwood Mac's "Sara", Spinners "Cupid" and others featured full album versions, for example). Towards the mid '80s, 45s started to get longer and it was much more likely to find "LP versions" on 45s. Of course, by then I had a job and could afford albums more often! I always wondered why some songs were edited in certain ways - I can understand them taking a 6-minute song and making it 4-minutes for radio play, but why take 5 seconds out here or 10 seconds out there, especially if the single isn't even remixed? (Air Supply's "All Out of Love" or Taylor Dayne's "Love will Lead You Back" are two examples of this). A few seconds chopped from the intro and the rest of the song is intact(?) I can't see the point. Most radio stations can simply fade the song faster or speed up the play slightly, so making such a minor edit doesn't make a lot of sense. Also, I always thought most of the timings on 45s were pretty accurate - until I joined this forum and discovered most of them were at least a few seconds off. Well, sorry for my rambling but I love vinyl and am always trying to add to my 45 collection. I love the excitement of getting new stuff! |
Posted By: budaniel
Date Posted: 12 November 2008 at 8:03pm
| 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? |
Posted By: Jody Thornton
Date Posted: 13 November 2008 at 7:17am
Sometimes the smallest edits can make the most impact at radio. Take Londonbeat's "I've Been Thinking About You". I'm not sure if a promo CD ever arrived with the three opening drumbeats removed, but it never did at any of the stations I worked at. We received the song on the compilation promo for BMG in February 1991, and it had three opening drumbeats intact. Now I always found that on stations that removed it, the song seemed to start with more impact after a jingle or cold ending. The drum beats provided an awkward tom-tom sound that either overlapped on the jingle or sounded dead on the air. With them removed, the flow seemed to have more continuity. In 1992, it was common for CHRs and ACs to play a version of Elton John's "The Last Song" where the opening strings are removed, and the cut starts right on the opening piano note. It sounds crappy on its own, but off a jingle, it makes its mark. ------------- Cheers, Jody Thornton (Richmond Hill, Ontario) |
Posted By: Jody Thornton
Date Posted: 13 November 2008 at 7:19am
I know - and to think most of these folks want CDs. I'm more curious in finding original vinyl releases. ------------- Cheers, Jody Thornton (Richmond Hill, Ontario) |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 13 November 2008 at 8:59am
I'm not familiar with either of those edits (and haven't listened to either song in years), but I would guess that they were a creative decision to make a song flow better and/or sound tighter on-air. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 13 November 2008 at 10:29am
|
<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. |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 13 November 2008 at 12:02pm
BMI does periodically require stations to submit aired logs...usually 3 days' worth once or twice a year (or at least this was the case in the smaller markets I've worked in). I don't think this affects the licensing fee as much as it gives a snapshot of what's getting played so royalties can be proportionately distributed to the publishers. I have never had to send logs to either ASCAP or SESAC, I don't know how they handle it. |