All Too Well (Taylors Version)
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=9714
Printed Date: 28 May 2025 at 3:14pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: All Too Well (Taylors Version)
Posted By: PopArchivist
Subject: All Too Well (Taylors Version)
Date Posted: 30 November 2021 at 9:53pm
|
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.... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Replies:
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 30 November 2021 at 10:07pm
|
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 Erie, PA https://www.johngallagher.com" rel="nofollow - John Gallagher Wedding & Special Event Entertainment / Snapblast Photo Booth |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 5:11am
|
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 |
Posted By: thecdguy
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 5:31am
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 |
eriejwg wrote:Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 7:10am
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... ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 10:02am
|
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. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:24pm
|
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 http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:37pm
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-scooter-braun-selling-rights-music-rerecording-row-explained-762411 - 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%5E1328471874318311425%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-32028686761606530388.ampproject.net%2F2111152338002%2Fframe.html - 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 ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:48pm
|
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 http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:51pm
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. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 01 December 2021 at 4:53pm
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 http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 02 January 2022 at 12:57am
|
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-Too-Well-10-Minute-Version-Taylors-Version-Live-Acoustic - 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 - 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. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 02 January 2022 at 5:57am
|
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? |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 02 January 2022 at 5:43pm
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. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |