What Was The Major Labels Logic Behind...

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?

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.

Edited by jimct

Jim's detailed explanation is dead on. Nowadays, radio edits are not only for length, I think, but also content and lyrics.

Yah Shure wrote: "Time is money" was just as applicable to them (jukebox operators) as it was to radio stations. The longer the song, the fewer the coins dropped into that box.

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.

eriejwg wrote: Jim's detailed explanation is dead on. Nowadays, radio edits are not only for length, I think, but also content and lyrics.

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.

Edited by Hykker

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!



Edited by Jody Thornton