I have always been a fan of the longer, unedited album version of a song as that was the vision of the creators. Did my best to never play edits when working in FM radio.

Tangentially, I'm also not crazy about censoring swear words in songs, especially when the song has been airing unedited for years and the censoring is done only because we've recently become worried someone might take offense.

In some cases the LP version is split into parts 1 and 2 on the 45. Eric Burdon did this on Sky Pilot. I have the LP version of Whole Lotta Love on a 45. All 5;33 on the A side.

Jody Thornton wrote:

mace wrote:

In some cases the LP version is split into parts 1 and 2 on the 45. Eric Burdon did this on Sky Pilot. I have the LP version of Whole Lotta Love on a 45. All 5;33 on the A side.

Similarly to "MacArthur's Park", these singles usually lower the modulation level and squeeze the grooves closer together.  I can't speak for your Zeppelin 45-rpm disc, but Richard Harris' 1972 RCA re-issue was awful for this reason.

What I REALLY wish, was that we followed the US's lead on promo singles in the 70s and 80s.  Many of them were released as 12" promo singles, just like extended dance songs were commercially.  However, these 12" singles were just the radio versions (and sometimes, the LP version on the flip-side.  They were quieter surfaced, louder and more dynamic.  Plus you had the grooves spaced out enough in the first two-thirds of the side, so that tracking error was less.

I know WEA released some of these for Blue Rodeo and One to One, here in Canada, but the US did so for much longer.

Well I was 16 when I bought the long version of Wole Lotta Love on a 45. Albums were out of my price range. As for the sound quality, it got played on a portable SeaBreeze with detachable speakers. I was just happy to have the unedited version.

Binson Echorec wrote:

@Jody - I don't entirely disagree but I feel you're approaching this from a jukebox-esque perspective, where you're hearing individually isolated songs on their own, outside of its album context. And that's okay.

I'm coming from a much more album-oriented angle. When I put on an album I listen to it from front to back, so I want to hear it untainted, as the artists envisioned it. Song sequencing was an art form once.

I guess I've always treated the radio edits of songs as "testers". If I liked a 3-minute tune on the radio and later found out there was a longer version available somewhere, then I was determined to seek it out.

For some reason, a 9-minute version of Bowie's "Cat People (Putting Out Fire)" was released in Australia only. Does it add much to the song? Probably not. Doesn't make me love it any less.

Absolutely, I'm coming from hearing a variety of music mixed together, not listening to an LP side.  I do love that too however, especially for progressive rock titles.  But when listening to a mix of music, I enjoy hearing the songs the way they were promoted during their chart run.

However, mixing the two listening styles together, you may recall that 1050 CHUM (during its punk/rock heavy) era from 1978 through to maybe 1983, they played hits, but mostly used LP versions.  I enjoyed this somewhat, but sometimes missed the single versions, because they were more familiar.  The other thing is that many single versions contain different mixes than the LP version.  If the album had a longer version of the single mix, I might ever prefer that, because of the familiarity.  Does that make sense at all? 
 

Jody Thornton wrote:

Binson Echorec wrote:

I have always been a fan of the longer, unedited album version of a song as that was the vision of the creators. Did my best to never play edits when working in FM radio.

Tangentially, I'm also not crazy about censoring swear words in songs, especially when the song has been airing unedited for years and the censoring is done only because we've recently become worried someone might take offense.

I'm of the opposite though with Rough Trade's "Highschool Confidential".  I find that hearing "cream my jeans" in a public place seems odd (and I'm no prude), especially if it's a small, upscale supermarket.  Yikes!

I find single mixes are usually more to my liking, because THAT was heard more commonly on hit radio during its chart run.  I miss the single versions of these songs, and actually prefer them:

Phil Collins - In the Air Tonight (also used in the video)
Wham! - Everything She Wants (it's actually longer, being edited from the 12" single)

Then there are songs that I think really benefit from editing.  RA brought up one example of the Doors, with Light My Fire.  When I hear the LP version, I think, get on with it already.  Same with the LP edit of Steppenwolf's "Magic Carpet Ride".  Now this one is different.  The charting promo mono single was from ABC/Dunhill, and contained a complete vocal retake (awful in my opinion).  However, MCA records made a better edit of the instrumental part, and that's what you hear on some classic rock stations now.  It gets to the meat of the song, without feeling as though you missed anything.

Notice whenever Simple Minds' "Don't You Forget About Me" is aired, even on classic rock stations, the radio edit is played?  The LP version just doesn't add anything compelling to the song.  Editing really can improve some songs.

I agree with this - its almost like "lets get to the point" with certain songs.  Really depends on the song, genre.  

In some cases, the artist prefers the single version over the album version. The members of U2 are said to have preferred the "Temple Bar Remix" of "Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses", the version that was released as a single in 1992. I myself prefer it over the weird, screechy album version.

When it comes to single vs. album versions, I also agree that it really depends on the song. Some songs you don't dare take a hatchet to no matter how long they are, like The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" (although somebody at the record company did, and the end result was horrendous). In other cases, some songs could do with some fat-trimming and maybe even a little spicing up with a remix to make it a little more flavorful.

Some may argue that the album version is "the way the artist wanted you to hear the song". But if I prefer the single, I don't really care...this is the way I want to hear the song! 



PJ
 

Such a good thread with excellent contributions! As far as cutting down songs for AM, I usually don’t mind it but there’s a couple of songs that I prefer the full version of, case in point, Free’s “Alright Now”, I like the instrumental section of this song, it builds nicely, but when I hear the shortened version, I feel ripped off! That’s one example for me. Again, great thread!

The Southern California columnist who originally raised this "shortened song" issue was inundated with emails about radio's proclivity to do this. He published some of the readers' responses. And they were similar to those raised here.

See if you agree. 

Radio fans write in about shortened AM song edits

One station I worked at would sometimes play the album version of Al Stewart's Year of the Cat.  A song you rarely if ever hear anymore on radio.  Reached #3 in Canada.  Same with his 1978 hit Time Passages which was in the top ten and #1 on the A/C charts.   

mace wrote:

Did CHUM/CKFH/CKOC ever speed up the records they played?

I don't recall them doing this at CFTR when I was there, but sometimes, I'm not so sure.  

While working at 680, knowing my interest in other stations, someone gave me a copy of an article from the Chicago Tribune dated Feb. 18, 1978. It was about the end of the legendary WCFL as a Top 40 powerhouse. 

In the latter part of the article is this paragraph about the much disliked G.M. named Lew Witz:

"And it was Witz who allowed the station to play its 45 r.p.m. records at about 47 r.p.m.to squeeze in an extra record every couple of hours."

If you look closely at the article below (and it's very hard to see, but I highlighted it in red) someone at 'TR wrote in pen "good idea" right beside that sentence. No idea who that was, but hopefully, they didn't do it there before the shift to all news. 

mace wrote:

Did CHUM/CKFH/CKOC ever speed up the records they played?

I wonder if CKOC played records slightly slower (if not by design), perhaps because the pitch was maladjusted.  I seem to remember some tracks at a slightly lower key.  These extended to the carted up selections during chart runs too.  I wonder if anyone in the know could chime in.

I think there was also a shortened version on Golden Earring's Radar Love.

RadioActive wrote:

mace wrote:

Did CHUM/CKFH/CKOC ever speed up the records they played?

I don't recall them doing this at CFTR when I was there, but sometimes, I'm not so sure.  

While working at 680, knowing my interest in other stations, someone gave me a copy of an article from the Chicago Tribune dated Feb. 18, 1978. It was about the end of the legendary WCFL as a Top 40 powerhouse. 

In the latter part of the article is this paragraph about the much disliked G.M. named Lew Witz:

"And it was Witz who allowed the station to play its 45 r.p.m. records at about 47 r.p.m.to squeeze in an extra record every couple of hours."

If you look closely at the article below (and it's very hard to see, but I highlighted it in red) someone at 'TR wrote in pen "good idea" right beside that sentence. No idea who that was, but hopefully, they didn't do it there before the shift to all news. 

The last lne of the article about the SuperCFL Survey becoming a collector's item is typical of Lujack's sarcastic sense of humour which is why I always tuned in when he did PM drive. His daily Klunk Letter of th Day was legendary.