The Wordsmith Member since Aug 13th 2002 17070 posts
Sun Sep-14-14 11:04 AM
"Why do some remasters trim down the original songs?"
What is the deal with some of these remasters? I was on Spotify, going through random artists when I got on Maze's channel. I noticed the remastered version of "Golden Time of Day" from a 2004 greatest hits comp. Thought I would like to check it out and as soon as the song started, it skipped most of the guitar part in the opening. I couldn't think of any reason to pare down the song. It made absolutely no sense. Then I remembered how the remastered version of "Standing On the Verge of Getting It On" had some songs pared down for God only knows why. Who makes these dumb decisions? What's the purpose of remastering if you're gonna chop the song down anyway? Makes no sense.
1. "well, with prince..." In response to Reply # 0
on his "the hits/the b-sides" comp, songs were shortened to fit as many songs as possible onto the CDs. space issues are probably quite common on greatest hits packages. also, usually the radio edit is the version the public is most familiar with, so the label just goes with that.
2. "Yeah that's what I've seen as well with those types of compilations." In response to Reply # 1
>on his "the hits/the b-sides" comp, songs were shortened to >fit as many songs as possible onto the CDs. space issues are >probably quite common on greatest hits packages. also, >usually the radio edit is the version the public is most >familiar with, so the label just goes with that.
album versions were typically different/shorter than the radio versions. plus greatest hits are made for the casual/non-fan of whatever artist. those that will normally get enough with 3-4 minutes of a ten minute song.
4. "Labels aren't specific anymore about the right version used" In response to Reply # 0
As someone said, there is a difference between album versions and single or radio versions. A good example of this is Heatwave's "Always And Forever", which most may know for the 6 minute version. The original single version the 45 was about 3 1/2 minutes so if you were to hear that, you'd be like "wait, half of the song was cut".
Generally, if the artist or a producer knows and understands the music, the right or "proper" version will be used. If not, you could get anything and everything. It's generally "whatever master is the most accessible, we'll use that". It used to be a big issue with CD compilations, especially when a recording changes ownerships of the master recordings. Sadly, the concept hasn't changed and it's still surfacing on MP3's. Sadly, the industry wants you to hear that and only that version, when a song may have a number of different lengths or edits.
You're lucky you're at least getting the version the artist originally recorded and approved of, otherwise you might get a rerecording with new instrumentation or an updated vocal track.
The Wordsmith Member since Aug 13th 2002 17070 posts
Mon Sep-15-14 05:01 PM
5. "I definitely understand how radio versions work...." In response to Reply # 4
...although I admit I didn't think about it for the greatest hits albums. However, I still can't see why it's done on normal albums that aren't greatest hits or other compilations. As I mentioned in the OP, that Funkadelic album is trimmed and the company had more than enough room to include the full versions. The greatest hits ordeal makes sense. Trimming down songs on a remastered version of an original album doesn't; especially since CDs have more space than vinyl.
6. "the remastering may have been completed using whatever" In response to Reply # 5
tape was available to the remastering entity. it could be the the tape w/the longer version of the song at issue was unavailable at the time. it could've been unavailable for any of several reasons - pending litigation, it's warehoused on the other side of the country/world, the tape is owned or controlled by an entity that's not participating in the remastering effort, the tape is just str8 up lost, et al.