Not to disparage our treasured readers, but reader Shaun delivered one of the most thought-provoking comments on The Second Disc in awhile when discussing yesterday's post on a hypothetical Dave Matthews Band compilation. To quote:
But what's with all the edits in your tracklist, Mike? Sorry, but I HATE when you buy a "best of" set and you get stuck with radio, single edits. Those hideous cuts on both "My Life" and "Pressure" on the original pressing of Billy Joel's Greatest Hits Vol I & II come to mind immediately. Thankfully, Sony fixed that years later.
Honestly, why would anyone want shorter versions of a song? It's a great way to get me to NOT buy a collection. I don't want or need all of DMB's albums, but if I buy a collection I want the original, full versions of the songs they way they were originally released.
When I think about edits and mixes on a compilation - whether hypothesizing or actually buying a set - I take three things into account.
- Mainstream appeal. Fellow commenter Don hit this nail on the head: for casual fans of an act such as DMB (who know more about them by way of radio airplay than actual album spins or live performances - as shocking as it sounds there must be people like that somewhere), a radio/single edit is the key track. Using a compilation of edits as stepping stones to full album versions and so on is a pretty admirable idea, and one your humble author would engage in were he a producer of such titles.
- Compactness. Don also pointed out - and any DMB fan can attest to this - that most of the band's output is long. Is it better when it's short? No, not always ("Crash Into Me" and "Crush" have some great moments that are missing from the radio versions). But including all those longer versions while still including the 19 or 20 cuts selected in yesterday's post would have easily put the theoretical set at two discs. And unfortunately, that usually means upping the set to a price point that casual fans may not want to embrace. (In a way, a combination of these two is what killed The Best of What's Around, Vol. 1; not all the big hits were present for casual fans to embrace, and the fact that longer songs were picked further hindered said playlist. The live stuff was alright, though.)
- Collectibility. This is probably the point that readers usually care about. Especially for artists with deep catalogues, it wasn't uncommon for a single to get edited or remixed one way on a 45 and another way on a full album. Some compilations still sell off the strength of this knowledge; we've all clamored for at least one single version of a tune to get a CD release at one point or another. Part of the success behind Michael Jackson's latter-day compilation mania (namely Number Ones in 2003 and The Essential Michael Jackson in 2005) was the fact that several single masters made their digital debuts on those sets (regrettably, not all of them are exactly correct, but that's another rant for another day). Even Billy Joel - an artists whose 45 edits are insanely unnecessary - will get some royalties thrown his way from sales of a set like Piano Man: The Very Best of Billy Joel, which surreptitiously included some of those versions.
Obviously, these considerations are best applied on a case-by-case basis. (Who'd want to hear the anemic LP mix of Duran Duran's "The Reflex" on a compilation instead of its superior, chart-topping 7-inch version?) But I ask you, admirable readers: when you buy a compilation, what's your take on including edits or single mixes?
Best Laid "Van"s: Do Artists' Opinions on Their Catalogue Titles Influence Your Purchases?
Waxing on Universal's New Vinyl Project Initiative
Kickstart Our Hearts? Thoughts on Crowd-Funding Catalogue Music
Amoeba Records Becomes Digital Archivist
Well in the case of Dave Matthews Band especially--how many casual fans are there, really? It seems like one of those acts where you either obsessively collect albums and bootlegs or you just don't care. A best-of for them (or any band, really) should serve as a sampler to hook the curious into picking up the full catalog, not merely satisfy the folks who dig "Crash Into Me" when it's on the radio.
I'm not a proponent of digital downloads by any means, but iTunes and the like have changed the way a greatest hits album needs to be formatted. You have to have something unique for collectors beyond the typical one or two new songs because now they have the option to cherry-pick and avoid the content they already have.
Filter did a great job with their best-of last year. No new tracks, but a bunch of single edits and some hard-to-find soundtrack cuts. In this day and age, you have to appeal to casual fans and hardcore collectors alike.
Plus, as you point out, I don't think many listeners realize how different the album versions are in some cases. On the album, Filter's "Take a Picture" boasts a long, draining introduction before the familiar guitar strums kick in. If I were a casual fan, that would bug the crap out of me if it was that way on the best-of.
No offense taken, Mike... If anything, I'm honored you turned my query into a posting!
While I can understand a bit more about different mixes of a song (once again, I'll use Billy Joel as an example: "All About Soul" had a different mix on the single than on the River of Dreams album, likewise "Keeping the Faith" from the album An Innocent Man), I just can't fathom the shorter radio edits.
Sure, the casual fan knows the radio edits, generally. Granted. At least as far as top 40 radio goes. But what if you were a casual Aerosmith fan who grew up listening to AOR radio, where they generally don't play edits, and decided to buy that old Greatest Hits album (the one with the red and white cover) to discover the entire intro to "Sweet Emotion" chopped off? I actually borrowed that CD from a friend, just to put a few tracks on my iPod. I couldn't believe that... It just ruined the song for me.
Expanding a set to two CDs doesn't bother me much... If the artist has a catalogue worthy of a two CD "Best of," and it's loaded with great full-length songs, I'm willing to spend a few extra bucks. More bang for the buck, certainly.
I guess it's all a matter of taste... As a Deadhead who also likes similar groups and artists who jam out and play longer songs (Allmans, Floyd, old Santana, some of the more recent jam bands like Derek Trucks Band and String Cheese Incident) I enjoy it.
So, anyhow, while I don't agree with the case made for using radio edits on "Best of" collections it's interesting to hear other people's views on the matter.
But is there anyone out there who prefers, for example, the single version of "Light My Fire" by the Doors?
I'd rather have edits (or short mixes or whatever you want to call them) on hits collections. And not because I've heard them on radio (chances are I haven't). Because they come in handy, especially when making a mix tape for someone (people still do that, don't they? Albeit on CDR?) and you don't want to bog down the flow with a 7 minute opus.
Generally, today's edits aren't simply made by clipping out a verse, they're usually different all around in subtle ways. I can't speak to older titles.
Oh yeah, my summation:
Essentially, give me a reason to buy a hits collection: give me versions that are different than what are already on the albums.
Depends what that "7 minute opus" is... "Light My Fire" is a great example. That's an epic song, but it's a lot less epic if you've ever heard that single version edit.
In the Billy Joel examples I gave yesterday, an actual verse from "Pressure" got butchered out, and there's just no excuse for that. All the words were in "My Life," but they cut out Billy's piano solo late in the song. They cut a piano solo. By Billy Joel. Hopefully, someone lost their job for that one. Not to mention, the edit just sounds like crap... Very abrupt. At least Sony restored the full versions in the late 90's, when Joel's catalog was remastered.
I guess it just surprises me that anyone would want LESS music than was originally recorded. I can't speak for all artists, and I'm not talking remixes here, but I feel making edits that shorten the original recording subverts the artist's work. I liken that to editing a movie down when it's shown on TV, or getting an abridged version of a book. You're not getting the full story, so to speak.
An interesting issue.... I have no problem with edits on greatest hits albums if the edit is the version of the song that most of the public knows. The POPULAR version should be what is on a best of collection. Sometimes the edit even improves the song. To use Queen as an example I think the edited versions of The Miracle and Hammer to Fall found on Classic Queen are better than the album versions. The Miracle especially edits out a meandering musical passage that just didn't seem to belong in the song anyway. It was filler and wisely cut for the single.
I wouldn't say that I prefer the single edit of "Light My Fire," exactly, but it *is* the version I most associate with my growing up (hearing it on New York's WCBS-FM on an almost daily basis!) and I'd welcome the opportunity to finally own it on an official CD. (Rhino has, at last, released it as a "Digital 45" at least.) I still enjoy listening to it as a great pop single (versus the great rock song the full version is). Likewise, I was thrilled with Rhino's release of the radio edit of Chicago's "Beginnings" on their The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition. While the set paled in comparison to the Only the Beginning comp, it was a treasure trove of previously-unreleased-on-CD radio edits. So, as a completist & a collector, I welcome these edits. That said, every release should be compiled with discretion and a fair blend of album mixes, single mixes, etc. etc. There's a place for everything when a smart producer is involved, especially when these edits are part of a, well, "second disc" of an expanded edition!
Personally, I want full versions. If anything, I want LONGER versions than what was originally released. Make the fadeouts longer, like they do on a lot of the Hip-O Motown reissue comps. Find an alternate edit.
I'm not a single-version guy. I'm not a lover of mono either.
As others have noted, sometimes a single edit can actually improve a song. Other times it butchers it. I don't mind when an instrumental passage is cut down, but it drives me crazy when actual verses/lyrics are cut, as with the aforementioned Billy Joel song or the single edit of U2's "City of Blinding Lights."
And if a song is REMIXED in addition to being edited, I definitely want it. To cite an older example, Enya had a big hit a few years ago with a beat-heavy remix of "Only Time." And yet the subdued album version is what always turns up on her compilations. It would seem like a no-brainer to put the dance version on a "Greatest Hits" CD because 1) it's the radio version casual fans are familiar with and 2) it's a version die-hard fans don't have on the albums they already own.
I prefer the 100% full versions as they were originally recorded.
In fact I love the Deep Purple Re-Issues which have even more of the songs such as the re-mix of 'Black Night' has an extra 3 or so min.
Interesting opinions offered here... Glad I could kick-start this thread!
I did think of another edit that always irked me: the version of Van Morrison's "Brown-Eyed Girl" on the old Best Of CD from about 20 years ago(side note: just thinking about that makes me feel really, really old).
Many of you probably know about that one... The edit took out the references to "makin' love in the green grass" as I guess that wasn't OK to say on the radio back then? Funny. Anyhow, that's the version they put on the CD. Just crazy... That collection is out of print now, so I'm not sure about any later collections or reissues of the song.
That's totally different from remixes though. Even though I'm not a huge fan of remixes myself, I can completely understand people's desire to track those down. Especially when it's from a favorite artist whose work you collect.
Now LONGER versions of a song, assuming it adds something to the track, is something I can definitely get behind. A couple of excellent examples I can think of: "Rock & Roll Stew" from Traffic on the remastered Low Spark CD, and Billy Joel's "Zanzibar" (the late, great Freddie Hubbard wailing on his trumpet) on the My Lives box set. In both cases, it makes me wonder why they went with the shorter versions in the first place.
Which reminds me, does anyone know where the longer, possibly remixed, version of Peter Gabriel's "In Your Eyes" comes from? A radio station where I live used to play that long version constantly, but I've never known where to get it (or if it's even in print). I bet someone here knows the version I'm talking about.
Longer is fine, too.
But re: "I prefer the 100% full versions as they were originally recorded", what does that even mean today? If a song takes 2 or 3 days to record, and the artist tries several different bridges, and later on she/he and the producer spent a couple weeks mixing together a few versions, what is the "full version"? The version they felt meshed the best in the album, or the version they felt worked best as a single?
I am not talking about situations where outside remixers are hired to make their own mix without the artist's input, but rather, I'm just talking about the versions the artist and the producer put together themselves. There's usually a few contenders, a few versions, of any song.
Shaun, re: Peter Gabriel's "In Your Eyes," I think you're talking about "In Your Eyes (Special Mix)," sometimes called "In Your Eyes (Special Remix)." This is a remix by Bill Laswell that appeared on various 12" singles (depending on the format and country, it was a b-side to In Your Eyes, Big Time, and Don't Give Up).
I'm not sure, but I THINK an edit of this "Special Mix" is what was used on the soundtrack for the movie Say Anything, and it probably got some radio play back in the day.
As far as I know, "In Your Eyes (Special Mix)" has never appeared on any format other than vinyl (again, unless an edit appears on the Say Anything soundtrack... but that might just be an edit of the LP version).
That's the mix I'm thinking of, too. I heard it from time to time on XM back when my family still subscribed, which was obviously kind of a trip.
And Shaun, I too once heard that version of "Brown Eyed Girl" (which looks to be the original single edit, though that's a single I don't own) and nearly fell out of my chair. Easily as unusual as the single edit of Steve Winwood's "While You See a Chance," which is a really hilariously bad edit IMO.
In the same vein of the Van Morrison "Brown Eyed Girl" edit, "Lawyer's, Guns and Money" by Warren Zevon was on several of his greatest hits comps with the entire third verse cut out due to the line "the shit has hit the fan" obviously not being radio friendly. To cut out an entire verse in a song with only 3 verses to start with always annoyed me!
This could twist the discussion into a whole other sub-category, but the Van Morrison and Warren Zevon edits make me think of an edit of WHAM!'s "Everything She Wants" I've heard on radio stations where the last line of the first verse ("I don't know what the hell you want from me") and the first half of the "la-la-la"s get cut out, giving you effectively 4/5 of a verse and a shaky transition to the chorus. My brother DJs for a college radio station that has to frequently edit its music for language, and he'd never approve an edit like that.
Luckily when I had to make "radio edits" at several places I've worked, we had digital editing technology already, so I was able to "reverse" the offending word or words.
Or, when possible, I'd graft a portion of the instrumental vamp or solo if it timed out and paste it over the offending word.
What I really dislike is, when collections are called 'The Singles' and in the end you get the album versions and not the single edits (then simply name it best of - if it is named: single I want to get the singleversion if there has been one) - it is difficult to have an overall opinion, with some bands I don't mind, other edit or singleversions simply sound ridiculous and somehow miss sth. And a selling point to collectors, sometimes it helps if there is those edit versions on such a collection, if I already have all the exact album versions, why rebuy them again?
Don & Mike: Thanks for the info about "In Your Eyes"... That's probably the version I'm thinking of. It is different mix alright, now that I think of it, and I think there's some additional lyrics too. A shame if it's only ever been on vinyl. That's a track I'd love to see turn up on a PG compilation at some point (or at least as a download). Perhaps I'll see if my local library has the Say Anything soundtrack. Worth a shot.
Ray: Thanks for mentioning the Zevon edit. The first Zevon I ever bought was the old A Quiet Normal Life collection, and I got rid of it just because of that edit. That was OK, since it was worth buying the full Excitable Boy album anyhow. Zevon's first two Asylum albums, actually.
Shaun: I ditched it because of that too! BTW if you don't have the deluxe edition of the "Warren Zevon" album you should pick it up. The bonus disc is great.