Comment by prmoustache | Hacker News Reader

Comment by prmoustache | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

First you are wrong from the very start. Although the original source is usually the same many cases the radio-edit was not the same audio as the album version. It was usually much shorter. There is a reason it was called radio edit.

> So my idea is, why don't bands produce a dozen or so "radio edits" of their better songs? I bet they'd increase sales, especially to people like me.

In no particular order:

- because concert recordings already achieve this purpose.

- because time in the studio is costly, and you are not touring or composing while you are doing it.

- because every single person will have her favorite studio version, the same way they may have their favorite concert radio and most would not buy n versions of the same song and would dislike the slightly modified one. Some have already produced n version, uncensored and censored versions. Usually you like the one you heard first the most.

- Producing many different SKUs does not magically equal to making significantly more sales and can reduce revenues if stock of the less popular ones do not sell.

Also, if they're not the same recording, they're not the same album, which means that the popularity of any individual album is split. Contracts get better the better an album does on the charts, but if you release the same album three times, you're competing against yourself.

Release the variations under the same SKU. It's not like you're manufacturing rocket engine parts. Have some fun with it! This whole thread of "it can't work because that isn't the way we've always done it" is comical to me.

"Have some fun with it"... For most bands, each album they put out is a year's worth of effort and a year of income. You don't want to get de-listed from the charts because it looks like you're gaming the system. If your album charts, it's guaranteed radio and playlist placements, leading to more exposure.

Most bands are funded similar to VC.. there's an investment, then payoff then profit. If you don't payoff the investment because you "had fun with it", your band will be dropped and you are searching for a label while working your day job.

All your arguments fall by the fact that even great artists record and put out a large amount of sub-par and even bad songs.

Oddly enough your user name points to a great artist whose songs were mostly great -- at least the ones I know about.

I didn't even think about that when writing the comment. But even the great Jobim had some duds. More importantly, I think the career of Jobim proves the original user's point. He was without any challengers the best composer of the 20th century, and he released different versions of many of his songs. Something which was not uncommon in the past. So why don't modern stars for example invite another popular singer to sing their song and release such a version?

Music fandom is diverse. Some listeners are casual, but others are collectors who love digging into the nuances of an artist’s work

There used to be a few sites (what.cd? waffles?) that, while officially pirate / torrent sites, were treasure troves of rare music; unpublished stuff, limited issue tapes from music markets, bootlegs / live recordings, FLAC versions of vinyls (which, at least for a while, had improved dynamic range compared to CDs, think music without the loudness war stuff), etc.

Of course, the music industry went after them once it was discovered they weren't actually a waffle recipe website, and the sites were taken down. I hope the copies and archives continue to live on on data hoarders' systems.

> First you are wrong from the very start.

LOL

> because concert recordings already achieve this purpose

They are quite different, not subtly different.

> because time in the studio is costly

When they do 20 takes and pick the "best", there's always a second "best". It's not like you're starting over.

> and you are not touring or composing while you are doing it

C'mon, a big chunk of the composing is done in the studio. I watched "Get Back" and saw the many variations before the Beatles picked one.

> most would not buy n versions of the same song

Sure, but some would, and that number is greater than epsilon. I'd buy Led Zeppelin variants.

> Producing many different SKUs

Make the small variations the same SKU. Slight variations does not imply that either is better than the other.

> When they do 20 takes and pick the "best", there's always a second "best". It's not like you're starting over.

For modern pop music... as i understand it, the 'best' is a compilation of the 20 takes. There isn't necessarily a 'second best' take to choose. You could comp the takes differently, but i don't know anyone in any field who likes intentionally doing a job less than what they think is the 'best'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com