I understood that vinyl versions of albums were often shorter than a CD version, but it looks like the rush to get the vinyl versions of an album out are leading to all sorts of caos for some big acts.
Vital tracks missing, unfinished versions of songs, heavy handed editing and a load of other crap seem to be the order of the day with some artists.
So after the first unfinished edition, I am sure the ghouls at the record companies are going to bring out another version called “the finished version”.
People will soon learn that it is a waste of money buying the vinyl version of an album.
I haven’t read the article because I don’t take any newspapers, but based on your post something doesn’t stack up, because if the CD version is longer surely that would be the one suffering from rushed completion, while if artidts have reverted to album length of 35 to 40 minutes normal to an LP then there is less to fo do what’s the rush?
Takes longer to get a vinyl album into production by about 6 weeks but that’s not being factored into release schedules which are focused on streaming. Pushing out albums with missing tracks and unproduced versions is still on the wrong side of disgraceful though.
But you can then get the punters to buy the album again a few weeks after the first release:
Elsewhere, the first pressing of the Weeknd’s [Hurry Up Tomorrow]contained only 11 of the 22 tracks on the digital version, and also featured shorter or earlier mixes, different transitions and missing guest contributions; it was followed by a “complete edition” double-vinyl release.
In theory yes. In practice they have cottoned onto the fact they’re buying unfinished product and less of it and they’re protesting. Thus the article.
Making a good quality vinyl album, means that the digital files need to be worked on, added to longer production lead ins, means that more time is needed for the vinyl release.
I find many CD’s still have more than forty minutes of music, so editing for vinyl needs to be factored in.
So a whole new load of crap has been added to the defects that made me give up on vinyl back in the Eighties.
That article made me laugh. A basic misunderstanding of how music works at best and a reinforcement of the view that the music industry is an industrial ripoff machine at worst.
But I’ll feel bad for the 12 year old kid spending hard-earned money not knowing he/she is getting a different version.
I read this as a story about clever/shoddy marketing rather than problems with vinyl. CDs have regularly had more content than their vinyl counterpart and you made your choice accordingly. The issue here is one of (dis)honest comms (or poor project management if we’re being kind). Interestingly the artists mentioned are all, pretty much, fishing in the same pond, not one I’m swimming in so I can crack on buying and enjoying vinyl records.
I just thought it was interesting, that the vinyl versions of some very popular releases were different, had parts missing, and that sometimes a preliminary version of the album was put out to an unsuspecting public.
It is just the latest BS that we are getting from the record companies, along with the sales tactic of different versions of an an album and the hundredth remaster of old chestnuts like Dark Side Of The Moon.
I see shoestring labels manage to put out the final complete versions of an album on several formats, but a high level production, by a major, is project managed so badly in some cases.
My understanding, from reading about this away from the Guardian article, is that the genres impacted are Pop, R&B, Hip-Hop, Indie-Pop, and Electronic music i.e. those where some in that genre have an intent to land high in the charts in release week and for whom the 3 to 6 month run in is an issue.
The guy from Birkenhead also runs a record label, and has no interest in the bubble bursting.
Yes, we know that 50% of vinyl records that are sold never get played, but I guess the punters who do play them deserve a finished quality product, considering they cost twice as much as a CD version.
