Dumb is smart, but the radio mix of Numb is stoopid
-
wirral39
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Mon 17 Apr 2006, 8:21 pm
Dumb is smart, but the radio mix of Numb is stoopid
I've just heard the radio mix of Numb and they seem to have cut the orchestral intro and the second verse completely. Thereby ruining the unity of the song. About 15 years ago, they'd be doing extended mixes, now it's about dumbing, or is that numbing down, to increase the Radio 2 playlist rating. I just hope the brilliant video achieves more promience than the radio mix.
An empty box, an open space
A single thought leaves a trace
A single thought leaves a trace
-
dVTB
- Posts: 2714
- Joined: Mon 24 Nov 2003, 12:09 am
Re: Dumb is smart, but the radio mix of Numb is stoopid
I fully agree with you, for the full 100%. I feel it's exactly like you said: ruining the unity of the song. But it's fashion. It happens more and more, this unecessary cutting. I also never understood why Flamboyant (orig. playing time 3.56 or so) had to be cut to 3.37 mins.wirral39 wrote:I've just heard the radio mix of Numb and they seem to have cut the orchestral intro and the second verse completely. Thereby ruining the unity of the song. About 15 years ago, they'd be doing extended mixes, now it's about dumbing, or is that numbing down, to increase the Radio 2 playlist rating. I just hope the brilliant video achieves more promience than the radio mix.
- !
- Posts: 2327
- Joined: Mon 23 Jan 2006, 7:13 pm
Re: Dumb is smart, but the radio mix of Numb is stoopid
The single mix of Flamboyant is superior to the album version.dVTB wrote:I also never understood why Flamboyant (orig. playing time 3.56 or so) had to be cut to 3.37 mins.
I like both versions of Numb.
- kdx125
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005, 7:04 pm
- Contact:
Unfortunately (mainly commercial stations) need advertising space, unless a song is 3.30 or under they rarely get airtime. Its the way things are and we have to put up with it.
Although the album version is longer / better..... at least we get another version of a very powerful song. If it helps sell a few more copies of Fundamental in the process it can only be a good thing IMO.
Although the album version is longer / better..... at least we get another version of a very powerful song. If it helps sell a few more copies of Fundamental in the process it can only be a good thing IMO.

-
dVTB
- Posts: 2714
- Joined: Mon 24 Nov 2003, 12:09 am
I didn't say I dislike the single version of Flamboyant. I think it's way better than the album version. Yet I don't understand that it was *shortened* some 21 seconds. When I wrote 'edited', I meant the cutting of the song, NOT the extra production, additional vocals, etc.! wrote:The single mix of Flamboyant is superior to the album version.dVTB wrote:I also never understood why Flamboyant (orig. playing time 3.56 or so) had to be cut to 3.37 mins.
I like both versions of Numb.
I understand the problem... - Last week, I was driving around in my car and listened to several radio stations, including some Dutch commercial stations. Coincidentally, both stations played 'Killer' by Adamski and Seal, BOTH stations edited the single-edit, to make the song ever shorter! One station even skipped the instrumental part completely.kdx125 wrote:Unfortunately (mainly commercial stations) need advertising space, unless a song is 3.30 or under they rarely get airtime. Its the way things are and we have to put up with it. Although the album version is longer / better..... at least we get another version of a very powerful song. If it helps sell a few more copies of Fundamental in the process it can only be a good thing IMO.
In the past, I also heard a mutilated version of In Private (Dusty) on the radio. Just awful.
As for the Numb issue, I think the radio mix is dreadful. What kind of song is it if half of its verses are removed.Non fans are going to listen to this and think - why have PSB brought out such a slow song which is perversely cut to one verse making it sound like they ran out of ideas half way through. They'll take it at face value and not buy it.
- Hillbilly
- Posts: 2647
- Joined: Tue 11 Apr 2006, 6:28 pm
Actually I think it's one of the reasons that makes the single version better. I like it when the first chorus is shorter than the others, it makes the song less repetitive.dVTB wrote:I didn't say I dislike the single version of Flamboyant. I think it's way better than the album version. Yet I don't understand that it was *shortened* some 21 seconds. .! wrote:The single mix of Flamboyant is superior to the album version.dVTB wrote:I also never understood why Flamboyant (orig. playing time 3.56 or so) had to be cut to 3.37 mins.
I like both versions of Numb.
For example I had get used to the single versions of "I don't know..." and "New York City Boy", so when I got the Nightlife album I thought those songs were too long. I prefer single edits!
- Actually
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Wed 20 Sep 2006, 11:52 am
- Contact: