Dumb is smart, but the radio mix of Numb is stoopid

For general discussion of Pet Shop Boys topics.
Post Reply
Message
Author
wirral39
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon 17 Apr 2006, 8:21 pm

Dumb is smart, but the radio mix of Numb is stoopid

#1 Post by wirral39 »

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

Home and Dry

#2 Post by Home and Dry »

...

dVTB
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon 24 Nov 2003, 12:09 am

Re: Dumb is smart, but the radio mix of Numb is stoopid

#3 Post by dVTB »

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.
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.

User avatar
!
Posts: 2327
Joined: Mon 23 Jan 2006, 7:13 pm

Re: Dumb is smart, but the radio mix of Numb is stoopid

#4 Post by ! »

dVTB wrote:I also never understood why Flamboyant (orig. playing time 3.56 or so) had to be cut to 3.37 mins.
The single mix of Flamboyant is superior to the album version.

I like both versions of Numb.

User avatar
Paulo
Posts: 1254
Joined: Thu 30 Oct 2003, 2:46 am
Has thanked: 3 times

#5 Post by Paulo »

What's the problem? They've always released radio edits.

Even the radio mix of West End girls is shorter than the album version.

User avatar
kdx125
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005, 7:04 pm
Contact:

#6 Post by kdx125 »

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.
Image

dVTB
Posts: 2714
Joined: Mon 24 Nov 2003, 12:09 am

#7 Post by dVTB »

! wrote:
dVTB wrote:I also never understood why Flamboyant (orig. playing time 3.56 or so) had to be cut to 3.37 mins.
The single mix of Flamboyant is superior to the album version.
I like both versions of Numb.
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.
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.
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.
In the past, I also heard a mutilated version of In Private (Dusty) on the radio. Just awful.

User avatar
daveid
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2006, 8:38 am
Been thanked: 3 times

#8 Post by daveid »

It's the equivalent of what happens on Australian commercial TV. An imported half-hour British sitcom is cut by 5 minutes to allow about 10 minutes of advertising throughout the show. And if you've ever seen Australian advertising...

User avatar
daveid
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2006, 8:38 am
Been thanked: 3 times

#9 Post by daveid »

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.

User avatar
Hillbilly
Posts: 2647
Joined: Tue 11 Apr 2006, 6:28 pm

#10 Post by Hillbilly »

dVTB wrote:
! wrote:
dVTB wrote:I also never understood why Flamboyant (orig. playing time 3.56 or so) had to be cut to 3.37 mins.
The single mix of Flamboyant is superior to the album version.
I like both versions of Numb.
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. .
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.

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!

User avatar
Actually
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed 20 Sep 2006, 11:52 am
Contact:

#11 Post by Actually »

Radio edit is ok for a casual listening to. It's great that we get different versions.
More effort put in by Neil & Chris, as usual.
I'm too weak to be strong

Post Reply