>The song was originally over eleven minutes long, but Bowie and Visconti edited it down to 9:57, making it Bowie's second-longest track ever made, behind "Station to Station", which lasts just over ten minutes. They did it after learning that iTunes would not post singles over ten minutes in length. Bowie did not wish to confuse listeners by releasing different single and album versions.
When the fuck is the original releasing? My autism prevents me from listening to the album until I have it. You guys have no idea how badly I want to listen to this album.
>Apple once again fucking up the vision of an artist
I can guarantee the extra minute added nothing of value
you only object to this on the grounds of a vague, abstract, and frankly juvenile concept of 'integrity' as if the artist's vision is the only thing that matters, and any 'compromise' they make to attempt to engage/ communicate with the listener is somehow 'selling out'
In short, grow the fuck up.
I dunno, I disagree.
The song feels like it fades in pretty abruptly, and the two halves of the song have a pretty awkward transition. Where the song is fine as it is, it could be improved if the extra length comes in either or both of those places
Off the top of my head, some songs that break a certain length get the Album Only treatment for downloading, so you couldn't just download the track by itself
Since the title track dropped a month before the album did, nobody could have downloaded it because it broke the length cutoff
I find it interesting that he decided not to do the single version album version thing. He has done it many times with Let's Dance, Ashes to Ashes, Slow Burn, Absolute Beginners and Heroes just to name a fraction. I feel like there might be more it like maybe the track meant too much too him have a chopped up version.
Or, you know, Bowie decided the track could be condensed and made better. I doubt he would've put the 10 minute version on Blackstar if it were somehow less complete or worse.
The best way to think about it is that Bowie's vision was originally one thing, and under a small circumstance like this one, his vision changed and he ended up somewhere slightly different- not worse. Wherever he ended up, with whatever he released, was, in the end, his vision, and we should respect that. The version we have is the version he wanted us to hear, plain and simple.
So OP, stop being autisitc, and listen to the greatest Bowie album since Low.
I wonder what that extra minute was spent on?
The transition from the first half to the 2nd half where he gets to the chorus does feel slightly awkward, not really in any significant way but I wonder if that is where that extra minute got cut. If so I'd be interested in hearing the full version.
You realize that pressure from outside sources forcing change is what has helped made some of the best "art" out there.
Complete and total creative liberty isn't always the most ideal spot to be in.
>Epic fellow Redditor!
Every time someone uses "redditor" as an insult, it just shows how far into their damage control routine they really are. Unless, of course, they are autistic enough to be unaware of how ridiculous they sound.
Thanks for cheering me up once again meme
I don't think we needed an extra minute of "IN THE VILLA OF ORMEN." Also I find it amazing that this whole time, no one has asked for a source.
>is there any reasonable justification for releasing a single over 10 minutes?
How the fuck is it surprising?
It's an industry. Apple makes money from selling singles, and they very well can't have singles be ridiculous lengths of time, now can they? 10 minutes is quite generous.
For those of you complaining, it was 3 minutes flat 60 years ago.
What I love to do when eating Doritos is to have a glass of milk that I can dip my fingers into to clean them, then once I've finished I down the cheesy dorito milk with all the bits floating in it
Pic related is my favorite album
>the people who buy a 10 minute single wouldn't buy an 11 minute single
Sure, buddy. By all means keep deciding for every consumer in the world what they will and will not purchase. It's not radio, there's no opportunity cost on Apple's end by allowing longer singles to exist as a product.
Yes, the line is arbitrary, but you can understand why a fucking business would draw it at 10. The point is that line needed to be drawn somewhere.
Sure, I grant you that it's not radio. They still don't want musicians turning in albums where the lead single is half the length of the whole damn thing. They want musicians to turn in singles as pieces of music that consumers will want to purchase APART from the rest of the record. If they're too long, they either don't sell as easy, or they allow for an artist to sell a large chunk of their record at a single's price, which hurts Apple.
So yeah, an arbitrary line, but a necessary one from their perspective. No artistic integrity is lost because artists choose what songs from their records become the singles, if any.
In addition, I can never see an instance where a single should be longer than 10 minutes. Blackstar is a rare exception, but the final version was perfect for its length.
Please explain this part. From my understanding Apple's cost is basically nothing, they just host the files. In what way could any sort of sale hurt the company? If a single is selling then they're practically making free money, even if it's less than they might otherwise get that doesn't make it suddenly not free money anymore. No, "they want to maximize the profit from every item" isn't a valid response, if that were the case they wouldn't allow you to record an hour of farts and upload it right now for a nominal fee.
>if that were the case they wouldn't allow you to record an hour of farts and upload it right now for a nominal fee.
they allow that?
It literally is maximizing profit. They also probably have deals with radio stations which, typically, care much more about track lengths. Less downloads is less money they could have made, simple as that.
>they allow that
Yes, they do not evaluate based on content and just use the hosting fee to mitigate issues with anti-commercial garbage.
>it literally is maximizing profit
False, see above.
How does that prove they don't want to maximize profit? They don't lose anything from you recording that, but they're not gonna put resources (e.g. time) into something that wont sell. They're gonna push the established artists. Again, this is a business perspective, not an artistic one.
In any case, I imagine Bowie cared much more about the music than the sales, particularly at the end of his life. If he thought the 11 minute version was better, we would've gotten that on the record, plain and simple.