Do you like the full versions of songs or the edited (cut) versions better?
 

Some songs are edited to be shorter such as "Light My Fire" by the Doors and "Blinded By The Light" by Manfred Mann.

In general, which versions of songs do you like better, the full versions or the edited (cut) versions?

Most songs I have are the cut version.
It irritates me when you heard the cut version on the radio, liked it and then
hear the uncut version what could be much longer.

Always the full Version. I always think that the cut version always misses the feeling of the original song.

I like the full versions. I'm also thinking of movie soundtracks because they really edit a tun of the music in those as well. As for stuff on the radio, yeah I notice allot of editing going on and it is very frustrating.

Full version. I would never give the cut version a try even if I disliked the full version. The full version is the intended version, so if that isn't good, then the song isn't good.

I prefer the full ones. It's like enjoying the full-dose of your favorite drink.

Definently the full version.

Unedited.
I don't like the edited ending of "Closer" they play on the radio. I can understand editing for language and all, but the end kind of lets you down gently, if that makes any sense.
I also hate most stations will play "Tainted Love" without the "Where Did Our Love Go?" ending. It totally changes the dynamic and meaning of the whole song.

Depends on the song - usually the full version, but Nights In White Satin (Moody Blues) I actually prefer the edited version. I know, I'm a philistine.

The full version as the origin of the artwork. Of course !

Full version always. The only time when cut versions make sense is during openings or credits, since those usually don't last more than a minute and a half.

Full versions. Whenever I listen to a cut version it's almost like a car tyre going over a rocky bump - you notice it and it kinda throws you off.

Yea i cant really listen to radio edits, the cut versions are good in like a greatest hit album of something, but i prefer the full versions a lot more

Definitely the full versions. It erks me to no end when Guns and Roses Sweet Child O Mine comes on, because they cut out the guitar rift in the beginning, and it's one of the best parts of the song.

Another album that I think loses it's impressions is Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation, it's got little tidbits in between the songs that amplify the song's meaning.

Then, there are the albums where two or more songs should be listened to back to back, to see the full picture. Madonna's Like A Prayer had a duo there, Dear Jessie and Oh Father, which are meant to be listened to, together. But you are likely going to never hear Madonna's Dear Jessie, shame, since it's a very surreal song and nothing like she usually does.

I'm going to agree with most here and say full version. It irks me to no end, for example, when radio stations play Billy Joel's Piano Man, and play the edited version- there are TWO MORE VERSES, people!! It takes away from the song when they are left out. Same with most songs, like ELO's Fire On High, November Rain by G&R, and also the aforementioned Tainted Love. Or NOT playing We Will Rock You/We Are the Champions back-to-back as they are meant to be played. It makes no sense to me. And Moody Blues Nights In White Satin loses a LOT when not played in full.

Full versions all the way! :)

As someone who feels the longer songs are often the best, the existence of cut versions borderline offend me. I can't even listen to radio because they won't let the song end properly if it fades out. You HAVE to include the whole thing. It bugs me when any part of a song is shortened.