If you notice, most scores that get 70+ minute releases were not recorded in the US. They are typically recorded in Europe, where re-use fees aren't a problem. I believe that was a factor in motivating the change in union rules, i.e a lot of productions going over-seas to record to avoid the AFM union fees.

> Yes, there was a recent change in AFM union rules regarding re-use fees.
> Re-use fees account for the biggest reason why the bulk of score albums
> are short. Simply put, music recorded using AFM musicians (i.e. any score
> recorded in L.A) is licensed for release in blocks of time. I.e. if a
> score is recorded in L.A, then the longer the album, the higher the
> licensing fees. A recent change in union rules, however, does reduce the
> re-use fee cost dramatically if the number of units produced is below
> 15,000. I don't recall the specifics of the change, but the number of
> units does come into play.

> As far as the length of albums not immediately increasing, there are other
> costs involved with lengthier albums. The tracks need to be selected,
> edited, possibly remixed or balanced, remastered, etc, so even without the
> re-use fees, the longer the album, the more preparation work is required.
> It's also possible that some recently released albums may have had the
> licensing details brokered prior to the change in policy.

> Anyway, I'm still holding out hope that the change in re-use fees will
> result in longer albums, as well as more releases.