|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jan 13, 2010 21:44:51 GMT -5
Best answer is to quote myself: But of course, if you're happy, that's great. It's just that different people have different standards of excellence, I suppose. First, we weren't fooled. It was what we had then. We know now and enough people listen to the other mixes. Some people still like the Capitol mixes. Their choice, certainly, but nothing to condemn, even though in some circles it's criticized. (And I don't mean just by you.) And second, Dexter wasn't the only record company exec who looked down their nose at rock 'n' roll. Just about all of them in the '60s were middle-aged (or older) white guys (well, except for the guy running Vee Jay ... he was black) who didn't know anything about rock music except that it made money. Alan Livingston, who signed the Beatles to Capitol, was one of the few who saw it differently.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 13, 2010 23:57:38 GMT -5
I listened to "Meet the Beatles" too many times not to KNOW that running order. And it was sometimes so much superior to what the Beatles intended. I mean, starting off the album with I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND, right into I SAW HER STANDING THERE, and then THIS BOY (no single B-side required there). Of course if you start off the album with one of their hit singles it will appear to be superior. But The Beatles made a point of keeping singles off the UK albums; a point totally ignored by Capitol records. Just one of the many examples of Brian Epstein not having total control over the band's wishes; in this case, when it came to dictating how the foreign albums were sequenced. So many bad decisions (or no decisions) happened in the early years of the bands fame that resulted in lost revenue, overbookings, disorganized tours, bootlegging of Beatle memorabilia, crammed studio time pushing their creative juices to the limits, etc. & etc. No wonder they burned out after only 7 years of this lifestyle. How many great bands turned out 12 extremely high quality albums (13, if you count the White Album as two albums) on top of numerous separate hit singles in such a short period of time? I was raised on the capitol albums and they were all I knew from 1964 until 1987 when the first CD's came out. At that point I put away my vinyls, and embraced the UK versions on the CD's. And I never looked back; regarding the sequence order on the CD's, that is what The Beatles wanted, and I finally was hearing the tracks in the "proper" order. Now, after 23 years, I cannot recall the order of the Capitol albums without referring to my vinyl covers, nor do I desire to hear them in that order. Am I "Un-American" for forsaking the Capitol sequences (or mixes for that matter) and accepting the UK versions? I don't think so as the Capitol versions were decided in an office in Los Angeles by greedy Americans, not in London at Abbey Road by the band.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jan 14, 2010 1:56:01 GMT -5
And it was sometimes so much superior to what the Beatles intended. I mean, starting off the album with I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND, right into I SAW HER STANDING THERE, and then THIS BOY (no single B-side required there). Of course if you start off the album with one of their hit singles it will appear to be superior. But The Beatles made a point of keeping singles off the UK albums; a point totally ignored by Capitol records. Just one of the many examples of Brian Epstein not having total control over the band's wishes; in this case, when it came to dictating how the foreign albums were sequenced. So many bad decisions (or no decisions) happened in the early years of the bands fame that resulted in lost revenue, overbookings, disorganized tours, bootlegging of Beatle memorabilia, crammed studio time pushing their creative juices to the limits, etc. & etc. No wonder they burned out after only 7 years of this lifestyle. How many great bands turned out 12 extremely high quality albums (13, if you count the White Album as two albums) on top of numerous separate hit singles in such a short period of time? I was raised on the capitol albums and they were all I knew from 1964 until 1987 when the first CD's came out. At that point I put away my vinyls, and embraced the UK versions on the CD's. And I never looked back; regarding the sequence order on the CD's, that is what The Beatles wanted, and I finally was hearing the tracks in the "proper" order. Now, after 23 years, I cannot recall the order of the Capitol albums without referring to my vinyl covers, nor do I desire to hear them in that order. Am I "Un-American" for forsaking the Capitol sequences (or mixes for that matter) and accepting the UK versions? I don't think so as the Capitol versions were decided in an office in Los Angeles by greedy Americans, not in London at Abbey Road by the band. Hey, to each his own. I hope no one misinterpreted what I said about the Capitol versions as being critical of someone who listened to the UKs or remasters. I listen to the remasters more than the Capitol. But the Capitol were a big part of my life for a long time. Sorry, but I'm too old to let them go.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 14, 2010 6:40:46 GMT -5
Of course if you start off the album with one of their hit singles it will appear to be superior. But The Beatles made a point of keeping singles off the UK albums; a point totally ignored by Capitol records. But I didn't say it was "only" because I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND was opening the album; I also mentioned the sequencing of I SAW HER STANDING THERE and THIS BOY (and the entire rest of the record, actually). But in general, yes, I believe in having the hit singles on albums. Of course I realize that the Beatles made a specific point not to have the singles on the albums - but that's my point; whether they intended it or not, I don't always think that made for the strongest album, and the U.S. RUBBER SOUL is a perfect example of an album that - IMO and some others' - is superior to its UK counterpart. Other examples are: -- the U.S. MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR compilation, which is better than toting around the UK EP and a couple of UK singles. -- BEATLES '65 which is a stronger album than, say, BEATLES FOR SALE and also includes the I FEEL FINE/SHE'S A WOMAN single. I love the way I'LL BE BACK, one of my favorite Beatles songs, is placed in there too. I was also raised on the Capitol albums, say from the 1960s to around 1976. Unlike you though, I sought out the original UK sequenced vinyl LPs when I was a teenager around 1977, and then THAT'S what I listened to in the later 70s and 80s -- the "proper" way. So by the time the 1987 CDs were issued, I was already used to the proper UK sequence for 10 years. Today, I still play the new 2009 UK Remasters most of the time, but with the issue of the CAPITOL ALBUMS SERIES on CD a few years ago, that brought me back and I remembered just how great some of the Beatles' Capitol albums were (despite whether the Fabs themselves intended it or not). Albums like MEET THE BEATLES, THE SECOND ALBUM, BEATLES 65, SOMETHING NEW and RUBBER SOUL (US) are still good albums. That doesn't change that they're still good albums. You're letting the semantics get in the way of whether they're well-sequenced records or not, regardless of who thought them up. No, you're not "Anti-American" for preferring the UK albums; I preferred the UK albums from the 1977 til around 2004, when the CAPITOL CDs were issued. Even now, at least 75% of the time, I'll reach for the new UK Remasters Series when I want to hear The Beatles. But I have grown to love the Capitols as well. Some of it is nostalgia, but the bottom line is that they're good albums with the reverb in some early instances adding punch to a lot of flat songs (IMO). And I realize I'm alone here pretty much, but these days when I want to hear HELP! I will reach for the Capitol American HELP! soundtrack CD, as I am a movie fan as well as a music fan, and I appreciate the film score along with the Beatles songs. By contrast, Side 2 of the UK HELP! album is underwhelming after Side 1. And too bad the Beatles themselves didn't save IT'S ONLY LOVE and I'VE JUST SEEN A FACE for their later RUBBER SOUL album; they fit much better there! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 14, 2010 6:43:44 GMT -5
And how does liking them make anyone conservative? Even if someone did reject the UK mixes or the remasters in favor of the Capitol mixes, conservative has nothing to do with it. The Capitol mixes were, at one time, the predominent mixes of the Beatles available in the U.S. They still have their place. And, if you think about it, it is perhaps a much MORE "conservative" attitude if someone was weaned on the UK albums and is unable to let go and try enjoying the U.S. albums! So who then are the people who are clinging to what they first heard and are unable to try anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Beatle Bob on Jan 14, 2010 8:30:43 GMT -5
Joe you really don't have to defend yourself. These albums stand on their own. Like you, I was brought up on them and find them overall preferable to the UK sequencing and "sound". Being they were and are official releases, they are legitimate representations of the Beatles cannon of LPs that otherwise would get lost to history if we attempt to diswon the legitimacy of these Capitol albums. Enjoy! Regards, Beatle Bob
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 14, 2010 13:07:44 GMT -5
But in general, yes, I believe in having the hit singles on albums. Of course I realize that the Beatles made a specific point not to have the singles on the albums - but that's my point; whether they intended it or not, I don't always think that made for the strongest album, and the U.S. RUBBER SOUL is a perfect example of an album that - IMO and some others' - is superior to its UK counterpart. Today, I still play the new 2009 UK Remasters most of the time, but with the issue of the CAPITOL ALBUMS SERIES on CD a few years ago, that brought me back and I remembered just how great some of the Beatles' Capitol albums were (despite whether the Fabs themselves intended it or not). Albums like MEET THE BEATLES, THE SECOND ALBUM, BEATLES 65, SOMETHING NEW and RUBBER SOUL (US) are still good albums. That doesn't change that they're still good albums. You're letting the semantics get in the way of whether they're well-sequenced records or not, regardless of who thought them up. Even now, at least 75% of the time, I'll reach for the new UK Remasters Series when I want to hear The Beatles. But I have grown to love the Capitols as well. Some of it is nostalgia, but the bottom line is that they're good albums with the reverb in some early instances adding punch to a lot of flat songs (IMO). I agree with you the Capitol albums are good albums. I just didn't know the band was not responsible for the sequencing on them when I was growing up on them in the 60's. It wasn't until I heard John in an interview (I think in 1974?) say that the band took a lot of time deciding themselves on the sequencing of their albums, and he did not understand why Capitol just ignored that, as well as ignoring the specific chosen tracks that appeared on the UK versions, and instead they put tracks haphazardly on the American albums and gave them different titles, different cover photos, basically doing whatever they wanted, and ignoring the wishes of the band. So I adopted the '87 CD's as the way the band wanted me to hear the songs. Nowadays, I have taken the new remasters and structured them (on my ipod and CD-R's) in my own order based on when each song was first presented to the other members of the band and first recorded in the studio, as that is the way I like to hear them. That order mixes the singles within the albums as well. So I guess I am just as bad as the Capitol execs in the 60's who made up their own versions. The music was so damn good, you could have a chimpanzee decide what order to put the songs within each albums recording period and it would still sound fine.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jan 14, 2010 13:18:52 GMT -5
In the dicussion on the Capitol albums which included the American 'Rubber Soul', it came to mind that during the 1976 Wings Over America tour, Paul included 'I've Just Seen A Face' as part of the acoustic set in the show. The song is not on the British 'Rubber Soul' album but on the flip side of the British 'Help!' album, thus being somewhat slightly obscure. On the American version of 'RB', 'Face' was the album opener. I think Paul realized this and knew the American fans would recognize the song immediately, and he was right. When I saw Wings at Madison Square Garden in 1976 and they started playing 'IJSF' the place exploded. You can hear this moment as well on the 'Wings Over America' album and the 'Rockshow' film.
As much as the Beatles may have disliked that Capitol 'butchered' their records, the albums were important in expanding their American audience.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jan 14, 2010 14:56:24 GMT -5
And, if you think about it, it is perhaps a much MORE "conservative" attitude if someone was weaned on the UK albums and is unable to let go and try enjoying the U.S. albums! So who then are the people who are clinging to what they first heard and are unable to try anything else? A story: in the early 80s, here in Australia, record shops had a huge push on imported Japanese-pressed LP records (many bands, not just the Fabs). Very popular were Beatles albums - UK versions. Almost from the start the US versions had sold badly. A couple of friends had bought some of these US albums, and a large group of us heard them. Two major points emerged: (1) the sound on some of the songs on early US albums was just dreadful - it was then we found out about the fiddling that had been done. (2) the US disregard for the integrity of the artists' work was amazing. The chopping up of albums, and the shortening of LPs (LONG-players!) was typical of the "sharp business decision". And just to be really clear, though I've said it before: enjoy the songs as you heard them on your mother's knee, by all means. But pardon me while I respect the artists' choices and integrity!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jan 14, 2010 15:46:59 GMT -5
And, if you think about it, it is perhaps a much MORE "conservative" attitude if someone was weaned on the UK albums and is unable to let go and try enjoying the U.S. albums! So who then are the people who are clinging to what they first heard and are unable to try anything else? A story: in the early 80s, here in Australia, record shops had a huge push on imported Japanese-pressed LP records (many bands, not just the Fabs). Very popular were Beatles albums - UK versions. Almost from the start the US versions had sold badly. A couple of friends had bought some of these US albums, and a large group of us heard them. Two major points emerged: (1) the sound on some of the songs on early US albums was just dreadful - it was then we found out about the fiddling that had been done. (2) the US disregard for the integrity of the artists' work was amazing. The chopping up of albums, and the shortening of LPs (LONG-players!) was typical of the "sharp business decision". And just to be really clear, though I've said it before: enjoy the songs as you heard them on your mother's knee, by all means. But pardon me while I respect the artists' choices and integrity! U.S. record stores had them, too. They were expensive, but they generally had something different -- pictures, posters, UBIs (those strips around the albums) or something. They also had better sound. The U.S. fiddling with Beatle albums is no secret. (Read Bruce Spizer if you really want to know.) But it's hard to forget something completely that's been that integral a part of your life. It's not a personal failing. I've heard another Brit I know well also heavily criticize the American release of the Capitol albums. This must be a foreign thing, then. I don't think Americans care what you think. They just know what they want to hear. They listen to the UK, the remasters and the Capitols. Big deal. It's all the Beatles. Do you think Ringo cares? Do you think Paul cares? They're probably the least likely, especially while it's making them money. But I think John and George would, at this stage, take a softer stance because of the fact it was part of pop culture in America for many years.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jan 14, 2010 15:55:40 GMT -5
But, it's NOT "all the Beatles". It's Dexter, and other suits, fiddling and diddling! And is THAT a justification for the fiddling and diddling? It makes money!!? A softer stance? Why would the fact that it was part of "pop culture" in America matter to them?
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jan 14, 2010 15:59:02 GMT -5
This must be a foreign thing, then. I don't think Americans care what you think. They just know what they want to hear. "Foreign"? Careful. Remember that Americans are foreigners to the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jan 14, 2010 17:53:58 GMT -5
In the dicussion on the Capitol albums which included the American 'Rubber Soul', it came to mind that during the 1976 Wings Over America tour, Paul included 'I've Just Seen A Face' as part of the acoustic set in the show. The song is not on the British 'Rubber Soul' album but on the flip side of the British 'Help!' album, thus being somewhat slightly obscure. On the American version of 'RB', 'Face' was the album opener. I think Paul realized this and knew the American fans would recognize the song immediately, and he was right. When I saw Wings at Madison Square Garden in 1976 and they started playing 'IJSF' the place exploded. You can hear this moment as well on the 'Wings Over America' album and the 'Rockshow' film. As much as the Beatles may have disliked that Capitol 'butchered' their records, the albums were important in expanding their American audience. Although Paul changed the arrangement on IJSAF considerably on WOA, speeding up the tempo and making it more "Hee Haw." I actually prefer the faster WOA version over the staid Help! version. I grew up on the American Beatles' albums but I shed no tears when in 1987 the whole world went to the UK versions. A great point J. McCabe made(but lost in the subsequent tussle here) was that Dave Dexter was no friend of The Beatles and pretty much despised them. I don't want a guy like that messing with our Beatles. Steve Marinucci ran an interview with old Dex before he died I seem to recall and he was old school music industry who hated everything about the Beatles. He seemed like one of the fat cats who loved to rip off artists. He took their money but cared nothing of the artists' well-being. Well, we have most of the U.S. albums on disc to play. I sure hope the U.S. Revolver album remains banished to "album hell." It sucked, being Lennon-lite.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jan 14, 2010 19:16:20 GMT -5
Because there is a likelihood they MIGHT have mellowed in some respects as they got older. Honestly, I know I'm going out on a limb. Paul has mellowed ... but he's always been a p.r. type anyway. Ringo knows he has a good thing going. John and George might have gone with that, too. Hard to say, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2010 6:56:52 GMT -5
I grew up on the American Beatles' albums but I shed no tears when in 1987 the whole world went to the UK versions. Neither did I -- at that time. Now I know better, in some cases. I didn't miss that point, but it's a moot one; because regardless of Dexter's intentions, the end result is something many of us enjoy! Oh, even us lovers of the U.S. albums would agree with you against the light-weight REVOLVER. But that's, what, like one album? Oh, maybe HELP! would make it 2 (though not for me, it wouldn't! ).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2010 7:04:01 GMT -5
It wasn't until I heard John in an interview (I think in 1974?) say that the band took a lot of time deciding themselves on the sequencing of their albums, and he did not understand why Capitol just ignored that, as well as ignoring the specific chosen tracks that appeared on the UK versions, and instead they put tracks haphazardly on the American albums and gave them different titles, different cover photos, basically doing whatever they wanted, and ignoring the wishes of the band. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in America wasn't it sometimes a matter of which songs Capitol got hold of at the time? That they had to sometimes work with what they had to choose from? Again, opinions will vary about the sound quality of the U.S. albums ... but I'd have to say that record promoters knew what they were doing when it came to sequencing and putting the hit singles on the LPs. They knew how to sell records, to make an appealing package. And once again, getting past the conservative viewpoint of "not issuing the sequenced tracks as The Beatles themselves intended!!!", these Capitol albums as sequenced are just good LPs.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2010 7:17:14 GMT -5
U.S. record stores had them, too. They were expensive, but they generally had something different -- pictures, posters, UBIs (those strips around the albums) or something. They also had better sound. Absolutely, Steve! And as McCrab continually ignores no matter how often I say it, I spent my teen years (and a lotta money!) buying these very expensive imports - and I was indeed blown away by the sound improvement! It was like really hearing these songs the right way for the first time. I used to walk around and tell other U.S. fans: "ummm... excuse me, but there is no such album as MEET THE BEATLES...." It was only over the past few years now that I've realized how GOOD the U.S. Capitol releases actually were as their own entity, and I can now enjoy the music both ways. And that's what you call being more liberal when it comes to appreciating all the music. And like it or not, sometimes The Beatles choices weren't as good as Capitol's. I know that sounds like heresy, but it is ridiculous having to accumulate a bunch of extra 45s and EPs on the side, when it's so much better to have them included as part of the albums. Now, I do take into account that this was merely a difference in the way things were handled in the UK versus the US. And in 2010 I still think it's so much better to hear the singles as part of whole concise albums, instead of having to rely on a compilation like PAST MASTERS, which really throws everything together randomly and with no style. Songs like SLOW DOWN and MATCHBOX fit so much better on side one of the Captiol "SOMETHING NEW". Songs like I CALL YOUR NAME and LONG TALL SALLY fit so much better on THE BEATLES' SECOND ALBUM. I mean, c'mon -- is LONG TALL SALLY a terrific song to open up Side 2 of an album, or what? Too bad the Beatles themselves hadn't thought of that... they should have!
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jan 15, 2010 7:30:08 GMT -5
And in 2010 I still think it's so much better to hear the singles as part of whole concise albums, instead of having to rely on a compilation like PAST MASTERS, which really throws everything together randomly and with no style. Just a minor correction, Joe. The songs on Past Masters were compiled chronologically in the order of the songs' release, not randomly. Please don't cane me, Sir.
|
|
|
Post by glenn1966 on Jan 15, 2010 15:54:04 GMT -5
I grew up in the USA with the Capitol versions, but after more than two decades listening to the Parlophone versions, I can't go back to the Capitol versions without feeling cheated on quantity. Yet, I still found myself wanting to listen to the Dexterized tracks.
That's what prompted me to compile and burn a disc that, for me, serves as
1) A Capitol Albums highlights disc
2) Sums up the "Beatlemania" portion of the band's career much better than disc 1 of the Red Album.
Now, I don't have to keep breaking the box sets open to listen to what I like, then fussing with the sleeves to get them back in that stupid box. I like the booklets, though.
If I hadn't read the Dave Marsh book, it wouldn't have occurred to me that Dexter hated the Beatles.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jan 15, 2010 16:05:25 GMT -5
Just like to let everyone know that Steve M deleted a post of mine here. It was not rude, but it was barbed.
If you want a vibrant forum, Steve, don't delete posts. Let people get on with it. Otherwise, you will lose good posters - as you have done already.
If you have any integrity, you'll leave THIS post here. If it goes, I know what sort of a man YOU are.
PS, added later: Steve also failed to notify me of the reasons for the deletion.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jan 15, 2010 16:33:08 GMT -5
Just like to let everyone know that Steve M deleted a post of mine here. It was not rude, but it was barbed. If you want a vibrant forum, Steve, don't delete posts. Let people get on with it. Otherwise, you will lose good posters - as you have done already. If you have any integrity, you'll leave THIS post here. If it goes, I know what sort of a man YOU are. PS, added later: Steve also failed to notify me of the reasons for the deletion. Yes, I did delete it. It took unnecessary shots at two posters and was uncalled for. And I've deleted posts before and not informed posters. It's at my discretion as administrator. And you're lucky I only deleted the post. Don't go taking shots like that at posters again.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jan 15, 2010 16:35:08 GMT -5
It wasn't until I heard John in an interview (I think in 1974?) say that the band took a lot of time deciding themselves on the sequencing of their albums, and he did not understand why Capitol just ignored that, as well as ignoring the specific chosen tracks that appeared on the UK versions, and instead they put tracks haphazardly on the American albums and gave them different titles, different cover photos, basically doing whatever they wanted, and ignoring the wishes of the band. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in America wasn't it sometimes a matter of which songs Capitol got hold of at the time? That they had to sometimes work with what they had to choose from? Again, opinions will vary about the sound quality of the U.S. albums ... but I'd have to say that record promoters knew what they were doing when it came to sequencing and putting the hit singles on the LPs. They knew how to sell records, to make an appealing package. And once again, getting past the conservative viewpoint of "not issuing the sequenced tracks as The Beatles themselves intended!!!", these Capitol albums as sequenced are just good LPs.What they did do was edit them down and make them shorter. Made it a bit easier to not lose your concentration. I'm not sure I'd compliment them for that, but you could, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2010 17:23:41 GMT -5
Just like to let everyone know that Steve M deleted a post of mine here. It was not rude, but it was barbed. If you want a vibrant forum, Steve, don't delete posts. Let people get on with it. Otherwise, you will lose good posters - as you have done already. If you have any integrity, you'll leave THIS post here. If it goes, I know what sort of a man YOU are. PS, added later: Steve also failed to notify me of the reasons for the deletion. Yes, I did delete it. It took unnecessary shots at two posters and was uncalled for. And I've deleted posts before and not informed posters. It's at my discretion as administrator. And you're lucky I only deleted the post. Don't go taking shots like that at posters again. I was at work; I'm sorry I missed it. But in all fairness to Steve (and now to JSD)... they show a LOT of tolerance here as moderators, believe you me. I belong to several other message boards, and the administrators here are most fair.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2010 17:31:36 GMT -5
And in 2010 I still think it's so much better to hear the singles as part of whole concise albums, instead of having to rely on a compilation like PAST MASTERS, which really throws everything together randomly and with no style. Just a minor correction, Joe. The songs on Past Masters were compiled chronologically in the order of the songs' release, not ramdomly. Oh, I know, Fred... thus, I guess the word "randomly" was not the best one to get across what I meant. I'm saying, just having all those songs there, back to back, with no sequencing style as opposed to what one would do when sequencing albums. (Ironically, re-organizing them so they flowed better might at least have been somewhat more artistic!). The PAST MASTERS discs are like a dumping ground for all those non-album songs.* *And let me ask you folks who want everything "as The Beatles intended" ... did they intend for all those singles and EPs to be strewn together, encompassing various years of their work, as they exist on PM now? No, if you want to get technical.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2010 17:37:37 GMT -5
If I hadn't read the Dave Marsh book, it wouldn't have occurred to me that Dexter hated the Beatles. Same here, Glenn. That was the first I'd ever heard about it. I can't imagine someone trying to sell records and then deliberately trying to "sabotage" them!
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jan 15, 2010 18:09:51 GMT -5
I belong to several other message boards, and the administrators here are most fair. JSD certainly is. Steve is far too inconsistent to be a good moderator. (For example, he did not delete this but deleted my little barbed, but not personally offensive, post criticizing Freddie.) So it goes!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jan 15, 2010 18:28:22 GMT -5
I belong to several other message boards, and the administrators here are most fair. JSD certainly is. Steve is far too inconsistent to be a good moderator. (For example, he did not delete this but deleted my little barbed, but not personally offensive, post criticizing Freddie.) So it goes! I will look back in this thread and possibly make other deletions I need to. And your post was taken out because it was a full out shot at Fred and JoeK. That doesn't fly. I don't want to hear more of how you feel about it or me on this. That subject is closed. Let's move on.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jan 15, 2010 19:13:04 GMT -5
And your post was taken out because it was a full out shot at Fred and JoeK. It most certainly was not. It was a statement that Fred was nit-picking when he said "Just a minor correction, Joe. The songs on Past Masters were compiled chronologically in the order of the songs' release, not ramdomly." I expressed surprise that Fred would make this remark as the two are almost "twins" in the way they back each other up, and reinforce each others' comments. Steve, you cannot delete a post and then tell people what it said, in your opinion. Let the original stand, and comment on it, or say nothing.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jan 15, 2010 20:00:28 GMT -5
Just a minor correction, Joe. The songs on Past Masters were compiled chronologically in the order of the songs' release, not ramdomly. Oh, I know, Fred... thus, I guess the word "randomly" was not the best one to get across what I meant. I'm saying, just having all those songs there, back to back, with no sequencing style as opposed to what one would do when sequencing albums. (Ironically, re-organizing them so they flowed better might at least have been somewhat more artistic!). The PAST MASTERS discs are like a dumping ground for all those non-album songs.* *And let me ask you folks who want everything "as The Beatles intended" ... did they intend for all those singles and EPs to be strewn together, encompassing various years of their work, as they exist on PM now? No, if you want to get technical. The PM's first came out in 1987, and so I would assume Paul, George, & Ringo agreed to the format? Personally, I never listen to the PM's alone. I just used them (the new remasters) to pull and insert each single in it's chronological order amoung the album tracks on my ipod and CD-R's I now have of the entire catalogue.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jan 15, 2010 20:07:01 GMT -5
The PM's first came out in 1987, and so I would assume Paul, George, & Ringo agreed to the format? Oh, yes, I'd thought of that too (though John didn't have a voice). But I wonder how far we can take that? I really did not like what was done with the LOVE album, and I thought it was wrong to change the songs and make montages and medleys like that, but obviously the surviving Beatles okayed it and loved it.
|
|