|
Post by superhans on Nov 18, 2008 5:35:24 GMT -5
I've been trying to work this one out for years! It's like some sort of obscure Chinese puzzle. Y'see my fantasy version of 'Sergeant Pepper' would definitely have included 'Penny Lane' and 'Strawberry Fields'. Definitely. However, as George Martin explained, it was Beatle policy not to put singles on albums, because it was seen as 'conning the public'. Fair enough... ...in which case, how come 'Eleanor Rigby' / 'YS' appeared on 'Revolver'?? Ah, maybe it's because they the single was released simultaneously with the album, and not some months previously, so that's OK. Good. No, but - in that case, what's 'Ticket to Ride' doing on 'Help!' And - even worse - I think there are other examples in addition to these that are just as baffling! Can anyone put me out of my misery and explain if there was a consistent strategy / method behind all of this? I suppose it matters because it substantially shaped the track-listing of some of the Beatles greatest works (not least 'Pepper'). In a nutshell, what were they playing at? SuperHans.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Nov 18, 2008 14:07:34 GMT -5
You have to wonder. Songs like Here, There and Everywhere, Good Day Sunshine, Lucy in the Sky, Back in the USSR, etc... how would they have fared as singles, whether they were album cuts or not?
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 18, 2008 14:21:45 GMT -5
I've been trying to work this one out for years! It's like some sort of obscure Chinese puzzle. Y'see my fantasy version of 'Sergeant Pepper' would definitely have included 'Penny Lane' and 'Strawberry Fields'. Definitely. However, as George Martin explained, it was Beatle policy not to put singles on albums, because it was seen as 'conning the public'. Fair enough... ...in which case, how come 'Eleanor Rigby' / 'YS' appeared on 'Revolver'?? Ah, maybe it's because they the single was released simultaneously with the album, and not some months previously, so that's OK. Good. No, but - in that case, what's 'Ticket to Ride' doing on 'Help!' And - even worse - I think there are other examples in addition to these that are just as baffling! Can anyone put me out of my misery and explain if there was a consistent strategy / method behind all of this? I suppose it matters because it substantially shaped the track-listing of some of the Beatles greatest works (not least 'Pepper'). In a nutshell, what were they playing at? SuperHans. Do you think EMI might be a factor here?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Nov 18, 2008 15:45:39 GMT -5
You have to wonder. Songs like Here, There and Everywhere, Good Day Sunshine, Lucy in the Sky, Back in the USSR, etc... how would they have fared as singles, whether they were album cuts or not? Obviously, we all have our own definitions of what constitutes a great anything. I've always believed that a great song was not necessarily a great single, and a great single was not always a great song. There have been singles that got to number one, but not because they were great songs. "Sugar Sugar" great single. Good song? Hmmm? The magic is when they are one in the same. "Califorinia Girls" is both, in my opinon. I also believe that the Beatles early singles were both, but their later singles were great songs, but not so great singles - even though they may have sold well. For me, a great single is short, peppy, fun, and tuneful - if it can make you dance, the better. C'mon "Hey Jude" is not a party pick-me-upper.
|
|
|
Post by Beatle Bob on Nov 18, 2008 15:51:00 GMT -5
I think Paul has stated many times that they never wanted singles on the albums as they wanted the fans to get value for their money when purchasing albums--or something to that effect? Regards, Beatle Bob
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 19, 2008 3:19:55 GMT -5
Do you think EMI might be a factor here?Of course....but I'm sure the Beatles had a fairly big say - especially after, say, 1966. Much of the dissent over whether 'Revolution' should be put out as a single or not came from 'within the ranks'. ...and if EMI did have a controlling interest much of the time, did they have a clear idea what the policy was re singles on albums?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 19, 2008 4:04:11 GMT -5
I think the policy was more to put singles on albums where appropriate, but not to pull them off albums. The only single which was actually pulled off an album was Something/Come Together.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 19, 2008 4:54:06 GMT -5
I think the policy was more to put singles on albums where appropriate, but not to pull them off albums. The only single which was actually pulled off an album was Something/Come Together. ...so why was putting SFF/PL out as a single four months before 'Pepper'seen by the band as having to virtually start the album all over again? -- i.e. they knew straight away that neither song could be included on the new album.
|
|
|
Post by mrjinks on Nov 19, 2008 18:44:21 GMT -5
I think the whole notion of there being a "policy" regarding this is somewhat fallacious. In later years, I think Martin, McCartney, etc. have liked to refer to a "policy" where one didn't really exist. The examples cited by the original poster show a distinct lack of consistency.
My own personal theory is that it depended on how much material was recorded and available to be released at the time of any given album's release. On some occasions (With The Beatles, Beatles for Sale, Rubber Soul) they had enough tracks to fill an album and release a concurrent single. On other occasions (Hard Day's Night, Help, Revolver, Abbey Road, Let it Be), they did not.
It just seems like expedience & common sense dictated what got released. When Revolver popped up, they had 14 new cuts. All but one of their previous discs had 14. So they could either issue 12 on LP with 2 leftover for a non-lp single, or issue all 14 on the disc. Or not issue a single at the album's release - but they'd never done that before. So they mirrored the Hard Day's Night/Help blueprint...
Regardless of what one thinks about them, its tough to argue that they weren't a "forward-thinking" band. I think they were all so pleased with Pepper that the idea of tacking on two songs (SFF, PL) that were practically six months old at the time - even if George Martin would've campaigned for that - would have been unacceptable to them. And I suspect they were so proud of the album as a whole (PM: "it was like writing your novel") that they didn't want to diminish it by pulling a single from it.
A similar situation arises with the White album. The discs were already quite long (22-23 min/side). Adding the (sort of) contemporary single Hey Jude/Revolution would have made it extremely long - and they wouldn't really have three Revolution cuts on the same album, would they? Besides, this was the much-awaited followup to the already legendary Pepper. Let it stand on its own merits, as that album did, but this time as a monumental double album, with no singles (even Blonde on Blonde couldn't say that).
I'm not a first generation fan, but I've heard many of them talk about how expensive the White Album was when it came out. Couldn't it be argued that the band saw a better shot at making money by NOT releasing a single from an album? If you want Day In the Life, or Back in the USSR, you're going to have to buy the whole disc, rather than some relatively inexpensive 2-song single...
When Abbey Road came out, they "only" had another 47 or so min of music, and the issues were basically the same as Revolver - are they gonna pull "old" songs like Old Brown Shoe & Ballad of J&Y just so they can have a stand-alone single (Something/Come Together)? I don't think so...
You bring up a GREAT question. I think people have accepted the existence of this so-called "policy" for years without question, when the data just doesn't seem to support it, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 19, 2008 19:41:46 GMT -5
Whatever the policy on singles, I love to engage in historical revisionism and add the singles to the albums from the same sessions. I don't just burn the singles to the end of the album but integrate each song where I think it fits best.
Thus I mix "I Feel Fine" and "She's A Woman" into the Beatles For Sale album with spectacular results. Just go down the line and the results are breathtaking.
Revolver is near perfect but add "Rain" and "Paperback Writer" and it becomes divine.
Hindsight is 20/20 but I regret that most of the British singles were kept off the albums. It worked when 45's were viable as a sales' item but now it leaves us with incomplete albums, albeit albums that are still excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 20, 2008 6:24:31 GMT -5
Just another reason why I'm returning to the U.S. Capitol albums more and more these days.
|
|
ChuckE
Very Clean
AlexE & RachelE, May '08
Posts: 77
|
Post by ChuckE on Nov 20, 2008 13:07:09 GMT -5
I think "Ticket to Ride" had to be on Help! (the soundtrack album) simply because it was in the movie, and it would've been unthinkable to have a soundtrack album without that song. For the most part, the odd-numbered albums (Please Please Me, A Hard Day's Night, Help! and Revolver) had singles on them, while the even-numbered albums With the Beatles, Beatles for Sale, Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper) did not. Of course, after the first eight, all bets are off depending on how you happen to count the Magical Mystery Tour double-EP set... NP: the Lovin' Spoonful, "You Baby," Anthology
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 20, 2008 16:34:09 GMT -5
I think the whole notion of there being a "policy" regarding this is somewhat fallacious. In later years, I think Martin, McCartney, etc. have liked to refer to a "policy" where one didn't really exist. The examples cited by the original poster show a distinct lack of consistency. My own personal theory is that it depended on how much material was recorded and available to be released at the time of any given album's release. On some occasions (With The Beatles, Beatles for Sale, Rubber Soul) they had enough tracks to fill an album and release a concurrent single. On other occasions (Hard Day's Night, Help, Revolver, Abbey Road, Let it Be), they did not. It just seems like expedience & common sense dictated what got released. When Revolver popped up, they had 14 new cuts. All but one of their previous discs had 14. So they could either issue 12 on LP with 2 leftover for a non-lp single, or issue all 14 on the disc. Or not issue a single at the album's release - but they'd never done that before. So they mirrored the Hard Day's Night/Help blueprint... Regardless of what one thinks about them, its tough to argue that they weren't a "forward-thinking" band. I think they were all so pleased with Pepper that the idea of tacking on two songs (SFF, PL) that were practically six months old at the time - even if George Martin would've campaigned for that - would have been unacceptable to them. And I suspect they were so proud of the album as a whole (PM: "it was like writing your novel") that they didn't want to diminish it by pulling a single from it. A similar situation arises with the White album. The discs were already quite long (22-23 min/side). Adding the (sort of) contemporary single Hey Jude/Revolution would have made it extremely long - and they wouldn't really have three Revolution cuts on the same album, would they? Besides, this was the much-awaited followup to the already legendary Pepper. Let it stand on its own merits, as that album did, but this time as a monumental double album, with no singles (even Blonde on Blonde couldn't say that). I'm not a first generation fan, but I've heard many of them talk about how expensive the White Album was when it came out. Couldn't it be argued that the band saw a better shot at making money by NOT releasing a single from an album? If you want Day In the Life, or Back in the USSR, you're going to have to buy the whole disc, rather than some relatively inexpensive 2-song single... When Abbey Road came out, they "only" had another 47 or so min of music, and the issues were basically the same as Revolver - are they gonna pull "old" songs like Old Brown Shoe & Ballad of J&Y just so they can have a stand-alone single (Something/Come Together)? I don't think so... You bring up a GREAT question. I think people have accepted the existence of this so-called "policy" for years without question, when the data just doesn't seem to support it, IMO. Excellent post, Mr, Jinks! I've only had a couple of minutes to skim through what you've said (will re-read over the weekend with more time) , but the 'expediency' aspect (as opposed to a coherent policy) really rings true. JSD, I like your philosophy about personal revisionism. My fantasy 'Pepper' would be to substitute PL for 'She's leaving Home' and SFF for 'Within You Without You' - a little unfair probably, but what an album that would have been.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 20, 2008 16:55:49 GMT -5
The general UK practice to the late-60s, I think, was not to include the current single on the LP.
The general US practice (where more kids had money in the post-war years to buy LPs as opposed to only singles) was to make a cash-in LP to take advantage of a single (or singles). So, first you had a big hit, then you tried to sell a cheaply thrown-together album that used that familiar hit as its calling card. We need to remember that singles were the forum of pop music in the 60s; I think it wasn't until 1969 that LPs outsold 45s in the United States.
Please Please Me had to have its hit because there was a dearth of material and EMI was trying to cash in before The Beatles faded into obscurity (which George Martin probably expected to happen by late 1963).
With The Beatles = no single.
A Hard Day's Night and Help! had to have the single because it was in the soundtrack.
Beatles For Sale = no single.
Rubber Soul = no single.
Up to this point, I think its clear that The Beatles followed the general UK policy of no singles on the album (the first album being an exception in that it was planned as a cash-in).
Revolver does include both sides of a contemporary single ("Yellow Submarine / Eleanor Rigby"), but the original single at this time was "Paperback Writer / Rain" released on June 10th, 1966, and not included on the album. The album and the "Yellow Submarine" single followed on August 5th. I guess this is the curious one -- I can't say why they included those songs on the album, other than, having already put out the single two months earlier, they simply didn't have enough material for another stand-alone single.
Then, Sgt. Pepper, The White Album, and Abbey Road were released without accompanying singles, as usual. ("Something / Come Together" was released as a single over a month after the album came out and topped the charts, so I think that was just an after-thought.)
So, there you go. The only UK releases that break with the no-single pattern are Please Please Me (which can be accounted for in that The Beatles had no control over it and it was a cash-in) and Revolver. Only Revolver is quite mysterious, but I think, as alluded to earlier in my post and in others', we can attribute it to EMI's need for a single and The Beatles not having enough extra material after having issued "Paperback Writer" just two months earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 21, 2008 6:29:11 GMT -5
A great example of how the Capitol albums were so good is THE BEATLES' SECOND ALBUM (my favorite LP of all time). I mean, here you get the "Long Tall Sally" EP on one album (well, some of it, at least -- "Long Tall Sally" and "I Call Your Name") and you have the excellent single "She Loves You/I'll Get You" included, as well as stray stuff like "Thank You Girl".
|
|
|
Post by alltouttt on Nov 21, 2008 7:53:29 GMT -5
If you want all the singles ever issued by the band in one place ... Just go buy the Past Masters albums vol. 1 & 2
|
|
|
Post by mrjinks on Nov 21, 2008 18:07:24 GMT -5
If you want all the singles ever issued by the band in one place ... Just go buy the Past Masters albums vol. 1 & 2 Don't you consider Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane to be one of their singles???
|
|