|
Post by Panther on Dec 14, 2013 13:20:09 GMT -5
A lot nonsense being spouted on this thread. First, the notion that The Beatles "chose" exactly how to tracklist their British LPs is ridiculous. They may have had the majority say in it by 1967 or 1968, but in the early to mid-60s (the very period when the unique American albums were made) it was likely George Martin who made the decisions about tracklistings in the UK. Therefore, no one tracklisting should be said to be more "real" than another, except in a totally arbitrary sense of what 'real' is. And if your sense of "real" simply means what came first, then the argument still doesn't hold water, because some US versions of albums and US releases of tracks were first released in the US -- before they were issued in the UK. Second, the notion that the UK tracklistings are inherently better is plainly wrong -- the most obvious example is a comparison of With The Beatles to its cousin Meet The Beatles. The latter has a vastly superior tracklisting. Third, I disagree with the apparent consensus that Magical Mystery Tour was a great idea as an LP. It wasn't. It was a weak (by Beatle standards) EP in Britain, and a weak, patchwork LP in America, with tracks that were a year old and totally incongruous with each other. Finally, everyone knows that the Canadian versions of the early LPs were the best:
|
|
|
Post by glenn1966 on Dec 14, 2013 13:58:02 GMT -5
It was released in a hurry and not as accurate as it could have been, but Capitol was so late getting on The Beatles bandwagon, they rushed everything out in those early heady days. They were worried the band might be just a flash in the pan, and wanted to make as much money as fast as they could before they possibly petered out. Maybe that is why they only put 12 tracks on an album; stretch out the songs over as many separate albums as you can to make more money. The Beatles Story didn't sound corny when it came out, because it was all we had at the time. To tell it like it was at the time isn't being snobbish. It was what it was at the time. I'm just saying you had to be there to understand it. Was 1964 technology THAT slow that it took 'til the end of the year for Capitol to put The Beatles' Story together? I'm also blown away by the fact that it took a year and a half from the time the lads first hit the US for the Beatles cartoon to hit the airwaves in '65. In his book on The Beatles' Second Album, Dave Marsh explains that the laws concerning royalties in the two different countries determined why Capitol "butchered" the Beatles albums and why there were 11-12 tracks (royalties paid per track) on US albums vs. 14 tracks (royalties paid per album) on UK albums. Also, typical American albums contained no more than 12 tracks. As a teenager in the early 1980s, I discovered the Beatles and bought all the US vinyl. When the original catalogue was restored in the CD format, I didn't really care that the old titles were no longer available. I was quite happy to hear the albums as they were originally envisioned. But I did keep the vinyl so I could savor the sonic oddities found on them. Second Album, Rubber Soul, and Yesterday...& Today are my favorites.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 14, 2013 17:59:43 GMT -5
A lot nonsense being spouted on this thread. First, the notion that The Beatles "chose" exactly how to tracklist their British LPs is ridiculous. They may have had the majority say in it by 1967 or 1968, but in the early to mid-60s (the very period when the unique American albums were made) it was likely George Martin who made the decisions about tracklistings in the UK. Therefore, no one tracklisting should be said to be more "real" than another, except in a totally arbitrary sense of what 'real' is. And if your sense of "real" simply means what came first, then the argument still doesn't hold water, because some US versions of albums and US releases of tracks were first released in the US -- before they were issued in the UK. Second, the notion that the UK tracklistings are inherently better is plainly wrong -- the most obvious example is a comparison of With The Beatles to its cousin Meet The Beatles. The latter has a vastly superior tracklisting. Third, I disagree with the apparent consensus that Magical Mystery Tour was a great idea as an LP. It wasn't. It was a weak (by Beatle standards) EP in Britain, and a weak, patchwork LP in America, with tracks that were a year old and totally incongruous with each other. Finally, everyone knows that the Canadian versions of the early LPs were the best: Sorry Panther, but John says in an interview that they did have a lot of say in the sequencing of the Parlophone UK albums, when the discussion turned to why the infamous butcher photo was taken. The Beatles were angry at the seemingly careless sequencing that went on with the US Capitol Albums. It's all in a radio interview John did in the States in the 70's. Right around the time that George's Dark Horse label first came out, because that is discussed as well.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 14, 2013 18:03:54 GMT -5
It was released in a hurry and not as accurate as it could have been, but Capitol was so late getting on The Beatles bandwagon, they rushed everything out in those early heady days. They were worried the band might be just a flash in the pan, and wanted to make as much money as fast as they could before they possibly petered out. Maybe that is why they only put 12 tracks on an album; stretch out the songs over as many separate albums as you can to make more money. The Beatles Story didn't sound corny when it came out, because it was all we had at the time. To tell it like it was at the time isn't being snobbish. It was what it was at the time. I'm just saying you had to be there to understand it. Was 1964 technology THAT slow that it took 'til the end of the year for Capitol to put The Beatles' Story together? I'm also blown away by the fact that it took a year and a half from the time the lads first hit the US for the Beatles cartoon to hit the airwaves in '65. In his book on The Beatles' Second Album, Dave Marsh explains that the laws concerning royalties in the two different countries determined why Capitol "butchered" the Beatles albums and why there were 11-12 tracks (royalties paid per track) on US albums vs. 14 tracks (royalties paid per album) on UK albums. Also, typical American albums contained no more than 12 tracks. As a teenager in the early 1980s, I discovered the Beatles and bought all the US vinyl. When the original catalogue was restored in the CD format, I didn't really care that the old titles were no longer available. I was quite happy to hear the albums as they were originally envisioned. But I did keep the vinyl so I could savor the sonic oddities found on them. Second Album, Rubber Soul, and Yesterday...& Today are my favorites. Yup, technology was that slow. Like 50 and 100 watt amps that were the sound system for concerts in those days. Like I said; you had to be there to understand. The Beatles Story also had snippets of the '64 Hollywood Bowl Concert that was never released until the late 70's.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 14, 2013 22:29:21 GMT -5
Sorry Panther, but John says in an interview that they did have a lot of say in the sequencing of the Parlophone UK albums, when the discussion turned to why the infamous butcher photo was taken. The Beatles were angry at the seemingly careless sequencing that went on with the US Capitol Albums. It's all in a radio interview John did in the States in the 70's. Right around the time that George's Dark Horse label first came out, because that is discussed as well. I would be interested to know exactly what he said, if anyone has a link for this interview. Clearly, The Beatles were very aware of Capitol's "butchering" and were not pleased with it (hence, the 'butcher' Yesterday and Today sleeve). Still, I wonder how much control they had over the tracks chosen for LPs and their sequencing, in Britain. I suspect they had next to no control on the first album and probably the second. After that, it likely increased incrementally until The White Album, at which point we know G. Martin disliked the double-album concept but was plainly over-ruled by The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 14, 2013 22:47:59 GMT -5
Sorry Panther, but John says in an interview that they did have a lot of say in the sequencing of the Parlophone UK albums, when the discussion turned to why the infamous butcher photo was taken. The Beatles were angry at the seemingly careless sequencing that went on with the US Capitol Albums. It's all in a radio interview John did in the States in the 70's. Right around the time that George's Dark Horse label first came out, because that is discussed as well. I would be interested to know exactly what he said, if anyone has a link for this interview. Clearly, The Beatles were very aware of Capitol's "butchering" and were not pleased with it (hence, the 'butcher' Yesterday and Today sleeve). Still, I wonder how much control they had over the tracks chosen for LPs and their sequencing, in Britain. I suspect they had next to no control on the first album and probably the second. After that, it likely increased incrementally until The White Album, at which point we know G. Martin disliked the double-album concept but was plainly over-ruled by The Beatles. I agree, Panther -- John claims they cared about the sequencing but I doubt the Beatles had really a lot of concern about the sequencing in the UK. The interview which lowbasso is referring to is the WNEW radio interview from 1974, which is indeed one of the finest two hours ever spent with John Lennon. It's one of my favorite John interviews ever, and is highly recommended. However, what John says is simply (from memory): "We sequenced them how we thought they should sound, and we put a lot of work into the sequencing, too". It's pretty basic and generic, and the discussion starts when the DJ shows John a copy of THE BEATLES' SECOND ALBUM, and then they discuss YESTERDAY...AND TODAY and the butcher cover. John says they used to ask why they couldn't put 14 tracks out in America, and that "we almost got to not care about what happened with the albums in America, until we started coming over more and noticed they'd have stuff like mumbling on some of the tracks". (I'm paraphrasing here). John discussed how he didn't like what they did to the Stereo mixes with the 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 compilations, saying that "the fast version of REVOLUTION was destroyed -- it was a heavy record and they made it into a piece of ice cream".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 14, 2013 22:55:38 GMT -5
Meet the Beatles stronger than Please Please Me, that sounds like a compilation album, designed to be stronger than the official release, to cater for a fickle market. But so what? There is no debate that MEET THE BEATLES was a hugely successful LP, a classic -- and one of the finest albums of all time, which influenced millions of American pop music fans. I think it just gets nitpicky with semantics: "Well, but -- The Beatles did not intend their debut album to be this". So do I. And that's really what it's about, isn't it? Enjoying a collection of songs? The HEY JUDE album is a nice assortment of tracks not previously contained on one album (though the early tracks don't fit as well as the 1966 - 1969 songs do).
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 14, 2013 23:01:32 GMT -5
Third, I disagree with the apparent consensus that Magical Mystery Tour was a great idea as an LP. It wasn't. It was a weak (by Beatle standards) EP in Britain, and a weak, patchwork LP in America, with tracks that were a year old and totally incongruous with each other. This is an interesting opinion (and as you say, it differs from the apparent consensus). I do not agree that the original EP was weak by Beatle standards... and I agree even less that "the album was a weak patchwork with tracks a year old and totally incongruous with each other". At the time of release of the American MMT album, nobody knew or cared that some of the songs were older. When you get right down to it, ALL of these songs were released in the year 1967 -- all in the same year -- and I think they all sound psychedelic and very much in the spirit of "the Summer Of Love" in style and presentation. If nobody informed me of these release dates as singles and EPs, I would have no trouble believing they were all recorded at the same sessions for the full LP .
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 14, 2013 23:07:56 GMT -5
Yup, technology was that slow. Like 50 and 100 watt amps that were the sound system for concerts in those days. Like I said; you had to be there to understand. The Beatles Story also had snippets of the '64 Hollywood Bowl Concert that was never released until the late 70's. No, you didn't need to have been there to understand. As I said in my response, I completely can understand how THE BEATLES' STORY was interesting and informative at the time it was released in the early '60s. But as should be acknowledged, listening to this album next year in 2014 is now largely a complete waste of one's time, by today's advancements in Beatle History.
|
|
|
Post by glenn1966 on Dec 15, 2013 8:24:59 GMT -5
But so what? There is no debate that MEET THE BEATLES was a hugely successful LP, a classic -- and one of the finest albums of all time, which influenced millions of American pop music fans. I think it just gets nitpicky with semantics: "Well, but -- The Beatles did not intend their debut album to be this". This leads me to speculate what a Meet The Beatles album would have been like if Vee Jay's Introducing The Beatles had not been in the picture. Would Meet the Beatles have been a combination of the first 2 British albums?
|
|
|
Post by glenn1966 on Dec 15, 2013 8:36:24 GMT -5
Yup, technology was that slow. Like 50 and 100 watt amps that were the sound system for concerts in those days. Like I said; you had to be there to understand. The Beatles Story also had snippets of the '64 Hollywood Bowl Concert that was never released until the late 70's. No, you didn't need to have been there to understand. As I said in my response, I completely can understand how THE BEATLES' STORY was interesting and informative at the time it was released in the early '60s. But as should be acknowledged, listening to this album next year in 2014 is now largely a complete waste of one's time, by today's advancements in Beatle History. After listening to The Beatles' Story for the first time (sometime in the 1980s), I thought the blurb on the back of the album should have read "It's like spending a very special evening in the company of three Los Angeles DJs themselves!". I was very disappointed. Last night, I brought out my cassette dubbed copy and gave it a spin. It was a real hoot.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Dec 15, 2013 16:02:17 GMT -5
The 13 in this set are: “Meet the Beatles,” “The Beatles’ Second Album,” “A Hard Day’s Night,” “Something New,” “The Beatles’ Story,” “Beatles ’65,” “The Early Beatles,” “Beatles VI,” “Help!,” “Rubber Soul,” “Yesterday… And Today,” “Revolver” and “Hey Jude.” So, you'd need the last three, plus "A Hard Day's Night" and "The Beatles Story." And the last one isn't going to have an individual release--but you can live a long and happy life without it... I bought both the CAPITOL ALBUMS box set--got each of them for less than $35--but of the five I don't have, the only ones I'd consider buying would be YESTERDAY AND TODAY and HEY JUDE. I don't care about the incidental music on A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, and a truncated REVOLVER holds no appeal to me. HEY JUDE was my first Beatles album, and I have fond memories of it. I've never owned YESTERDAY AND TODAY in any format. Yeah, I can make my own copies from existing albums, and may just do that, but if the price is $10.00 or less, I might spring for them instead of doing it myself. And I may not... JcS Hey Jude was my first Beatles album as well!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Dec 15, 2013 16:52:36 GMT -5
Whether the US versions of albums were better than the UK versions in their sequencing or not is all a matter of opinion and probably influenced by what you were brought up on. The Beatles obviously felt that the original UK release (with the exception of MMT which was already a US album) were the definitive versions. I seem to remember hearing/reading somewhere how they spent an all nighter sequencing the White Album. Another rule they would often follow is to alternate John and Paul tracks and open and close each side with what they saw as the stronger tracks of an album. So it's still a mystery to me why "Don't Let Me Down" was never included on the original "Let it Be". This is all actually probably a good topic for another thread on here to be honest. However spare a thought for us British kids of the 1970s just realising Paul McCartney had been in another band before Wings. For years I was brought listening to Revolver on Cassette with the following track listing: A Side 1. Good Day Sunshine [B1] 2. And Your Bird Can Sing [B2] 3. Doctor Robert [B4] 4. Want To Tell You* [B5] 5. Taxman [A1] 6. I'm Only Sleeping [A3] 7. Yellow Submarine [A6] B Side 1. Eleanor Rigby [A2] 2. Here, There And Everywhere [A5] 3. For No One [B3] 4. Got To Get You Into My Life [B6] 5. Love You Too [A4] 6. She Said She Said [A7] 7. Tomorrow Never Knows [B7] I was rather oblivious until the 1980s when the CD release came out and seemed to have an odd sequence. Anyway this was not the only album to be re-sequenced on cassette. "Here Comes the Sun" was the opener on Abbey Road More here homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/BtleCas3.html
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 15, 2013 21:03:08 GMT -5
I would be interested to know exactly what he said, if anyone has a link for this interview. Clearly, The Beatles were very aware of Capitol's "butchering" and were not pleased with it (hence, the 'butcher' Yesterday and Today sleeve). Still, I wonder how much control they had over the tracks chosen for LPs and their sequencing, in Britain. I suspect they had next to no control on the first album and probably the second. After that, it likely increased incrementally until The White Album, at which point we know G. Martin disliked the double-album concept but was plainly over-ruled by The Beatles. I agree, Panther -- John claims they cared about the sequencing but I doubt the Beatles had really a lot of concern about the sequencing in the UK. The interview which lowbasso is referring to is the WNEW radio interview from 1974, which is indeed one of the finest two hours ever spent with John Lennon. It's one of my favorite John interviews ever, and is highly recommended. However, what John says is simply (from memory): "We sequenced them how we thought they should sound, and we put a lot of work into the sequencing, too". It's pretty basic and generic, and the discussion starts when the DJ shows John a copy of THE BEATLES' SECOND ALBUM, and then they discuss YESTERDAY...AND TODAY and the butcher cover. John says they used to ask why they couldn't put 14 tracks out in America, and that "we almost got to not care about what happened with the albums in America, until we started coming over more and noticed they'd have stuff like mumbling on some of the tracks". (I'm paraphrasing here). John discussed how he didn't like what they did to the Stereo mixes with the 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 compilations, saying that "the fast version of REVOLUTION was destroyed -- it was a heavy record and they made it into a piece of ice cream".You have an excellent memory Joe. The quotes you have are almost verbatim what John said in the interview. "We sequenced them how we thought they should sound, and we put a lot of work into the sequencing, too". Does that sound like one should doubt The Beatles had really a lot of concern about the sequencing in the UK?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 15, 2013 22:32:44 GMT -5
I don't doubt that The Beatles had interest in the sequencing, to a greater or lesser extent. However, when John said "We", does he mean "Me and Paul", or does he mean "The Beatles", or does he (as I suspect) mean "The Beatles and George Martin"? I also think - as I mentioned earlier -- that The Beatles amount of input over tracklists increased over time. I doubt anyone but George Martin sequenced Please Please Me, for example.
I'm happy to accept the British albums as the "definitive" tracklisting, releases, etc., but it would be madness to deny the valid existence of the Capitol (and other) albums. At the end of the day, Meet The Beatles sold more copies than With The Beatles, so pretending it never existed is sort of silly.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 16, 2013 1:22:46 GMT -5
The 13 in this set are: “Meet the Beatles,” “The Beatles’ Second Album,” “A Hard Day’s Night,” “Something New,” “The Beatles’ Story,” “Beatles ’65,” “The Early Beatles,” “Beatles VI,” “Help!,” “Rubber Soul,” “Yesterday… And Today,” “Revolver” and “Hey Jude.” So, you'd need the last three, plus "A Hard Day's Night" and "The Beatles Story." And the last one isn't going to have an individual release--but you can live a long and happy life without it... I bought both the CAPITOL ALBUMS box set--got each of them for less than $35--but of the five I don't have, the only ones I'd consider buying would be YESTERDAY AND TODAY and HEY JUDE. I don't care about the incidental music on A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, and a truncated REVOLVER holds no appeal to me. HEY JUDE was my first Beatles album, and I have fond memories of it. I've never owned YESTERDAY AND TODAY in any format. Yeah, I can make my own copies from existing albums, and may just do that, but if the price is $10.00 or less, I might spring for them instead of doing it myself. And I may not... JcS Hey Jude was my first Beatles album as well! God, you guys are so young!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 16, 2013 7:07:23 GMT -5
"We sequenced them how we thought they should sound, and we put a lot of work into the sequencing, too". Does that sound like one should doubt The Beatles had really a lot of concern about the sequencing in the UK? But it's John, so a grain of salt is used. Not saying he was lying, but I'm not sure to which extent The Beatles themselves sat down and really worked on the order of the songs. But as I say, it doesn't mean that the order was "factually better", even if the Beatles did personally insist on maintaining a certain sequencing. That is up to the listener to decide. I think. Just for instance, I feel I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND opening an album, followed by I SAW HER STANDING THERE, THIS BOY, IT WON"T BE LONG, ALL I'VE GOT TO DO, and ALL MY LOVING as the side closer, is a phenomenal Album Side.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 16, 2013 11:19:21 GMT -5
"We sequenced them how we thought they should sound, and we put a lot of work into the sequencing, too". Does that sound like one should doubt The Beatles had really a lot of concern about the sequencing in the UK? But it's John, so a grain of salt is used. Not saying he was lying, but I'm not sure to which extent The Beatles themselves sat down and really worked on the order of the songs. But as I say, it doesn't mean that the order was "factually better", even if the Beatles did personally insist on maintaining a certain sequencing. That is up to the listener to decide. I think. Just for instance, I feel I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND opening an album, followed by I SAW HER STANDING THERE, THIS BOY, IT WON"T BE LONG, ALL I'VE GOT TO DO, and ALL MY LOVING as the side closer, is a phenomenal Album Side. Sure, I would agree that is a great track lineup for an album. But it includes two tracks that The Beatles considered to be worthy singles, and they adopted a policy from the start that no singles would appear on their albums which they considered a money-saving idea for their fans so they would not be buying two different items and getting identical tracks on both. This worked out great in the UK, but Capitol would not go along with that request, so we had singles on 45's as well as LP's, and the LP's had even fewer tracks than the British LP's! Clearly Capitol was looking to to get as much $$$ out of Beatlefans as they could by giving American fans duplicate tracks on singles and LP's. To hell with what the band preferred. Thus the butcher album picture was The Beatles answer to Capitol ignoring their requests. I know you really like the Capitol tracks on the LP's, especially MTB. Do you also own all the original vinyl 45's that Capitol issued back at that time which contained the same tracks as on the albums often? (I do.) Had you been a 10 or 12 year old in 1964-65 and spent your small allowance on buying the 45's (about 79 Cents each then if I remember right) and then coughed up $2.00-$2.95 for the Lp's when they came out only to find some of the same songs on them you already owned, you might have been a litle upset at what you got for your money. And $2.95 for a 10-12 year old was a fortune back then!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 16, 2013 15:18:19 GMT -5
Sure, I would agree that is a great track lineup for an album. But it includes two tracks that The Beatles considered to be worthy singles, and they adopted a policy from the start that no singles would appear on their albums which they considered a money-saving idea for their fans so they would not be buying two different items and getting identical tracks on both. This worked out great in the UK, but Capitol would not go along with that request, so we had singles on 45's as well as LP's, and the LP's had even fewer tracks than the British LP's! We can bat this around in many different ways. If you only bought MEET THE BEATLES, for example, then you did not have to also go and buy the single of "IWTHYH / ISHST". I don't see how it's spending less money in the UK to have to buy both the album AND a separate 45. If the US singles were always released FIRST ahead of the albums, then that might have been another matter (I'm not sure they were -- were they?). --- it's more like 'especially THE BEATLES' SECOND ALBUM!'I own many at this point but I've only started re-collecting vinyl again in the past couple of years, and so I've still got a long way to go to complete my collection. And of course I am now spending a ton more cash in 2013 for these collectibles than I would have spent for them originally in 1964, so it doesn't matter to me, the whole thing about spending this and that. Maybe, maybe not. I don't think many original US fans were bothered by this at all. I think that if you bought all the US albums, you ultimately got more than you got in the UK, without having to supplement your library by various exclusive 45's and EP's just to get every song. There's a lot of "but back then at the time" speculation. Like I said with THE BEATLES' STORY and now all this "LP versus Singles" stuff -- I am reacting to 2013.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 16, 2013 15:50:08 GMT -5
This news caused me to pull out Volumes I & II over the weekend and I had lot of fun playing those American versions of the Beatles albums.
I always loved Meet The Beatles and Beatles 65 but I was pleasantly surprised by The Beatles Second Album and Beatles VI. Early Beatles is no slouch either.
Frankly, I had fun with all eight of those previously released American Beatles' albums. I also liked the sonics, reminded me of the vinyl albums.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 16, 2013 18:29:19 GMT -5
Sure, I would agree that is a great track lineup for an album. But it includes two tracks that The Beatles considered to be worthy singles, and they adopted a policy from the start that no singles would appear on their albums which they considered a money-saving idea for their fans so they would not be buying two different items and getting identical tracks on both. From the start? Their first album had their first single on it. You didn't notice that the songs you owned on 45 were on the album when you were looking at the album in the store? What albums had you bought in the US that didn't have singles on them? In the '60s, the only time an artist would release an album was when they had a hit single that they could build an album around. Elvis released a few albums back then without any hits on them but he was the exception. Every other album he released was a greatest hits album. All my Beach Boy albums have the singles on them.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 16, 2013 20:38:02 GMT -5
Sure, I would agree that is a great track lineup for an album. But it includes two tracks that The Beatles considered to be worthy singles, and they adopted a policy from the start that no singles would appear on their albums which they considered a money-saving idea for their fans so they would not be buying two different items and getting identical tracks on both. From the start? Their first album had their first single on it. You didn't notice that the songs you owned on 45 were on the album when you were looking at the album in the store? What albums had you bought in the US that didn't have singles on them? In the '60s, the only time an artist would release an album was when they had a hit single that they could build an album around. Elvis released a few albums back then without any hits on them but he was the exception. Every other album he released was a greatest hits album. All my Beach Boy albums have the singles on them. From the start? No, my mistake. The Beatles first parlophone album had PPM and Love Me Do on it. My guess is the band just rushed out that first album as Martin said just run through some of your Cavern lineup and lets get an album out there to follow up the #1 PPM single. But they did adopt a policy of no singles on UK albums after that. Am I correct now? As to buying Capitol singles in the States; I bought "I Want To Hold Your Hand" as a single before I got MTB. I never got MTB until Xmas, 1964. Same thing with "She Loves You'. They were available as singles before they showed up on albums. I distinctly remember getting angry when I would later get an album that had a song I had already bought or was given as a single. I often didn't have enough money to afford an album but I did have enough to sometimes get a 45. ( I was a 9-10 year old in 1964-65). Sometimes I had to wait until months after a Capitol album was released before I could either save up enough to buy it myself or at Christmas, my parents were willing to shell out for LP's as a present for me. Some of the Beatles 45's I got were from friends who got the albums before me and didn't want the 45's anymore because the songs were on the albums they got, so they gave away their 45's to me. Yes, most albums in the 60's had singles on them. I bought very few 45's in the later 60's just for that reason. By the time I was 12 in 1967, I was getting a steady allowance which allowed me to pick and choose certain albums I wanted of bands. But I often still got the newest Beatles album months after it was released.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 16, 2013 20:58:52 GMT -5
From the start? No, my mistake. The Beatles first parlophone album had PPM and Love Me Do on it. My guess is the band just rushed out that first album as Martin said just run through some of your Cavern lineup and lets get an album out there to follow up the #1 PPM single. But they did adopt a policy of no singles on UK albums after that. Am I correct now? As to buying Capitol singles in the States; I bought "I Want To Hold Your Hand" as a single before I got MTB. I never got MTB until Xmas, 1964. Same thing with "She Loves You'. They were available as singles before they showed up on albums. I distinctly remember getting angry when I would later get an album that had a song I had already bought or was given as a single. I often didn't have enough money to afford an album but I did have enough to sometimes get a 45. ( I was a 9-10 year old in 1964-65). Sometimes I had to wait until months after a Capitol album was released before I could either save up enough to buy it myself or at Christmas, my parents were willing to shell out for LP's as a present for me. Some of the Beatles 45's I got were from friends who got the albums before me and didn't want the 45's anymore because the songs were on the albums they got, so they gave away their 45's to me. Yes, most albums in the 60's had singles on them. I bought very few 45's in the later 60's just for that reason. By the time I was 12 in 1967, I was getting a steady allowance which allowed me to pick and choose certain albums I wanted of bands. But I often still got the newest Beatles album months after it was released. Yes, I got you on a technicality. But the Beatles wanted Capitol to release their music in the states so bad they would have let them put everything out as singles, if that's what they wanted to do. They must have signed an agreement to that or they would have put their foot down on the releases by March '64. They were popular enough to make any demand at that point unless they or Brian had agree to it earlier. I'm surprised nobody here knows what the actual deal was that allowed them to control the releases at will. A case can be made for wanting a song as a single and as an album track. The singles were for parties, if you remember the tube stack thingy that fit on your record player and allowed you to play one single after the other without getting up. Albums were for more adult get together type affairs or for listening when alone. I imagine a few Brits might have liked to had seen a few of the album tracks as singles and on the jukeboxes.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Dec 16, 2013 21:21:16 GMT -5
From the start? Their first album had their first single on it. You didn't notice that the songs you owned on 45 were on the album when you were looking at the album in the store? What albums had you bought in the US that didn't have singles on them? In the '60s, the only time an artist would release an album was when they had a hit single that they could build an album around. Elvis released a few albums back then without any hits on them but he was the exception. Every other album he released was a greatest hits album. All my Beach Boy albums have the singles on them. From the start? No, my mistake. The Beatles first parlophone album had PPM and Love Me Do on it. My guess is the band just rushed out that first album as Martin said just run through some of your Cavern lineup and lets get an album out there to follow up the #1 PPM single. But they did adopt a policy of no singles on UK albums after that. Am I correct now? As to buying Capitol singles in the States; I bought "I Want To Hold Your Hand" as a single before I got MTB. I never got MTB until Xmas, 1964. Same thing with "She Loves You'. They were available as singles before they showed up on albums. I distinctly remember getting angry when I would later get an album that had a song I had already bought or was given as a single. I often didn't have enough money to afford an album but I did have enough to sometimes get a 45. ( I was a 9-10 year old in 1964-65). Sometimes I had to wait until months after a Capitol album was released before I could either save up enough to buy it myself or at Christmas, my parents were willing to shell out for LP's as a present for me. Some of the Beatles 45's I got were from friends who got the albums before me and didn't want the 45's anymore because the songs were on the albums they got, so they gave away their 45's to me. Yes, most albums in the 60's had singles on them. I bought very few 45's in the later 60's just for that reason. By the time I was 12 in 1967, I was getting a steady allowance which allowed me to pick and choose certain albums I wanted of bands. But I often still got the newest Beatles album months after it was released. The A Hard Days Night and Help! Albums have singles on them. So does Revolver. And Let It be. Oh yeah, Abbey Road.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 16, 2013 22:42:52 GMT -5
OK, folks, update. "Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963" has apparently disappeared from all of the iTunes sites it was on earlier in the day. If you see it on U.S. iTunes at midnight -- if it shows up -- you'd better grab it fast, as the song goes. It's beginning to look like this was a very limited release. Whether we'll see this again in the future is unknown.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 16, 2013 23:22:57 GMT -5
OK, folks, update. "Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963" has apparently disappeared from all of the iTunes sites it was on earlier in the day. If you see it on U.S. iTunes at midnight -- if it shows up -- you'd better grab it fast, as the song goes. It's beginning to look like this was a very limited release. Whether we'll see this again in the future is unknown. That's what I was thinking. I had a link to the New Zealand site on the tracks and it didn't want to pull up anything. I thought either the link was wrong or the tracks had been pulled already. But a question. Why are all the Beatle tracks $2.39 on iTunes? I thought I was still on the New Zealand site for a minute.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 17, 2013 6:36:58 GMT -5
As to buying Capitol singles in the States; I bought "I Want To Hold Your Hand" as a single before I got MTB. I never got MTB until Xmas, 1964. Same thing with "She Loves You'. They were available as singles before they showed up on albums. I distinctly remember getting angry when I would later get an album that had a song I had already bought or was given as a single. Wow. Sounds like a personal problem. Seriously now, you were 9-10 in those early years; I think it was rare that kids went around buying their own records at that time. I think it was mainly teens, who had a bit more cash. But so what if you bought an album with 11 or 12 songs on it, and found that you already had 1 or 2 on a previously owned 45? Isn't that seeing the glass as more empty than full ? As I've said, if you were in the UK you would have had to definitely buy BOTH singles and EP's in addition to the regular albums, to get all the songs.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 17, 2013 6:40:06 GMT -5
A case can be made for wanting a song as a single and as an album track. The singles were for parties, if you remember the tube stack thingy that fit on your record player and allowed you to play one single after the other without getting up. . Good point. As a child I recall being at an adult party one New Year's Eve where they were doing precisely this. I recall asking my aunt to please play "I Should Have Known Better".. she eventually added it to the stack of singles, and it came up during the party
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Dec 17, 2013 8:33:53 GMT -5
OK, folks, update. "Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963" has apparently disappeared from all of the iTunes sites it was on earlier in the day. If you see it on U.S. iTunes at midnight -- if it shows up -- you'd better grab it fast, as the song goes. It's beginning to look like this was a very limited release. Whether we'll see this again in the future is unknown. Steve, aren't they in effect letting the Genie out of the bottle? Once they are out and CDs can be made, if no longer available-they are feeding right back to bootleggers a better product. As the old lady said in Let it Be "it just doesn't make sense!"
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Dec 17, 2013 10:08:57 GMT -5
A few thoughts:
One thing I can say for sure is that the US REVOLVER is far weaker than the UK version. I'm so glad I got the UK version first (totally by chance as the store I bought it at it 1977 had a German import, but at regular price).
I think MEET THE BEATLES is better than WITH THE BEATLES.
I disagree with Panther about MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR being a weak album. I'm with Joe K. It is an excellent collection of songs from the psychedelic era of 1967 and the songs go together well.
THE BEATLES 2ND ALBUM was the first Beatles album I ever heard (my mother bought it). Very enjoyable.
HEY JUDE was the first Beatles album I owned. I loved it at the time. In retrospect, it should have had more tracks. Certainly "The Inner Light". Also "A Hard Day's Night" and "I'm Down" would have fit nicely.
I don't think I will be buying this release.
|
|