|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 17, 2013 10:27:01 GMT -5
One thing I can say for sure is that the US REVOLVER is far weaker than the UK version. Total agreement here. We got gypped in the US with this album (though the missing tracks did later arrive on the same year's YESTERDAY... AND TODAY, along with other singles)!
|
|
|
Post by dcshark on Dec 17, 2013 11:02:35 GMT -5
For someone, like me, collecting/buying Beatles LPs in the late 70s, it was great to have all the songs on LPs.
The only songs not available were The Inner Light and You Know My Name(Look Up The Number), which were later collected on Rarities.
And as for calling the Magical Mystery Tour LP a weak record: How can a record with Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields Forever and I Am The Walrus, The Fool On The Hill be weak?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 17, 2013 13:48:58 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. My first 45 was Chubby Checker's "The Twist". Got it in 1962 when I was 7 years old. My dad bought it for me.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Dec 17, 2013 13:56:15 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. The A Hard Days Night and Help! Albums have singles on them. So does Revolver. And Let It be. Oh yeah, Abbey Road. OK, so why is it said that The Beatles did not put singles on their UK albums? I didn't grow up in the UK so I never saw what singles were released there, but I read that The Beatles had a policy that did not put separately released singles on their UK albums. Am I incorrect in remembering this statement coming from the band?
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 17, 2013 15:14:03 GMT -5
For someone, like me, collecting/buying Beatles LPs in the late 70s, it was great to have all the songs on LPs. The only songs not available were The Inner Light and You Know My Name(Look Up The Number), which were later collected on Rarities. And as for calling the Magical Mystery Tour LP a weak record: How can a record with Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields Forever and I Am The Walrus, The Fool On The Hill be weak? I understand the attraction of having the singles on the albums; I was a proponent for the CDs having bonus tracks--REVOLVER could have "Paperback Writer/Rain," RUBBER SOUL would add "We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper", HELP! could toss on "I'm Down" and "Yes It Is," etc. I think there were more songs not available on the Capitol albums than those two. Even after HEY JUDE came out, there were still the following tracks not on a Capitol LP release: "I'm Down," "Misery" "There's A Place" and "From Me To You" (although the last one was on '62-66). I'm not where I can look at the moment, this is off the top of my head. I also don't understand the thought that MMT was a weak album, but that's subjective. I've often said that one's reaction to MMT hinges largely on tracks 3-5--if someone doesn't like "Flying," "Blue Jay Way," and "Your Mother Should Know," their impression is necessarily going to be lower than someone like me that thinks it was the best of the '87 CDs (save PAST MASTERS 2). JcS
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Dec 17, 2013 16:26:00 GMT -5
The A Hard Days Night and Help! Albums have singles on them. So does Revolver. And Let It be. Oh yeah, Abbey Road. OK, so why is it said that The Beatles did not put singles on their UK albums? I didn't grow up in the UK so I never saw what singles were released there, but I read that The Beatles had a policy that did not put separately released singles on their UK albums. Am I incorrect in remembering this statement coming from the band? Sorry I can't give you a source to this. There are too many books, interviews and old radio shows to go through. Others have touched on the reasoning in previous posts and I do believe that being typical working class lads from Northern England the Beatles felt that their single releases would not appear on their albums (for releases prior to the album coming out). This was mainly to give their fans "value for money" and so they would get a full 14 "new" tracks when they purchased the album. Now there may well be some discrepancies to that and one that seems to comes to mind is "Come Together/Something" ,which Klein had released to bring in more cash to Apple which was haemorrhaging money at the time. Some of it may also have been contractual as their output by today's standards was phenomenal. Wasn't the band written off at the time after a gap of less than a year between "Revolver" and "Pepper"? The Beatles concentrated focus on the mono mixes early on, as "stereo" had not yet reached the mass market (at least in the UK). Also here in the UK, McCartney left many singles off albums - "Another Day", "C Moon", "Helen Wheels", "Junior's Farm", "Mull of Kintyre/Girls School", "Goodnight Tonight" and of course "Wonderful Christmastime". Now as regards the sequencing of albums I did find something about the White Album. On the BBC Radio 2 - White Album Special of 2009 there is a piece at the end : Interesting that George Martin gets no mention. Before that I am sure he had a lot more say and gradually let "the boys" have more influence as time went on. Sorry I can't find a BBC link where the show is still available to listen to. You'll have to trust my ears.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 17, 2013 17:49:44 GMT -5
This was mainly to give their fans "value for money" and so they would get a full 14 "new" tracks when they purchased the album. Paul certainly got fans' money back throughout his solo career, with releasing so much multiple-version stuff on various "special editions" and B-sides and "exclusive CD singles"!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 19, 2013 0:10:09 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!" The album wasn't supposed to come out until Tuesday, not Monday, and it seems like the album had a Obamacare-type rollout, though since it wasn't supposed to happen till Tuesday, I guess Capitol thinks it went well. I went to bed Monday night (after midnight Eastern) and it wasn't there. Tuesday morning it was. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Dec 19, 2013 23:54:34 GMT -5
I get sales notices from PopMarket. I'll post a link if this shows up there on sale. That site often has great prices and I am 100% satisfied with the service I have gotten there.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 20, 2013 14:11:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Dec 22, 2013 5:59:53 GMT -5
OK, so why is it said that The Beatles did not put singles on their UK albums? I didn't grow up in the UK so I never saw what singles were released there, but I read that The Beatles had a policy that did not put separately released singles on their UK albums. Am I incorrect in remembering this statement coming from the band? The ex-Beatles (esp. Paul and Ringo) said a lot of sh** that was false in later years, probably because they forgot what actually happened and then told the false story so many times they started to believe it. This is actually quite common with exceptionally famous people. Paul is still telling the old chestnut about "We told Brian we wouldn't go to America until we had a #1". Total malarkey.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 22, 2013 6:47:41 GMT -5
OK, so why is it said that The Beatles did not put singles on their UK albums? I didn't grow up in the UK so I never saw what singles were released there, but I read that The Beatles had a policy that did not put separately released singles on their UK albums. Am I incorrect in remembering this statement coming from the band? The ex-Beatles (esp. Paul and Ringo) said a lot of sh** that was false in later years, probably because they forgot what actually happened and then told the false story so many times they started to believe it. This is actually quite common with exceptionally famous people. Paul is still telling the old chestnut about "We told Brian we wouldn't go to America until we had a #1". Total malarkey. True. In fact, it doesn't always mean that just because any one of The Beatles tells us something, it is undeniably true or accurate. Just a couple of days ago I was listening to Rob Leonard's "Beatlesongs" radio show, and he interviewed the fella named Alan (don't know how to spell the last name) who wrote the new book about "I Want To Hold Your Hand" (the one called "GOT THAT SOMETHING"). Anyway, Alan discussed one time when he met and interviewed Ringo in 1992, and Alan had brought along a tape of some rare Beatles tracks to play for Ringo. At one point they discussed the 1963 sessions for "One After 909", and Ringo was very adamant that they did not do the song that early. Ringo said: "No, we didn't do that song until the LET IT BE sessions". Well, Alan had to correct him and play the '63 outtake! So yeah, the Beatles get things wrong. In the case of Paul and his "No America until we have a #1 first" is still something he talks about, and he has done so quite 'factually' . I mean, Paul tells that story as though it is true and not something he's making up.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 22, 2013 16:46:48 GMT -5
The ex-Beatles (esp. Paul and Ringo) said a lot of sh** that was false in later years, probably because they forgot what actually happened and then told the false story so many times they started to believe it. This is actually quite common with exceptionally famous people. Paul is still telling the old chestnut about "We told Brian we wouldn't go to America until we had a #1". Total malarkey. True. In fact, it doesn't always mean that just because any one of The Beatles tells us something, it is undeniably true or accurate. Just a couple of days ago I was listening to Rob Leonard's "Beatlesongs" radio show, and he interviewed the fella named Alan (don't know how to spell the last name) who wrote the new book about "I Want To Hold Your Hand" (the one called "GOT THAT SOMETHING"). Anyway, Alan discussed one time when he met and interviewed Ringo in 1992, and Alan had brought along a tape of some rare Beatles tracks to play for Ringo. At one point they discussed the 1963 sessions for "One After 909", and Ringo was very adamant that they did not do the song that early. Ringo said: "No, we didn't do that song until the LET IT BE sessions". Well, Alan had to correct him and play the '63 outtake! So yeah, the Beatles get things wrong. In the case of Paul and his "No America until we have a #1 first" is still something he talks about, and he has done so quite 'factually' . I mean, Paul tells that story as though it is true and not something he's making up. FYI, that's Allan Kozinn of the New York Times, who's also written a lot on the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 23, 2013 15:52:25 GMT -5
FYI, that's Allan Kozinn of the New York Times, who's also written a lot on the Beatles. You have a link here: abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/kozinn.htm of Allan's interview where he educated George Martin on the release dates of the stereo version of the first couple of albums. I am interviewing Allan via email about his new ebook, GOT THAT SOMETHING, an interview conducted specifically with the bulletin board reader in mind. I hope to have it in form for posting in the next week or so. JcS
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 24, 2013 1:38:39 GMT -5
FYI, that's Allan Kozinn of the New York Times, who's also written a lot on the Beatles. You have a link here: abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/kozinn.htm of Allan's interview where he educated George Martin on the release dates of the stereo version of the first couple of albums. I am interviewing Allan via email about his new ebook, GOT THAT SOMETHING, an interview conducted specifically with the bulletin board reader in mind. I hope to have it in form for posting in the next week or so. JcS Allan's been a guest on our "Things We Said Today" show twice recently. The first, which ran last week, was to talk about the book. The second, which will premiere over the weekend, will be about the "Beatles Bootlegs Recordings." He's fun to interview. Looking forward to yours, Joey.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 25, 2013 11:52:13 GMT -5
Amazon has the first Capitol box set at $18.89. That's less than $5 a disc.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Dec 25, 2013 12:30:51 GMT -5
Amazon has the first Capitol box set at $18.89. That's less than $5 a disc. Here's the link: amzn.to/1bowINC
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 26, 2013 10:13:22 GMT -5
Amazon has the first Capitol box set at $18.89. That's less than $5 a disc. Here's the link: amzn.to/1bowINCThere was 15 of these left yesterday when I posted this. Now there is 4. Though I guess if you don't have this, the complete set may be the better buy.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 26, 2013 10:57:58 GMT -5
I saw Amazon had the new box set was advertised for $160. I did the quick math and figured out that was a little over $12.00 per disc. Individually, the titles were $13.88 each. So, if you have the first two box sets, and can live without a truncated REVOLVER and THE BEATLES STORY, you can get HEY JUDE, Y&T and AHDN for a little over $40, and be all caught up on your US CAPITOL issues. If you need/want THE BEATLES STORY, then the box set is your only option.
I thought this section of the Editorial Review on Amazon was interesting: "These new releases seek to replicate the unique listening experience heard by Americans at the time by preserving the sequences, timings, and artwork found on the albums. Capitol’s engineers in the 1960s took great care to produce what they believed to be the best possible sound for the playback equipment in use at that time. Due to the limitations of the record players of the day, engineers often compressed the sound by raising the volume of the softer passages and lowering the volume for the louder parts of the songs. They also reduced the bass frequencies since too much bass could cause the record to skip. In some cases, reverb was added to the tracks to make them sound more “American.” This CD is packaged in a miniature vinyl sleeve that faithfully recreates the original U.S. LP release down to the finest detail, including the inner sleeve. REVOLVER was originally released August 8 1966 in the U.S. It spent six weeks at No. 1. This album is a limited edition release."
I can understand how in 1964, the engineers at Capitol could have been concerned about things like a high level of bass frequencies causing the record to skip or how the majority of the playback equipment would be better served by having the sound compressed. However, I'd find it hard to believe that the equipment in the UK was generally so far above that in the USA that such changes were necessary. Both of the things I highlight do not enhance the listening experience in 2013--it may replicate the original, and there is an undeniable nostalgia factor, but beyond that, what would the listener today get from hearing these releases in that form--compressed, shaved bass, with added reverb?
Beyond "that's the way I remember it" or "that's how Dad heard it first," I'd say we today just get an appreciation of how much better we have it now.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 26, 2013 11:30:08 GMT -5
There are some tracks that sound better/more exciting on the US releases, i.e. I Saw Her Standing There, which I posted on page 1 of this thread. The youtube version doesn't sound as good as the disc.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Dec 26, 2013 21:21:11 GMT -5
Beyond "that's the way I remember it" or "that's how Dad heard it first," I'd say we today just get an appreciation of how much better we have it now. I think this is entirely subjective. I have come to love and prefer the sound of the US tracks on many songs... not solely because of any sort of nostalgia, but because I now feel many of them just sound better on the Capitol versions (to me). I think some of the original UK tracks sound tepid in some cases. An example for me is the US "She's A Woman" and "I Feel Fine", which I think just rocks harder with the Capitol sound. I feel the same way in general for all of THE BEATLES' SECOND ALBUM. Some of those 2009 Remasters sounded too clean and sterilized.
|
|
|
Post by darkhorse67 on Dec 28, 2013 13:18:33 GMT -5
Some thoughts on this upcoming release:
I have the Capitol volumes of US albums that came out in 04 & 06; have loved the sound on these and wonder if this can be really improved at all—not to say that it can't, but I love the sound on these albums as is now.
Favorites that listen to often: 1) Second Album-it has a rock n' roll feel-a great work out album to listen to at the gym. 2) Rubber Soul–more acoustic, beautiful to listen to out of some old wood speakers. 3) Beatles VI-love the cover, the mixes of tempos from rockers like "Bad Boy" to the hauntingly overlooked "Yes It Is".
As far as this new box set, I may pass, as I am more than happy with what I have. Yet, I will spring for the "Yesterday & Today" individual release because I think there are some mixes in there that differ from the UK versions, specifically those pulled from Revolver. I hope these are not tampered with and replaced with the 09 Remasters instead, because I could just go ahead and make a playlist, or listen to Ebbett's transfer from vinyl.
I do not see any need to get the US version of "Revolver"—does anyone know if there is anything different in the track mixes for the US release?
"Hey Jude" or "the Beatles Again" had the potential of achieving Magical Mystery Tour LP status had they pulled all the songs from singles releases at the time, including "The Inner Light" or other tracks that subsequently made Past Masters 2....in lieu of earlier tracks that opened the LP. Does anyone know if the tracks differ here from the UK versions at all? Love the cover and may get this for the cover alone.
The US soundtrack of 'A Hard Day's Night" will be a lot of fun with the interspersed Martin tracks-I really liked Ringo's Theme "This Boy" instrumental on there.
"The Beatles Story" is something I would not pick up-I listened to it once and that was too much. As a second generation fan (the 80's was my time-my youth) I have no nostalgic value for this and would have preferred the American version of "Rarities" with the longer version of "And I Love Her", the alternate versions of "Penny Lane" and the strange but interesting mix of "I Am the Walrus." If this had been included as a part of the box only release, I would have to have caved in to buy the box-so i think this was a missed opportunity, as well as not including The Hollywood Bowl release, which I think would have fitted beautifully for this American themed box set.
I am slightly disappointed that a volume 3 that would complete Capitol albums was not made.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 28, 2013 19:28:51 GMT -5
As far as this new box set, I may pass, as I am more than happy with what I have. Yet, I will spring for the "Yesterday & Today" individual release because I think there are some mixes in there that differ from the UK versions, specifically those pulled from Revolver. I hope these are not tampered with and replaced with the 09 Remasters instead, because I could just go ahead and make a playlist, or listen to Ebbett's transfer from vinyl. I do not see any need to get the US version of "Revolver"—does anyone know if there is anything different in the track mixes for the US release? "The Beatles Story" is something I would not pick up-I listened to it once and that was too much. As a second generation fan (the 80's was my time-my youth) I have no nostalgic value for this and would have preferred the American version of "Rarities" with the longer version of "And I Love Her", the alternate versions of "Penny Lane" and the strange but interesting mix of "I Am the Walrus." If this had been included as a part of the box only release, I would have to have caved in to buy the box-so i think this was a missed opportunity, as well as not including The Hollywood Bowl release, which I think would have fitted beautifully for this American themed box set. I am slightly disappointed that a volume 3 that would complete Capitol albums was not made. In order of what I left from your note: 1. I am curious about what will be used on Y&T, too. If it is just the regular mix that was tampered with by Capitol, or a duophonic deal, I don't consider that worth having, but I think there may be some differences as they came from EMI. I'll try to remember to look later when I have more time. 2. Likewise, I don't recall the mixes being different, and will check that out as well. 3. While HOLLYWOOD BOWL would be a nice addition, I understand the inclusion of THE BEATLES STORY--and like you, it's not enough to get me to spring for this box. However, HOLLYWOOD BOWL would not technically be an "American" album, or better said, one that was unique to the USA; the release was standard worldwide, as far as I know. 4. RARITIES would be a nice add as well. I thought I had a copy of that, but I looked in my shelf a moment ago, and didn't see it. It may be mis-shelved, but I may not have ever picked up a copy of it. 5. Don't put it past Capitol to try to squeeze another round of dollars from us by doing a third set. The fact that 8 of the albums in the upcoming box are already available in those first two sets didn't stop them from issuing what is coming in January! JcS
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 28, 2013 20:30:51 GMT -5
There was 15 of these left yesterday when I posted this. Now there is 4. Though I guess if you don't have this, the complete set may be the better buy. The first Capitol set is back up to $29.69 and suddenly there 8 copies left. Joey may be right about the later release of the third set. Apple needed a US release for the February 50th anniversary push. It had to have Meet the Beatles. They couldn't just re-release the first set. There were no sonic improvements to make. That set sounded great (especially with only the 1980's releases to compare to). What better than to release all the American albums in one set. Saying that they recreated the American mixes using the EMI masters would sweeten the deal. I've ordered the new set. I was just too weak to fight the temptation.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 28, 2013 20:42:03 GMT -5
The fake stereo used for the duophonic mixes sound pretty good. And it is not much different from what Martin did in 2009 for the Please Pleas Me/With the Beatles releases. How did he get those stereo mixes for those albums using only a two track master?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 28, 2013 22:03:35 GMT -5
If you own the Mono Box set, you know the discs' jackets were larger than in the Capitol sets.
Do you know what I'm saying?
These are not just the same Capitol Box 1&2 discs thrown into a new box. This is a classy new set.
I'm happy again.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 28, 2013 22:17:50 GMT -5
The fake stereo used for the duophonic mixes sound pretty good. And it is not much different from what Martin did in 2009 for the Please Pleas Me/With the Beatles releases. How did he get those stereo mixes for those albums using only a two track master? I didn't know George Martin had anything to do with the 2009 remasters; there were already stereo mixes of those two albums, and have been since 1963. Allan Rouse and Guy Massey did the remastering in 2009, as I recall. I had a stereo copy of the German issue of WITH THE BEATLES before the CDs came out in '87, and as a result, I didn't buy the CD in mono (I generally don't care for mono sound; I don't listen through a car speaker or handheld transistor radio now, where such mixes were better suited). I also know the German issue of PLEASE PLEASE ME was called DIE BEATLES, and had a stereo mix available long before the CDs came out. JcS
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Dec 28, 2013 22:23:34 GMT -5
. Saying that they recreated the American mixes using the EMI masters would sweeten the deal. I keep waiting for a definite word on just what the mixes/masters on the new box set will be. If the 2009 remasters are used, just sequences and packaged like the US versions, that is going to hack off a lot of people. I personally would prefer the sound, but it wouldn't be true to the concept. On the other hand, if the two boxes now out there already have done that, then what's the point? Again, I'm waiting to hear just what the contents of the 8 that have already been released will be. Well, I want to hear about the other 5 as well, because I *might* get a Y&T and HEY JUDE for my collection if I find them at a good price. The other two that will be free standing, AHDN and REVOLVER, don't interest me enough to pay money for them. JcS
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 28, 2013 22:36:24 GMT -5
The fake stereo used for the duophonic mixes sound pretty good. And it is not much different from what Martin did in 2009 for the Please Pleas Me/With the Beatles releases. How did he get those stereo mixes for those albums using only a two track master? I didn't know George Martin had anything to do with the 2009 remasters; there were already stereo mixes of those two albums, and have been since 1963. Allan Rouse and Guy Massey did the remastering in 2009, as I recall. I had a stereo copy of the German issue of WITH THE BEATLES before the CDs came out in '87, and as a result, I didn't buy the CD in mono (I generally don't care for mono sound; I don't listen through a car speaker or handheld transistor radio now, where such mixes were better suited). I also know the German issue of PLEASE PLEASE ME was called DIE BEATLES, and had a stereo mix available long before the CDs came out. JcS Oops. I guess I should had said what Martin did in '63 then. I was thinking it was either George or Giles who did the 2009 re-masters. (I said "Martin" to hedge my bet. ) I should check my facts before publishing. I just remember George saying he only wanted to release the '87? CDs in mono because they were recorded on a two track console, not made for stereo. Maybe the Germans did their own duophonic versions.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 28, 2013 22:47:10 GMT -5
Didn't Germany use some of the American mixes on their releases?
|
|