Beatles track selection differences between UK & Capitol versions. & What about redoing them again ?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by johnny moondog 909, Oct 11, 2017.

  1. Saint Johnny

    Saint Johnny Forum Resident

    Location:
    Asbury Park
    Ok I'll bite.
    IIRC it was around 24,340,123. Is that close? Are those enough details, for you?
    Or do I need to reread Yoko's book Grapefruit, again?
    What do I win?
     
  2. O Don Piano

    O Don Piano Forum Resident

    A local compilation -just like most of the Capitol albums.
     
    Saint Johnny likes this.
  3. O Don Piano

    O Don Piano Forum Resident

    1.3 million in early 1964 according to Bruce Spizer’s research.
    Vee-Jay had to stop production of the LP later that year.
     
  4. nikh33

    nikh33 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    No, Spizer says 1.3 million by LATE 1964 (which includes all the different variations and reissues). In Feb 1965 Capitol released 'The Early Beatles'.
     
    johnny moondog 909 likes this.
  5. slane

    slane Forum Resident

    Location:
    England
    Yes It Is had already been used on Beatles VI. My guess as to why the 3 new Revolver tracks were requested rather than using the other tracks you mention is that the album would have only had two 'new' songs otherwise, with the other songs already previously released on US singles. Using the Revolver songs meant 5 new songs on the album.

    But the outtakes were not available. Capitol only used what the band wanted to release. Whichever way you look at it or compile it, there are only around 200 songs available.
     
  6. nikh33

    nikh33 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    Sorry, I thought you were an adult. I apologise for debating seriously with what appears to be a child.
     
    Saint Johnny likes this.
  7. maxwell2323

    maxwell2323 Active Member

    Location:
    Indianapolis
    You know....everything you said is probably true, but where's the fun in it ?
     
    Saint Johnny likes this.
  8. AlecA

    AlecA Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    The content and sonics (duophonic, hard panning, eq, reverb and all) are what I grew up with and what sound 'right' to me. The covers are familiar. I lived with them for over 20 years until the '87 cds came out. I bought all the '87 cds, then the '09 stereo box and the mono box, and I still prefer my 'flawed' American versions. I just wish the powers that be had respected that and finished the Capitol Albums sets and not the cop-out that was "The U.S. Albums." But, as I said before, I pretty much have what I want and can enjoy the version I want--just as those who want the U.K. versions can have theirs.

    After all, it's just ephemeral, disposable pop music!;)
     
    Sidewinder43 and Saint Johnny like this.
  9. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    what are you talking about?~!
     
    Saint Johnny likes this.
  10. Luke The Drifter

    Luke The Drifter Forum Resident

    Location:
    United States
    Of course the U.S. MMT is canon now. So that one is sanctioned by the Beatles. The rest are superior in UK form. So I just ascribe to the accepted catalog now. No need to do more. imo.
     
    johnny moondog 909 likes this.
  11. O Don Piano

    O Don Piano Forum Resident

    You can’t have a normal conversation here anymore.
     
    Billy Infinity and Saint Johnny like this.
  12. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your Host Your Host

    No clue. Got my Vee Jay LP at Thrifty Drugs for $2.25.00 in 1964. What a great album.
     
    DennisF, Michael and Saint Johnny like this.
  13. curbach

    curbach Some guy on the internet

    Location:
    The ATX
    Just throw everything the Beatles ever recorded into a Random Album Generator and see what you get :righton:
     
    Saint Johnny likes this.
  14. Saint Johnny

    Saint Johnny Forum Resident

    Location:
    Asbury Park
    Ahhhh, you were playing with ME!!! You apparently ALREADY KNEW the details.:doh::targettiphat:
    Remind again, who the adult is, in this scenario.
     
  15. jmxw

    jmxw Well-Known Member

    Location:
    ithaca, ny
    Errm. All seven of those tracks *did* appear on the US Rarities [1980] a full eight years before Past Masters.
     
    Saint Johnny likes this.
  16. Saint Johnny

    Saint Johnny Forum Resident

    Location:
    Asbury Park
    You got me running and there's no fun in it
    Why should it be so much to ask of you
    What you're doing to me?
     
  17. jmxw

    jmxw Well-Known Member

    Location:
    ithaca, ny
    That's not exactly the thought process.

    In the US, there were essentially two different markets. One for singles and one for albums. Since albums tended to be compilations of singles [with maybe a few fillers added in], people would feel ripped off if an artist's latest single was *not* included on the album.

    In the UK it was the other way around. There was *one* market where people bought both singles and albums and would feel they were not getting value if too many singles were included on the album.

    There were also differences in royalty calculations that effected what was a "reasonable" number of songs to put on an album...

    Long-story-short: Capitol added singles to the albums and used fewer tracks per album. So they created [and sold] more of them. [Now the duophonics and compression and EQing... I'm not going there!]
     
    Saint Johnny likes this.
  18. Saint Johnny

    Saint Johnny Forum Resident

    Location:
    Asbury Park
    Seems to be something this crowd (SHF members particularly) does not seem understand. And/or to grasp. Capitol was the record company. Whose business consisted of selling RECORDS contracted by 'pop artists', to the general public.
    When aforementioned Beatles signed contracts with said record company, it was CAPITOL RECORDS that decided, what got released, and when, and how, in the particular market they did business in, and were responsible for, and to.

    Get that? Everybody?
    If said 'pop band', in this case the Beatles, from Merry Old England, did not like that arrangement, they could've renegotiated said contracts to allow greater 'artistic' control at a later date... Oh wait that IS what happened....:doh:
     
    Sidewinder43 likes this.
  19. nikh33

    nikh33 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    Errrm. We're talking about 1978, two years BEFORE Capitol's 'Rarities', not 'Past Masters'. That was the whole point.
     
    slane likes this.
  20. Saint Johnny

    Saint Johnny Forum Resident

    Location:
    Asbury Park
    Errmm. The whole point of this whole discussion is lost, at this point. Just sayin'.
     
  21. nikh33

    nikh33 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    Slow day?
     
    Saint Johnny likes this.
  22. nikh33

    nikh33 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    I know you loathe facts, but The Beatles didn't sign a contract with Capitol Records. They signed a contract with Parlophone records, a subsidiary of EMI, also owners of Capitol.
     
    Grand_Ennui and Saint Johnny like this.
  23. Saint Johnny

    Saint Johnny Forum Resident

    Location:
    Asbury Park
    Not too bad. How about yourself?
     
  24. Saint Johnny

    Saint Johnny Forum Resident

    Location:
    Asbury Park
    Seems you know me too well. And also your over-arching grasp of complex contract law is impeccable.:wave:

    If said contracts were indeed signed with Parlaphone/EMI, annnnd EMI did in fact own Capitol, it also would seem that your argument that the Capitol LPs are invalid, somewhat falls apart, would you not agree?
     
  25. nikh33

    nikh33 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Liverpool, England
    When have I said Capitol LPs were invalid?
     

Share This Page