Another company would have approached the Beatles' back catalog in a way we will never know, with results we will never know.
I haven't seen anybody here like that. I see a lot of people here who treat Capitol Beatles records like they are religious artifacts, but nobody acting threatened by Capitol records. Again, who said that? I'm sure it was glorious. I'm glad those who were there experienced it. I hope the memories stay with y'all for a long time. The rest of us will never experience it. It's not like it can be recreated for us. It wasn't meant for us anyway.
I was there and for me, it was about the music. I didn't give a rat's backside about the record label. Yep, definitely not religious artifacts, some good album configurations, some not so good. I honestly think some people are more Capitol fans than Beatles fans.
I would say America (or the United States, to be more exact) had a big share of the party. But once more, the idea that the Beatles would have "remained in England" without the success in the US is factually wrong. The song that triggered Beatlemania in the US was IWTHYH, the one that triggered Beatlemania in Europe and other places was She Loves You, months earlier. I agree with the rest for your post, nothing of that detracts from my post. Wonder why Capitol fans feel so threatened about people emphasizing the Beatles' music, image and personality in their succes, instead of Capitol's executives' commercial practices.
There’s an element of nostalgia associated with first hearing these recordings that people fell in love with. It’s tough to give up your first love.
We're talking about music that was recorded 50 or more years ago in the 1960s. There's an element of nostalgic association for anyone listening to the Beatles on any medium at all - anyone with an awareness of when the music was recorded. And that anyone includes every single person reading this.
I don't know what you call it, but that jangly thing holds in the center, while it pans on other mixes. There are other differences that I don't remember. Lukpac to the rescue?
Some posters in this thread have already made it six labels versus Capitol. As well as using the words, "any other label"… Which is virtually every single other label versus Capitol! As if Capitol didn't get the job done in relation to other labels that tried.
When the box set had first come out; I thought I was going to be in for a month long wait, at least...but I received the correct copy within two weeks of mailing out the "bad" one.
This is what this thread is about, some very successful Beatles albums on Capitol. You can try to separate out the magical ingredients that made those albums a success, and try to analyze what those were, but you can't change the fact that it happened on Capitol.
I received the second Capitol Canada LP, "Twist and Shout", as a gift when it came out in early February of 1964 but was introduced to their first Canadian LP from November 1963, "Beatlemania With the Beatles" by my older brother and a cousin. We were very lucky in Canada in that Capitol Records Canada picked up on the Beatles early in 1963...we were already enjoying their music before we saw them on The Ed Sullivan Show. The introduction of the Beatles to the Canadian market was due to the Capitol Canada A & R man at the time, Paul White. The first three 45s released (mastered from the UK Parlophone 45s) struggled until "She Loves You" was released at which time the flood gates opened. Paul was given a lot of latitude in his selection of new talent and he never gave up on the Beatles despite the initial sluggish sales. Most of us at the time had no idea what was happening in the US market in respect to the Beatles. Another point often mentioned in these threads is the dislike for the LP, "The Beatles Story". My mom worked at Woolworths here in the 1960s and bought that LP for my brother and I when it first came out. We thought it was great with information about the group and snippets of interviews and music - not much music to be sure - and a great live shot inside the cover fold. What many need to remember is that at that time we didn't have access to as much information on the Beatles as today. Magazines and newspapers were just beginning to cover them and the very first paperback books started to appear on store racks but that really was it. Today there is so much information available in so many different forms that it's probably difficult for those who weren't there in the beginning to appreciate how little we knew about them. And for that reason, I can understand the overwhelming disappointment in the LP today but historical perspective has to be taken into account. I'm sure that some 1st generation fans probably didn't think much of it upon release either but it has always been an easy fit into my collection.
I am hoping one day you all work it out and we can put the discussion to bed. After 50+ years we must be close. After all North and South Korea are almost friends again.
A-VOID-ance of facts does not make them go away. Let's review the facts one more time: December 17, 1964: Radio station WWDC begins playing an import copy of I Want To Hold Your Hand. It gets a huge reaction from listeners and is put into heavy rotation, and the next day DC records stores are deluged with requests for the song. At this point Capitol is doing nothing to promote the song at all, and has not released the record. Over the next few days, the WWDC DJ shares copies of the record with other DJs in Chicago, St. Louis, and other cities. It gets identical huge reactions from listeners there. At this point, Capitol is not promoting the song, but is instead trying to stop radio stations from playing it, fearful listeners will tape it off air. This does not work, and the song spreads to multiple radio stations across the country. December 23, 1964: Capitol finally realizes the obvious: they can't stop the growing popularity of the song, and instead they should try to take advantage of it. They move up the release date of the single to December 26 and begin promoting the song, with most of their promotion being focused on retailers, not record buyers. December 26, 1964: The song is released, and is an immediate hit, going into heavy rotation nationwide and selling like hotcakes. The immediate success of the single suggests there was a huge pent-up demand for the song. It certainly seems most likely that word of mouth and the playing of the imported copy of the song on radio stations across the country was the primary thing that created this demand, rather than three days of promotion with things like "the Beatles are coming" stickers from Capitol. For the most part, Capitol's role in making the song a hit was to get out of the way of the snowball that was already rolling down the hill.
What puzzles me is why people are so threatened by the truth. The truth is that Capitol had a minimal role in making I Want To Hold Your Hand a hit. Once it was clear the song was going to be a big hit they did exploit it for all it was worth, but they had little to do with making it into a hit. The truth about this does not take away anyone's right to enjoy their old albums. I'm not sure why it's so disturbing to people that they want to deny it. I guess maybe if one can argue that the Capitol was essential to the band's success it gives the Capitol albums a greater sense of perceived validity? Or perhaps somehow people perceive that the facts amount to an attack on albums they really like? But ultimately, facts do not have an agenda... they are just facts, and denying them doesn't make them disappear.
DOUBLE VOID...please stop... you are wrong...CAPITOL RELEASED THE IWTHYH SINGLE THAT MADE THEM in the USA. ...done, done, done...YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. CAPITOL OWNED THEM...OVER...CAPITOL RELEASED MEET THE BEATLES which made THEM MEGASTARS in THE USA...done, done, done...LOL.
