Luke, don’t even bother. Look at the responses by the OP. At this point, you’re banging your head against the wall.
I don't have a side here. (I don't understand why there are sides, but I digress.) When I have sided with the pro-Capitol people in this thread, the "U.K. Beatles proponents" have not attacked me for not subscribing to their dogma.
I think you're projecting. If Capitol Records bothered them (who?) that much, there wouldn't be a U.S. Albums set at all. And it wouldn't contain (most of) the unique US mixes. Using master tapes instead of copies a few generations down? Using true stereo or mono in place of fake stereo? Those have been industry standard practices for years. To suggest that they were done BECAUSE CAPITOL BAD is absurd. As I've said before, I'm less than happy with how the box was effected (the 1987 remixes were a mistake, and I'm not a fan of the "restoration" done in 2009), but the concept isn't the least bit new or unique to the Capitol situation. Heck, Capitol did it themselves in a few cases over the years.
Gonna take a stab at stating what I think are at the heart of the key perspectives or sides, knowing that not all adhere 100% to a side as it were, or maybe even share parts of both sides in their perspective: Side A: the US/Capitol records output related to is an essential part of the Beatles history and experience worthy of proper acknowledgment and preservation, which would most naturally occur in reproducing the material in as exact a manner as possible. The thread title is an offshoot of that, as it felt/contended that the most recent offering from Apple was not as authentic a representation of the US album experience as could've occurred. What was offered in the first two Capitol records cd issues was much closer to that and should be completed, and Apple should allow that because of the large socio-historical value in preserving a large part of both Beatles history and authentic 60s and American culture. The diminishing presence over time of those who were there is irrelevant. Surely the value both to fans and to historical preservation of said history is worthy enough produce cds and especially albums in as authentic manner as possible. There's very little remaining to document/reproduce, and there's no point in waiting to do so or in acting like the recent 2009-2012-influenced set represents an adequate stewardship of this history. It really shouldn't be that hard to do, and it will make sure a key part of the Beatles legacy endures. Side B: the Beatle' legacy going forward as far as continued representation of their core/base product in the marketplace centers around artistic vision and If it's a matter of sound quality, the U.K. masterings are what the artists involved, as stated by the principals who spent much attention on how their material was presented to the record-buying public, unlike many artists of the era. This is especially relevant given the importance of artistic vision being represented in album form. What Beatles fans bent on preservation ought to focus on are original intent and faithfulness of that in sonic reproduction; beyond that is of little consequence. If remixes occur or other compilations are presented, that's fine as long as the original U.K.-based mixes and artistic vision remain the definitive representation of the oeuvre. Additionally, reproducing the Capitol tapes is of dubious value due to their generational loss of fidelity. There's nothing stopping anyone -- other than what they choose to spend -- from finding minty Capitol-issued LPs, cassettes, 8-tracks and so forth if it so important to them. I don't think Side A's perspective is inaccurate; I would've liked to have had the Capitol versions from the Capitol tapes in current circulation, knowing the limitations and issues inherent in them. I also can't fault the Side B perspective, as it's not like it's born of actively campaigning against Side A wanting to have what they want as far as product or from enjoying any Capitol-repped experience. However, Side B isn't going to cede that the meaningfullness of the US Beatles experience via Capitol records equates to prioritizing the representation of it at an equivalent historical level as to what the artists intended. There's nothing wrong with the Side A view wanting the Capitol perspective to remain in the Beatles history, nor is there an issue with side B asserting that the primacy should remain with the U.K. artistic representation, no matter what other additional history complements other perspectives.
Correct me if I'm wrong here: The Duophonic or other fake stereo tracks were there in the first place (for songs which didn't have a true stereo mix available at arm's reach to the compilers at that moment) because at that point in time, there were still distinct mono and stereo pressings, and a "true mono" mix normally would not be used on a stereo album. Had a true stereo mix been "handy," it would have been used. In compiling the U.S. Albums box, the intent was to use cleaner tape sources when the same mixes had been used (though they should have called in a fan or two to review their work and catch the errors they made, such as overlooking a few unique mixes). They probably regarded "added reverb" versions the same as fake stereo. I disagree with this, but at least those were released on the two volumes years ago. Use of 1987 remixes could also have been an oversight, but since they went to the trouble of cutting and pasting the James Bond intro onto "Help!" I would think it must have been deliberate. Basically I think it was sort of "okay, we'll put out a nice set of the American albums, but at least make them sound good." That was their intent, but it was not fully realized.
I would describe myself as puzzled by the almost fanatical affection some have for these album configurations, rather than jealous. It sometimes feels like there are folks here who are more fans of Capitol Records than they are of The Beatles themselves. I can only speak for myself, but my involvement in this thread has been solely because I've seen people insistent upon denying historical facts, specifically regarding the issue of how "I Want To Hold Your Hand" became a hit. The only extreme and strident views I've seen here are from people who want to insist that Capitol made the Beatles a hit in the US, and that they would not have been successful at all in the US with Capitol Records. Those views are not consistent with the historical facts, particularly regarding IWTHYH. I certainly have no problem with people enjoying the old Capitol albums, having fond memories of them, and continuing to listen to them today. But it seems like it's not enough for some fans. There seems to be a need to elevate those albums in importance, to give them credit that probably is not deserved. Beyond IWTHYH, it's debatable how much impact Capitol's marketing and album configurations had on the band's sales and success. But I've seen people on this forum give Capitol's marketing (and sonic alterations) virtually all the credit, and suggest that without it the band would not have succeeded here. And I've seen people respond with extreme anger and hostility to anyone who suggests otherwise.
BTW, has there ever been a consensus about what Capitol Albums, Vol. 3 should have included? Obviously, Y&T and MMT should have been included, but only those two albums or should it have been four or five albums? Any of these could have been included: The Beatles Story Revolver Hey Jude (Originally on Apple, but switched to Capitol in 1976.) A Hard Day's Night (Originally on United Artists, but switched to Capitol in 1978.) Rarities (On Capitol, but released in 1980, long after The Beatles ceased to be.)
I like Sinatra records on Capitol as well. Beach Boys records. Gene Vincent. Beatles. Capitol had a style, and some people like that, but not 'more than the Beatles', speaking for myself. It may be that the confusion here lies in people are putting forth such a narrow view on what has to happen for there to be a 'hit'. It has to get airplay. It has to garner a response from the public. (In this case, it has to garner a response on the part of the public, and the local (national, in this case) record company.) But that's not where it ends. It has to be available for purchase while the demand is there. Which one of those was Capitol responsible for in this case? Did they deliver, or not? You can't take Capitol out of the equation in having a 'hit' record with this song, certainly not on the 'needs to be available for purchase' end of things. It happened the way it did. All of us posting here have no problem elevating all the Beatles releases to some sort of status or another whose 'importance' is relative. Some have albums and songs they revere more than others, but everyone is doing it, whether they be on the home label or some international label. They're just albums, after all. If people are buying into a certain dogma put forth by certain fan segments, or even by the Apple entity itself, then that's their/our personal problem. It's just music that some people happen to like better than other music. As John said, 'the Beatles were just a band that made it very, very big, that's all'. But they are all cultural artifacts, every last single Beatles album and audio product that was ever released anywhere in the world. That is what people don't really 'get'. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Or stayed on Vee Jay, for that matter? It's an interesting hypothetical. What we know about Dave Dexter (from Capitol memos and later interviews) is that he didn't like or understand rock-n-roll and he thought he and Capitol knew better than EMI/The Beatles about how to market and sequence albums. We also know that he was to some degree in the hot seat due to his failure to recognize the Beatles' commercial potential throughout 1963, and as a result probably felt a need to justify his position and show his bosses he was Doing Something. Because of these things, I suspect he was far more hands-on and far more motivated to make changes than someone at another label would have been. Given this, I think Beatles albums on another label would have been much more faithful to their UK counterparts. Probably we would have seen albums with the UK titles and artwork that simply had 12 tracks instead of 14, and then when they had enough leftovers we would have seen a mop-up album compiling those tracks. I'd say there definitely wouldn't have been any sonic alterations (except maybe fake stereo).
True. But these are things any competent label would have done, rather than something special or exceptional about Capitol. Creating the demand is the hard part of making a hit, filling the demand is simply a matter of organizational competence. It's true that Capitol had the infrastructure to quickly manufacture and distribute the record, and their ability to do that expedited the process of making the song a hit. But it would have been a big hit regardless. As has been noted, when demand for the Beatles was at fever pitch, Swan had no problem manufacturing and distributing enough copies of "She Loves You" to make it a #1 hit, and Vee-Jay had no problem doing the same with "Do You Want to Know a Secret" to get it to #3. Capitol deserves credit, but they don't deserve some sort of special credit.
If "needs to be available for purchase" is the argument, then Swan and VJ should get just as much credit, no?
Capitol wasn't competent handling the Beatles up until the end of December, obviously. But the Beatles hadn't 'shown up' yet in a way that Capitol could get excited about until the With material and the 'Hand' single arrived (and maybe not even then as far as Capitol was concerned). Capitol did not initially create the demand; they just supplied what was needed by the demand, as far as the 'Hand' single went. With Meet, Capitol started to get 'creative'. But who showed up when those Beatles needed them and their manufacturing and distribution might? With perfect timing? You know it:
For 'She Loves You' redux, and Introducing... Sure, why not? There's plenty of applause to go around.
The point is, the suggestion has been that even if Capitol can't get credit for breaking IWTHYH, they were somehow unique in responding to the demand for it. But as Jason pointed out, any semi-competent record company could have done the same. Heck, one could argue that VJ was *not* a competent record company, yet they were still able to get records into the upper reaches of the charts despite various legal difficulties. As far as timing goes, Introducing The Beatles beat Meet The Beatles to market.
I don't know whether another company could have rolled into rush production and then kept up with the great demand that occurred the 'week of' - December 26- whatnot, when the single's "Sales started out like an explosion." The 'Viral' article also relates: 'By this point Capitol understood it was sitting on a monster and that it would need to manufacture far more than the 200,000 singles the label had originally planned. Factories worked overtime as Christmas approached. Capitol even did third-party deals with manufacturing plants owned by rival labels.' And, 'Within its first three days of release, "I Want to Hold Your Hand" sold 250,000 copies and the Beatles were immediately the most talked-about group in the country. DJs were quick to inform their listeners that the band would be coming to America in February, heightening the sense of excitement.' Could another record company have gotten that done? As was said before, other companies only wished they had been in a position to find out. But what Capitol achieved was a feat in and of itself. Tasked with the job, they came through. That's all we know - that it happened. Swan's 'She Loves You' didn't enter the Billboard charts until the end of January, and didn't make #1 until March. Swan had a bit more time to press those, or sell old stock.
Capitol may very well have done the best possible job that any record company could have at the time. I have no issue with that. I just think that it's nonsense if people suggest that The Beatles would have totally flopped in the U.S. had it not been for Capitol. The way some people tell it, if Capitol had pushed Gerry and The Pacemakers in this manner instead of The Beatles, we'd be talking about Gerry and The Pacemakers in this thread. I buy that Capitol maximized The Beatles' potential in the U.S. in 1964. I don't buy that Capitol prevented them from being anonymous is the U.S.
My vol. 3 would have been like this: -Yesterday and Today (with duophonics for the three Revolver tracks, to replicate the original release, and the three unique true stereo mixes of subsequent releases as bonus tracks) -Revolver -Magical Mystery Tour (since it would contain a few different mixes from the one added to the UK catalog) -Hey Jude I would break the 4-disc rule to include the bonus disc Rarities as a closure to the collection. The Beatles Story and the UA AHDN would feel out of place in a box set encompassing 1967-1970 releases (considering Rarities as a bonus, as I said).
True, Capitol was able to meet the demand very quickly and efficiently. But that's mainly an argument that Capitol helped the single sell faster and more efficiently than it would have otherwise, rather than an argument that it helped the single sell more. If the Beatles had been a flash-in-the-pan fad that faded quickly, then Capitol's ability to respond quickly and meet demand immediately would have been significant. But obviously that wasn't the case. If say, Vee Jay had held the rights to the single and had not been able to get it into as many stores immediately, that might have resulted in some people having to wait a week or two longer to buy the single, but it wouldn't have resulted in the demand fading or less overall success for the song.
Not really, since they would have cut the James Bond intro onto the original stereo mix (UK) if they had used that. In fact, I believe the producers of the US box thought they WERE using the original stereo mix.
Or sell at all. You can't buy something that isn't available. Capitol had the rights to the single in the US. No one could buy the single unless Capitol agreed to provide it, or passed and allowed someone else to provide it instead and those people followed through. (Or unless pirated/counterfeit versions filled the market niche, or were imported from elsewhere.) Maybe. We can't positively know.
True, we don't know for certain. But we know that US demand for the single started on December 17th, when it went into the rotation on the DC radio station. And we know that demand continued to grow over the subsequent week and a half, as the song began getting played on several other stations nationwide. Yet during this week and a half (when demand was growing exponentially) no one was able to buy the single since Capitol had not released it yet. Clearly the inability to buy the single immediately during that time didn't kill interest, but rather created pent-up demand. Given this, it seems quite likely that in a hypothetical situation where Vee-Jay owned the rights and couldn't manufacture/distribute enough singles to meet immediate demand, the lack of supply would have added to the pent-up demand, rather than killing the momentum of the song. The song would still have been on heavy rotation nationwide and there's no reason to believe that having a to wait a week or so to buy the single would cause people to lose interest. If inability to buy the song (while hearing it in heavy rotation on the radio) from December 17 to 26 created pent-up demand, it seems unlikely inability to buy it from December 26 to January 1st would have a different effect.
