The Beatles: UK Response to US Capitol versions?

Isn't the majority of members here American? If so, this is a normal situation (given the thread). If the membership was mainly Japanese, I imagine the singling out in question would be of the Japanese version of the catalogue.

 

My apologies for not being more elaborate. Even in other places I read about The Beatles recorded output, it's almost always a comparison drawn only between UK and US releases. Even in books or articles published in the UK.

 

Pretty sure Lewisohn states Bad Boy and Dizzy Miss Lizzie were recorded specifically for the US market.

 

I think you're correct. I don't have it in front of me, but there were other sources that state that as well. I believe they were both recorded on the same day.

 

....and somewhat off-topic, but of course they had already recorded two tracks specifically for the German market......

 

I think the US versions are largely unknown here.

 

I enjoy the Duophonic versions.

 

I prefer the UK ones, but it's interesting the USA versions, American Rubber Soul, Yesterday And Today, Hey Jude and Meet The Beatles are awesome.

 

I grew up with the 1987-88 cd's & to me that was what the Beatles intended & that makes them cannon. End of story.

 

I've always wondered why someone outside Capitol Records' area of influence when The Beatles albums were first released would prefer the US versions over the UK ones.

 

Well what do you call modern albums by other bands released in the UK that have one or two bonus tracks on them that are not on the US release ? By your logic they would be compilations. Also what would you call the Beatles MMT? by your logic it is a comp but the beatles treat it like an album ?

 

yeah then why didn't the beatles originally release MMT in the UK like it is on the cd. I mean they took a US comp as "cannon"

 

most likely because the Capitol albums accounted for about 1/2 of the beatles sales.

 

In addition, the albums as originally released in the U.S. were MUCH cheaper per album (when they first came out, most were available in Chicago at discount outlets for about $3.50 for stereo, $2.75 for mono). I believe that Beatles LP's in Europe were MUCH more expensive (the equivalent of $6 or so???).

 

In Australia it was the original album configurations that were released, though there were two local compilations (Greatest Hits Vol 1 & 2) and two US compilations (Magical Mystery Tour - only via a record club, and Hey Jude) released up until the end of 1970.

Being a US based forum I'll be careful how I say this, but I suspect that much of the negativity that some people show towards the US LP configurations is based on a few combining factors:

1) the reduction of track numbers (from usually 14 to 11) on each of the albums prior to Sgt Pepper, hence increasing the number of purchases required to gain the same number of tracks. For purchasing after the period, this is somewhat ameliorated by the inclusion of singles on US albums. removing the need to purchase singles as well, but for those buying the releases at the time, this would mean that many tracks were purchased twice, unlike in the UK where the inclusion of a single release on an album was a rare event. Put simply - the perceived greed of the US company Capitol. The US albums are a reminder of that greed.

2) Not following the artists & producer's desired album sequencing, arrangement and production.

3) The additional sound processing of many of the tracks undertaken by the US company, resulting in sounds from minimal added reverb to crazy stereo effects, bouncing mono tracks left and right. The first time I heard the US "She's a Woman", I didn't recognise it as the same performance due to the overwhelming processing undertaken by Capitol.

4) A general negative attitude in other countries towards a perceived US dominating culture that, rather than embracing and presenting work from other cultures "as it is", seemingly modifies it to make it palatable for a middle American audience. The Beatles US albums prior to Revolver would be cited as evidence of this.

On a more personal level, I always found that people in Australia are curious about the US albums, and understanding the US experience which was vey different to the Australian experience (and what Australians imagined the UK experience to be). I found the two Capitol 4 album sets to be interesting at worst and enjoyable at best. (Like many I wished there was a third)

When Joe Brennan published " The Usenet Guide to Beatles Recording Variations »
I suspect that was a trigger to search out the differences between the UK and US releases for many people.

In the context of the 1960's and consumerism as practised then, the modifications of the albums in the US were a product of their time. Therefore I have more acceptance of what Capitol did then, given the general company behaviours of the time , than what Apple did two years ago when releasing the US album set. If they're about reproducing a moment in time, then reproduce them as they were - sound modifications included. Rewriting history is not where the western world is at nowadays.

 

Have no need for USA versions. Covers look cheap. The only one that has merit and looks quite iconic is
Meet The Beatles, but that looks familiar.

 

Would those mythical bonus tracks be added to an album without a band's consent? Would other songs be removed to make room for them, again against that band's consent? If the answer is no to both then it's not my logic that is flawed - its that YOU are strawmanning my argument.

MMT was a comp - so are Past Masters 1 and 2. Comp CDs are a necessary evil to collect the non UK album tracks - are they not? Either that or add them as bonus tracks to the individual albums, right? What other option is there aside from releasing a bunch of 2 song CDs to replicate the non-album singles.

The options the Beatles had when it came to the 87 CDs was to either make 3 volumes of Past Masters or 2 volumes of Past Masters and issue the US MMT comp on CD - since every one of its tracks were coincidentally non-album tracks in the UK. The Beatles upon releasing MMT on CD have said basically "We now consider this an "official compilation CD in the exact same way that Past Masters 1 &2 are official compilation CDs."

The plus of releasing three volumes of Past Masters would have been that the two year gap between Rain and Lady Madonna would have been filled, by in chronological order the SFF/PL single, the AYNIL/BYARM single, Hello Goodbye and the MMT EP tracks .

The minus if they had chosen 3 Volumes of Past Masters is there'd be 3 albums with the same boring artwork rather than just two. Plus vol 1 was white type on black background and vol 2 was black type on white background.. If there was a third volume I suppose they could have gone with grey type on a grey background - but I'd say the MMT album cover is slightly more attractive a cover than that - although the MMT EP cover would have been better still.

So "my logic" is that three CDs were required to mop up all the stray non UK album tracks. The MMT album was by sheer coincidence made up entirely of stray non UK album tracks. So again they had two options - release 3 volumes of Past Masters, or basically release the same 3CDs with the exact same tracks but with a slightly shuffled running order and name one of them MMT - which is essentially what they did.

Either option was valid. Either option created 3 necessary "official compilation" CDs to complement the official UK album CD releases without creating any unnecessary duplications/redundancies. In the CD age MMT is exactly as valid as Past Masters 1&2 - no more and no less.

So is "my logic" clear enough to you now or are you going to strawman me again?

 

The US Rubber Soul works better as an album for me. It's perfect and the song selections and deletions make sense for this one. Capital got it right there.

 

"The options the Beatles had when it came to the 87 CDs was to either make 3 volumes of Past Masters or 2 volumes of Past Masters and issue the US MMT comp on CD - since every one of its tracks were coincidentally non-album tracks in the UK"

Nope they could have released MMT as an ep as it was (i mean you want to keep the beatles vision right ? )and put the other songs on the first two past masters.

"Would those mythical bonus tracks be added to an album without a band's consent?" sorry to tell you the beatles contracts gave capitol consent ... otherwise capitol coudn't do it

 

Perhaps to some degree, but Something New and Beatles '65 were regular releases in Germany more or less simultaneously with their release in the US.

The US Magical Mystery Tour LP was issued in Germany in 1971 and sold very well.

Beatles' Second Album was manufactured in Germany, but was intended for sale only on US (mostly) and UK military bases in Germany so it would not have been familiar to most regular record buyers in Germany.

 

Then why did the Beatles complain about it at the time? The fact that Capitol may have had the legal right to do something doesnt mean the band were happy about it or agreed it was a good decision. Don't conflate the two.

Plus when they renegotiated the Capitol deal they had enough clout to withdraw their "s0-called" consent after which time Capitol ended the shenanigens

 

I agree, and after all these years I still wonder what those songs from Yesterday & Today are doing on Rubber Soul and Revolver.

Forgive the classical analogy, but honestly there's a "UK is always better" bias in this forum that I factor in much as I factored in the "Karajan is the best" bias of the Penguin classical guide and Gramophone magazine. For the Beatles in stereo, of course the British albums are authentic and best, and Parlophones usually sound better than Capitols, but there are pleasures galore in the US catalog. The "Dexterization" and "duophonic travesty" are frequently overstated around here. Sure some early Beatle tracks were futzed with by Capitol, but there's a brashness to the best US vinyl copies I have (whether original or 1970s/80s reissues) that are distinctly different (not better or worse necessarily) than their more flawless/polite UK counterparts. My original US copies of Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and the White Album are some of the best sounding albums I own, even if they lose head to head with the Blue Box UK versions I have. Then there's the Bell Sound "Hey Jude" album and a "Wally" Let It Be, which I wouldn't want to be without. CD-wise, the Mono and US Albums boxes sit comfortably next to each other on my Beatles shelf.

 

Consent - "give permission for something to happen." the beatles did that with the contracts they signed. it has nothing to do with being happy. Paul wasn't happy with the strings on the let it be album. doesn't mean he didn't give consent. your word not mine.

 

Personally, I like getting the best of both worlds, in regard to the UK and US pressings. It's just whatever I feel like spinning that day.

 

I prefer it too. Drive My Car while good, it doesn't really fit the rest of the stuff. The only problem i have with the US album is they kept Michelle on it. That song is dreadful. If Nowhere Man was on the US version in its place it would be the best Beatles album of all time.