Capitol versions: Which Beatles records were remixed by Dave Dexter?

Hardly. The Beatles pushed to get a Butcher picture used- they were used twice in Britain; the familiar one as a Music press ad for Paperback Writer, and another as the front page photo of Disc and Music Echo (and in colour). They selected it and had it sent via NEMS to EMI and thence to Capitol as their new cover for this 'stop gap' album. Dave Livingstone didn't steal it you know.

 

I heard a tape of that show later, and he played a Dexterised version of "She's A Woman" as well; only thing was, it was in two-track stereo(vocals on one side, instruments on another).

Where could he have gotten that(bootleg?)....

Evan

 

I heard that Dexter actually re-recorded all the instrumental tracks with the wrecking crew in LA.

Honestly, I always get a kick of out seeing the UK vs US album 'debates' (especially when you take note of each poster's respective location in the world).

When it comes to Beatle business, I find that Ron [Brainwashed] usually has it right (and he's got a wealth of sources to cull information from as well) and I agree with what he and I myself have already stated in this thread; the UK albums are absolute landmarks but the US albums are no slouches. In the US, other than expensive imported copies, the Dexter-ized versions of The Beatles' albums were all Americans had. They served as the soundtrack to Beatlemania in the states.

 

I recently reheard the Dexterized/Duophonic She's A Woman, and to those not familiar with fake stereo, it does sound like true stereo of a sort. Just really bad sounding and out of control true stereo.

 

Ron -

This is definitely not true of the pressing of Beatles 65 (mono, T2-2228-T10 matrix, "3" on lower right corner of jacket rear) that I have. I just listened to it and it is very different from the same track on the Jensen Capitol Series CD. The reverb is very prominent - the guitars literally jangle. On the CD, they are much more subdued.

 

Where does this information come from? It's been well established that the story that the Beatles came up with the butcher cover as a protest against Capitol's cutting up their albums was an urban myth.

I've never heard that they selected this shot for the cover either. Is there actual support for this, or is this conjecture?

 

Did anybody listen to that Dexter interview? He sounded bitter and so apathetic towards the Beatles in general. I guess they should apologize for lining his pockets handsomely and he can't even get the facts straight. Vee Jay released 2 singles in the summer of 63 and I Want to Hold Your Hand came out in December of that year?? As for 'Meet The Beatles'', that is the first Beatles album that I heard and that was in 1979 and it remains outstanding. I think some of us younger folk need to realize that the single dominated back the then and album was secondary. How many 60's albums where titled "Name of Hit Song" plus 11 other favorites. a lot and I don't really understand the vitriol towards the capitol albums. I mean it is still the Beatles.

 

The mono mix on Beatles '65 is in fact different than the standard UK mono mix. I thought folks were saying the US stereo mix was different than the UK, or that there may be two different US "mixes" one with added reverb. I'm not aware of any pressings with added reverb. Ron

 

He doesn't seem thrilled, but in other interviews and related conversations posted by forum members he didn't seem apathetic at all. And let's not forget, he was with Capitol for a long time, joining them in 1943. He was a big band, pop and jazz guy and he, like many of his contemporaries, were not so keen about rock & roll, particularly, the UK stylings that started floating over in late 1963. He probably thought it more a craze than anything. As it was, he turned down the DC5, Gerry and The Pacemakers and The Yardbirds... so it seems likely he was never into this music much. Not sure what you mean that his pockets were lined handsomely... Capitol was very successful before the Beatles were signed up. Why would he profit significantly more because of them? I don't think George Martin saw millions in profits from his associations with The Beatles and other UK acts and artists either. Ron

 

This type of post best exemplifies how little many of our fellow UK members know the true facts. Dexter didn't make the decisions on his own. For the most part he didn't do the remasterings himself either. It bears repeating, but in early 1964, Capitol didn't own the rights to the Please Please Me album or the singles up through She Loves You/I'll Get You. Due to various Capitol and US standards, the then current hit single would be included on the related album. Also, US record labels typically had 11-12 tracks on them. Something had to give. So Dexter and Capitol decided their covers of 50's songs would be left off. Personally, I think Capitol took a big gamble including all originals, except, Till There Was You (a very popular tune from the blockbuster The Music Man film)... it actually made The Beatles look more prolific than they really were back then. As I've mentioned many times, Dexter and Capitol rarely mucked with the actual running order of songs from their respective UK LPs. In fact, the originals on MTB are in exact order, just missing most of the cover songs. Ron

 

So says Wiki but I ain't buying it.

 

Well, of course they were changed.... as were every early Stones, Who, Kinks, DC5 and other UK acts at the time. Two different countries, different royalty/copyright laws, different ways of presenting music to the record buying public, etc... With all due respect to George Martin, he also said every Beatles' album offered 14 tracks and that singles were never included on them because it would be unfair to those buying the singles. Last I looked, the Please Please Me album has 4 singles on it, all four of them from the preceeding year. A Hard Day's Night has one fewer track and 4 singles on it as well. What? Only 9 "new" tracks? Even B-sides included?! And eight of the tunes were issued on two EPs that year as well. Help included two singles, as did Revolver. In fact, up through 1966, only With The Beatles and Rubber Soul featured 14 new tracks. Hardly the way George Martin, to this very day, would want people to think. Ron

PS I doubt that even George Martin would think the early albums were compiled as some sort of entity, or having any theme whatsover.

 

Ron
it was 47 years ago these events happened and we on this side of the pond still can't comprehend what dear Mr Dexter jnr was up to.
GM's perfect pop perfections were peerless
Even in the USSR EMI originals were available (be it pressed on XRAY film stock ! )

 

The Capitol Rubber Soul is perfection.

 

Then I'd say re-read some of my posts and those of others who were around back then. Different countries, different policies, different marketing, different royalty/copyright laws. It all adds up. Surely, no one today thinks the Beatles were looked at as "special" back in late 1963. A fad perhaps. A teenage sensation, sure, but everlasting and influential? Not a chance. To be fair, other countries altered their albums too. Canada changed around the original albums, new titles and covers. Some countries, like West Germany, issued LPs from both the UK and US... sometimes with different artwork too! Many European countries issued Greatest Hits compilations as early as 1965. Capitol never did that.

Capitol was also at a disadvantage from the start. They didn't own the rights to some eighteen tracks from 1962/1963. Their debut LP could NOT contain any of these songs, except for I Saw Her Standing There (and I still can't recall how they acquired the rights to this one tune from VJ). The issues started when compiling Meet The Beatles as a self-written album. This meant the next album would have to feature the remaining cover tunes from With The Beatles, plus the newly-acquired (from Swan Records) single, She Loves You/I'll Get You... and a smattering of new songs (I Call Your Name, You Can't Do That and Long Tall Sally sent from EMI (stereo mixes to boot). Not sure why Thank You Girl was included (or why EMI sent a true stereo mix) and From Me To You was excluded. If one wants to complain, then lay the blame on EMI for not demanding the albums be released as-is. Blame George Martin for sending alternate (sometimes inferior) mixes and not sending stereo mixes for songs intended to be on stereo albums. Ron

 

Selective memory Graham. From Revolver on up Martin is probably right, but not earlier on. And I dont think saying my 'few' examples is fair or accurate. By my count four of the first six albums included singles. Two of those albums included 4 single sides. And one of those albums included one fewer track than usual too. It is what it is. Ron

 

Again, revisionist history at work here. Let's not forget the Beatles were signed to Parlophone, the lowest rung (at the time) of the EMI empire. It was not a rock label, that's for sure. The other divisions within EMI (Columbia and HMV) all turned down the Beatles. The problem with using Anthology annecdotes is that its some 30 years after-the-fact. To much re-telling of the story. As for selling in bigger numbers? Where? The VJ and Swan singles all flopped. The difference was I Want To Hold Your Hand. THAT song was the deal-maker. Capitol thought THAT song had hit potential and took a chance. In 1963 VERY few UK pop/rock groups had US distribution... and the few that did were on small labels for the most part. Capitol was never forced to take them on, but once they did they promoted the hell out of them... even before they released a single or came to America. Ron

 

Hindsight is 20/20 my friend.