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

From Who Butched The Beatles:

As producer George Martin later elaborated, "Rubber Soul" had been "the first album to present a new, growing Beatles to the world. For the first time we began to think of albums as art on their own, as complete entities."

So, it started with Rubber Soul, Not from the beginning.

 

Well, the Beatles may not have liked Capitol's changing the early albums but they willingly participated. When Capitol called for two new songs to fill out Beatles VI, they could have said, sorry, nothing finished! Instead, they recorded Bad Boy and ... maybe Dizzy Miss Lizzie? And same goes for the three Lennon tunes for Yesterday and Today. Could have said, still working, sorry.

Instead, they sent the songs right along.

 

Didn't the reverse happen with Motown artists in the UK? Tears of a Clown was never "intended" as a single but it sure worked out for Smokey and Co.

 

No reason to give up Graham. I'm not trying to get you, just posting my opinion and facts as I know them. There wasn't a single American record label willing to give the Beatles a chance in late '63 or earlier (except for small, indy labels) and EVERY major UK label had already turned the Beatles down before they signed with Parlophone. There was no lack of respect towards the artist and producer back then. It's very easy now to feel this way... I do understand your point of view, but then, not so. Back then, any and all UK acts who were fortunate enough to have US distribution, had their albums changed and augmented. You want a shocker? The Stones had albums shortened to 11 tracks just like the Beatles... so did the Who and the Kinks. I think one or two DC5 albums were barely 20 minutes long. Nearly every song that was released in the US tanked... Telstar being one early exception.

The Beatles albums may have really been butchered on a different label. How about VJ issuing all those different incarnations of Introducing The Beatles! Some with Please Please Me and Ask Me Why, others with Love Me Do and PS I Love You in their stead. All with different covers and such to 'confuse' the record-buying public. What about the heinous titles like The Beatles Vs. The Four Seasons and The Beatles with Frank Ifield (Live On Stage). Brutal really. Imagine a debut album that included Ain't She Sweet or My Bonnie? Or how about asking for songs "in-the-can"? Then releasing Besame Mucho, How Do You Do It or the Pete Best version of Love Me Do? I don't think Capitol ever intended to hurt their image, but neither did they feel they owed anything to them regarding artistic integrity. Surely not in 1964! The situation could have been much, much worse. Ron

 

Commerce vs. Art.

An age old argument in the music industry. Can't have art without commerce. Can't have commerce without art.

Hard to believe now, but back then Capitol probably thought the Beatles (what a weird name) will probably be a one hit wonder with that "hold my hand" song (sic) and never be heard of again.

"Strike while the irons hot" is the expression and I'm sure that's what the Capitol execs thought.

 

The entire story is related in The Beatles on Capitol Records. It's quite exhaustive and provides the most indepth discussion of the Butcher cover I've ever read including interviews with the photographer discussing the session, it's original purpose, etc. If you don't buy the Wiki version, read the book--it's exhaustive.

 

So, Paul pushed the cover as a statement on the war? How did he even know there was going to be a Yesterday and Today?

 

I was speaking of stereo pressings with added reverb.

 

Not only that, but their American labels actually REPEATED SONGS on consecutive albums when there wasn't anything fresh available- so Capitol at least put three NEW tunes on Yesterday and Today and didn't serve up Michelle, Wait and You Won't See Me again! Capitol gets a lot of stick but I remember saving up and buying these outrageously expensive imports just so I could hear Thank You Girl in stereo or Komm Gib Mir Diene Hand back in 1969-70!

 

Isn't that missing the point? They didn't know there was going to be such an album, of course not, but they knew they wanted that image of them used at the next opportunity. In Britain they supplied it to DISC for a COVER- on the news-stands and all- and for ads for the next single. The equivalent high-profile use in The US was for their next project there, an LP.
Do you really think George Martin or Brian Epstein or Sir Joe or Alan Livingstone or Bill Miller looked said "what we really need boys is a sick, gory photo that will outrage everyone. Just pop along and have one taken for this next American album." Yeah, right. EMI didn't even want to use the Robert Freeman 'half-shadow' for With The Beatles and specifically asked for another cheery smiley picture. The Beatles- not their manager or Recording Manager or anybody else- said they had chosen the picture they wanted, based, at their request, on the dramaric pictures taken by their friends in Hamburg in 1962.
Why do you think album jackets (in Britain and the rest of the world at least) went from colourful grinning glossy fan club type covers to arty, introspective, moody, classy shots as 1963 rolled into 1964? Because the Beatles wanted it to reflect the growing sophistication of their music. As usual, everyone else followed suit. These things don't happen quite so randomly as you may suppose. As late as Rubber Soul, EMI pleaded with the Beatles to change their minds about the cover. By Yesterday and Today, they shrugged and said "if that's what they want- it must be OK- they've been right so far."

 

I thought the Beatles pushed for the butcher cover as a statement of Capitol butchering up the Beatles UK albums.

Evan

 

Myth...

 

John Lennon gave a radio interview during the WALLS AND BRIDGES era where he discussed the 'butcher' cover and how he was the one who really pushed to get it to be the cover of an album.

here's a clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHgoklU2i9g

 

The UK A Hard Day's Night and Help! albums include singles because they are movie soundtracks. Hard to have a movie soundtrack with the title theme from the movie not on it. Please Please Me was their debut and followed the "Hit Single . . . plus 10 more favorites" formula that the Beatles moved away from beginning with With the Beatles. I've never understood why the "Eleanor Rigby"/"Yellow Submarine" single was drawn from Revolver - that's the real exception to the "no singles on UK albums" rule.

 

Is there any support for any of this? or are these just logical conclusions of what they must have said?

The Alan Livingston quotes about Paul pushing for the album appear to have been misquotes - If anything, he said that Paul didn't want the album cover destroyed AFTER the controversy occurred.

 

I don't know if anyone answered this, but I think the reason why Capitol was able to issue I Saw Her Standing There was because Vee Jay had failed to make royalty payments on a few of the Beatles songs during the summer of 1963, due to financial problems. So, I think the rights reverted back to EMI.

I may not have all of the particulars correct, but it can be found in the Bruce Spizer Vee Jay book.

 

Yes, Ron it's true. I'm playing now as I type away. I'm listening to a reissue pressing of Beatles 65 with the lime green Capitol target label. I'll Be Back has additional reverb on it. Capitol probably took the standard mix and added the reverb.

As I posted earlier, the later C1 pressing does not have the reverb. It's dry like the standard UK mix. This version was probably used on the Capitol box.

 

Repeated what?

The only thing that Capitol did was to issue the 5 tracks on the Something New LP that were already on the United Artists AHDN soundtrack album. That was it, no other repeats.

Capitol of Canada repeated some tracks that were already issued on the Beatlemania LP. This decision had nothing to do with Dave Dexter or US Capitol.

 

I haven't looked the book in awhile but IIRC, Lennon was the one that was really in favor of issuing photos from that session including putting it on the next Beatles U.S. release and the rest of The Beatles kind of went along with him.

 

That was a reply to a message about Rolling Stones and Who albums in the US. I said AT LEAST Capitol didn't repeat tracks UNLIKE the labels that issued Rolling Stones and Who.

 

That's how I read your post.

 

Yes, the dangers of not reading the quote it was a reply to I expect.

 

Lennon referred to this in one of the several Walls and Bridges radio broadcasts in 1974. But it's hard if not impossible to see any other way the butcher photo got used. In June 1966 not even Zappa would use such an image for a COVER. No mainstream record company, heck, no small time company would have DARED use such an image at that point in time if it hadn't been for the immense popularity of the artistes involved, if that was what they wanted. Epstein and Martin could never have thought that the butcher picture was a good idea. Alan Livingstone didn't BUT HE USED THE PHOTO. Why? On a whim? Because he didn't care if the album sold? Or because he was TOLD this is the image the Beatles want? Mmh, tough one.

 

In Beatles Monthly (I think) in September 1966, there's a quote from Paul that "every time we put out an album, there are four or five cover versions of songs that immediatley get to be hits. So we thought we'd do that this time, have the hit ourselves". It's not really a reason, but it has always struck me that they chose the two least Beatle-like tracks, yet the two that definitely would have been hits if a cover version had come out. They certainly don't advertise the true contents of Revolver, there's nothing else like either of them on the album!
However the main point about the Beatles albums in England is that they never released a single from it AFTER the release of an album- until Something. All the singles on Beatles albums are because they are soundtracks, with the exception of their debut (standard practice in 1963 to have singles put on albums, until the Beatles themselves changed it ) and this one exception.
In the US it took a little longer to abandon the 'must have a couple of recent hit singles on the album to entice buyers' ethos, but by 1967 and largely due to Sgt Pepper and the subsequent rush to mimic or outdo it, there was a chasm just beginning between pop and rock and the idea of singles on albums suddenly became passe.