The Beatles: UK Response to US Capitol versions?

Yeah ..I did a monty python stomp foot re; US/MMT apologies to all about that.

 

Just catching up on this thread and it's interesting that, while the OP specifically asked for comments from UK fans, most of the posts here are from American fans. Surely, you're all threadcrapping

Seriously, it's a shame that an opportunity to sit back and discover what foreign friends think of your catalogue and how they came to experience it has been hijacked by another rehearsal of its defence.

 

Correction: It uses the Capitol masters.

There aren't that many actual unique mixes among them, and most of them are also on the US Albums box.

 

I know this particular thread came up a year ago, but it remains fascinating to me how often on this forum there are debates with obviously strongly held opinions about the US versions.

Ftr I grew up with them, and no doubt that affects my thinking. But not just because it is what I got used to. Price.Pitt above makes the point that has no counter that by including (even concededly not consistently) singles on albums, that created a great utility in the market. Singles even for The Beatles were usually sold for a quite limited period, while albums were available either indefinitely or at least much much longer. This meant if one did not buy them all when they came out, whatever you did not buy would be unavailable to you. But it was not only the market that made this singles v. albums thing an issue. As a practical matter in listening to the music one had to go from the long playing album to take it off and put on a single to hear it. that might seem like a minor annoyance, but it does tend to undermine the ordering issue that so many who prefer the UK versions tout, meaning as to when the songs were recorded. I frankly am not sure why this goes unrecognized by those who see the UK versions as so superior.

In any event as a listening experience there is much to be said for examining each album on its own merits, in terms of song selection and sequencing. In that regard clearly the US version of Revolver is inferior given the absence of the three Lennon tunes that were earlier released on Yesterday and Today. But then both versions are ill served by inclusion of Yellow Submarine, which should have been saved for the film album, and by leaving off especially Rain, and probably Paperback Writer. I would also concede Beatles VI is something of a hodgepodge.

But then some collections really work, like the US Beatles Second. If you don't like their covers then you will also have issues with several UK releases, but purism on such consideration aside, Second is a great collection of rockers and r&b tunes. Plus, it made She Loves You available on an album. But most of all I think the one album the US version is clearly superior is Rubber Soul. I don't particularly care when Nowhere Man was recorded, it was a questionable fit on that album, but most of all following Michelle with What Goes On is a travesty of sequencing. another US version I prefer is Beatles 65, really a great collection and again one where the inclusion of I Feel Fine and She's a Woman add to the lp listening experience. And the UK With the Beatles without I Want to Hold Your Hand? It's just odd. (Ftr I think Something New and Yesterday and Today are somewhere in the middle in terms of the quality of selection and sequencing, and the whole business with the VJ album and awaiting release of The Early Beatles was problematic to be sure, but I don't see that as a Capitol issue per se in the sense that their song selections were at fault.)

Now of course once the cd came into existence, and the Past Masters I and II came along to fill in the holes, the UK versions became the original experience for younger first time listeners, who became used to them. The problems of changing from lp's to singles and the relative lack of availability of singles became moot. But I still have issues with the UK releases, while concededly recognizing the above issues with the US releases. I just don't see how one can take an across the board position and claim one absolutely superior to the other.

 

Threads often go places following an initial period of discussion that was not specifically raised by the OP. Responses to responses that have been here for nearly a year is not at all anything like a thread derailment.

 

I agree, their existence ( prior to Rubber Soul ) does not irk me, far from it, but i view them pragmatically, as a necessary evil if you like accepted as for the biggest bang for their buck in the US market which was playing catch up. However artistically they have no more worth to me than any compilation album, and i hold the same view as to the Yellow Submarine album too, which is officially regarded as a cannon album.

 

but to me it is not about superiority one vs the other, its about what are effectively cut and paste compilations versus what the artists intended. Now some say, with some legitimacy , that the early parlophone albums were also record company constructs, but the difference is is that they were constructed usually from single sessions and so contain coherent recordings, snapshots of that moment in time. Sure the record company where still theoretically in control of the UK product but luckily for the Beatles that record company was effectively prior to 1965 George Martin ( and by 1965 the Beatles unique market position ensured nobody at EMI was going to change that even when he left EMI and EMI took full control of the label ). GM and the Beatles worked together to create that product, in other words unlike the Capitol albums the Beatles were at ever stage directly involved in the process.

From Rubber Soul the situation becomes even more clear cut, RS was probably the first Beatles album they started to focused on making a artistic statement ( Norman Smith said that it started to get serious at that point ) so now you have the US version vs the UK version of Rubber Soul and we can now for the first time unequivocally state that the Capitol version is clearly in breach of what the band intended artistically.

Of course many prefer the US version to the UK version, but you know what, that is irrelevant because if you chose the US version of RS over the UK one you give the Beatles a free pass. The Beatles should be judged on a product as they intended, good or bad.

And that, in a nutshell is why their UK product is regarded as the go to cannon. The Capitol albums are just cut and paste compilations, but even that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed, it just means that they cannot used in any form as a bands artistic statement.

 

So, the fact that no Capitol album had the singles 'From Me To You', 'Can't Buy Me Love', 'A Hard Day's Night' or 'Paperback Writer' while they are all on British Parlophone albums is apparently not a problem for you who cling to the 'Captiol is better because it gave us all the singles on albums!' bandwagon.

 

11 tracks usually, 6 on side one and 5 on side two.

 

they are neither imho, but they are cut and paste compilations and nothing to do with what the band intended, but like i say that should not stop people enjoying them and i think their UK detractors should be more understanding of this just as their US supporters should accept that the UK product was the core product that the band either directly fashioned or at least had a big hand in fashioning.

So imho their US supporters need to get a little real about what their albums were and the UK detractors need to be less sensitive about their existence and allow those who wish to to still enjoy the Capitol albums just as we can enjoy the red and blue albums or Rock n Roll music.

 

ps you can have issues with the UK releases, but these issues are then issues with the artistic intent of the band. So you need to take that up with the Beatles. That is not the case with the Capitol albums we have to take any issues with those up with the record company.

 

I can't think of another artist whose work would be worthy of all of this debate, of gladly hearing the same songs on different albums. The Beatles' catalog is so rich we're lucky to have these alternative versions. From an American point of view, it was like winning the lottery when the U.K. versions became available here. While the US Rubber Soul and Revolver now seem incomplete, I enjoy albums like Beatles VI and Yesterday & Today as strong releases on their own.

 

I have a rule of thumb that any time one uses the word "just" in making an argument, it is an indication of a subconscious awareness of weakness. You also make too much of this "compilation" business. It is a value neutral term, implying nothing more than selecting, editing, which is a process that went into both UK and US versions. In short you misuse the word.

What you are really complaining about is that George Martin had direct input and a degree of control over the selection and sequencing process that was handled by other people in the US versions. While we all have respect for him, that in itself is not enough to make the argument that the end result was definitely and categorically better with him involved.

As for the Beatles themselves you assume too much about the connection between your perception of what they cared about and the end results, too. In making the music, did they know at the time which songs would be singles, which not, which on lp's, which not? Were they ALL in total agreement as that selection process proceeded with the choices made? I think not, the point being that you make a rather weak argument in effectively assuming that the end results of the UK releases were categorically superior.

In so doing you also have completely ignored the points about US releases containing singles and why that was better. Finally I also do not understand why I should think what subjectively is the superior US version of Rubber Soul as giving them "a free pass".

 

In the US everybody had the UA release of A Hard Day's Night, with Can't Buy Me Love. What UK album had Paperback Writer on it?

 

Oldies But Goldies, which also had all the other non-LP A-sides on it, up to that point.

 

i ignored it because i " just " cannot compare compilation albums to the albums as the artists intended.

I other words it is irrelevant which album is better because the only one that is important artistically is the one the band had a direct hand in constructing. If you prefer a Capitol album to a Uk one thats fine, but then you are enjoying an album Capitol constructed against one the band constructed.

Prior to Rubber Soul the Beatles were probably less involved/concerned about their UK product to a degree but they were still unquestionably involved unlike the Capitol product where they were not involved at all.

To highlight the point even as early as 1962 the Beatles were still able to thwart GM's attempt to get them to release " How do you do " as their second single and it is highly likely they were heavily involved as to what tracks would be released as singles and those that would appear on the LP. The only thing i suspect they may have left totally to George Martin was the sequencing but even then that may not have been always the case.

So its heavily and/or partly involved product vs a product with zero involvement and thats why there is no comparison, it has got nothing to do with which is better or which is worse so the singles argument is " just " ( opps sorry ) to me irrelevant.

 

Missing from any Parlophone LP, up to 1966:

Thank You Girl
I'll Get You
This Boy
Long Tall Sally
I Call Your Name
Slow Down
Matchbox
She's A Woman
Yes It Is
I'm Down
Rain

Missing from any Capitol LP, up to 1966:

Misery
There's A Place
From Me To You
Can't Buy Me Love
A Hard Day's Night
I Should Have Known Better
I'm Down
Paperback Writer
Rain

Not much in it really...

 

and of course Bad Boy, but what we missed out on in the UK was album versions, and in particular in stereo versions of some B sides, we had to go to Capitol for that for years. Thats why i found the Capitol albums useful for only for that and some of the DexterIzation which to us was an enjoyable novelty.

 

That doesn't appear to be true anymore (and it was originally intended as the debut single).

It was Mitch Murray, the song's composer, and Ardmoore & Beechwood publishing who scuttled Martin's plans for the song - forcing 'Love Me Do' to be promoted to the A-side and requiring a new B-side to be recorded. This is according to Lewisohn's recent book.

 

My bad that's what I meant

 

yes i heard something regarding Ardmore & Beechwood who were i think EMI's in house publishers, however if the book is correct i suspect it may have also been serendipitous since the Beatles attempt at recording the song was beyond unenthusiastic ...

Hey u are supposed to be on my side

 

I've always assumed this to be true, in the sense that these were bastardizations of the original releases and typically contained only 11 or 12 tracks compared to the usual 14 on UK versions.

However, I'd be interested to know what the average selling price was in the UK for a Beatles LP in the '60s. I guess I was buying them for around $3.99 or so (for stereo) in the U.S. in the late '60s. But that memory could be incorrect. I guess my point is were records more expensive in the UK compared to the U.S. (adjusting for inflation and exchange rate, etc.)?

 

Yeah, but in this case there doesn't appear to have been that "initial period of discussion" Just sayin'.

 

It's a fair point but, in my view, only in retrospect. No one releases material with a view to how easy or difficult it will be to collect in future. That's as true now as it was back in the 1960s. I know there are some who would have any given artist just to a song-dump every couple of years because the notion of the album as an artistic statement is virtually redundant in the age of streaming and playlists, but I think there's much to be said for deliberately holding off material, even if it is stronger than other tracks. If nothing else, the hunt for the obscure B side is only worthwhile if, every now and then, one discovers something of genuine value. It's what draws me to certain artists.

So, while I agree that putting singles on the albums was/is a benefit after the fact, I wonder how many fans felt upset at being drawn to spend their money on the same songs twice.

 

In defence of the utility argument, listing From Me to You and Paperback Writer as being "on a Parlophone album" when that album was a compilation album is, perhaps, a little unfair.