The Beatles: UK Response to US Capitol versions?

Both versions of RS exist and neither, to me, is definitive. As far as The Beatles go, the only thing they did regarding both versions of Rubber Soul is record the songs for the albums. After that, they went off on tour again. So, in the UK, it was left to George Martin to decide the running order for the UK version which, according to The Beatles Bible website, he did on November 16, 1965, while Dave Dexter came up with the running order for the US version. In my opinion, both versions of the album are great in their own way. But to say the UK is definitive because it's what The Beatles wanted is wrong. And while I know that The Beatles put great trust into George Martin, George was no more a Beatle than Dave Dexter. And I'd be willing to bet that the boys didn't know of either tracklisting until they were out as I'd be willing to bet that Brian Epstein approved both on their behalf without consulting them due to their schedule.

 

No, the Beatles intended those 14 songs to appear on RS. They absolutely did not intend for two songs that had already appeared on Help to be on RS. There's zero evidence of that. There's zero evidence they approved of the substitution. There's evidence they hated the practice generally. There's evidence they invested more time and care into the making of RS, which somewhat supports a conclusion that they may have expressed some thoughts about the general sequencing before they went on tour (e.g., Drive My Car sounds like an opener, George), which Martin could have taken into account. Please explain in what ways the UK version is not the definitive version of the album, given that the US album does not even include the songs the Beatles recorded for Rubber Soul.

 

Definitive, for me, is the UK Mono, preferably on LP - and the US Stereo 'East Coast' pressing, on Capitol.

Two great albums, one great name.

 

John's personal copy of Yesterday & Today:

 

You mean like the US Help! LP? Definitely designed for relatively well off Americans, whom some writers recount bitterness about over the shaftiness of it. See link below.

How can anyone argue about the legitimacy of the decision when no one except the dead know the intent behind it?

Maybe. Then again, most everything we know in the public record about the man argues mightily against that and for fortunate accident :

Dave Dexter, Jr. | Biography & History | AllMusic

"Dexter might have initially blown Capitol's claim on the Beatles, and might not have liked their music, but he seemed determined to do his best in sculpting their albums for the U.S. market. His first effort, Meet the Beatles, was good enough, a slightly reconfigured version of With the Beatles that didn't require a lot of thought or changes. And his second effort, The Beatles Second Album, assembled from singles, B-sides, and EP sides, plus a few leftover tracks from With the Beatles, was not only successful in its own time, but has been hailed across the decades as the single finest non-hit compilation long-player ever issued of the band's music. And the albums that followed in that first 18 months of frenetic sales were all, at least based on their song content -- and the resulting sales -- good enough, given the constraints under which Capitol and Dexter were operating. (Of course, on the other side of the ledger, Dexter was working with songs being generated by the Beatles when the group was in its prime -- only a complete fool could have screwed it up, no matter what they did with it).

But then, as the group's music became more complex and the nature of their releases changed to encompass such categories as soundtracks (Capitol didn't have the Hard Day's Night soundtrack, but it did have the Help! soundtrack), Dexter's judgment seemed to fail him. The U.S. Help! album marked the nadir of his work revising the Beatles output for the United States, a miserable agglomeration of new songs and background music that offended fans and the group itself, even as it sold in the millions. The record was enough of a problem for Capitol and the Beatles, that a new process for adapting their work for the U.S. was worked out and put into place starting in 1966.

Following the U.S. release of Rubber Soul, Capitol removed Dexter from the task of working with the Beatles' music -- he'd been on the job for a little over two years, and had blown it, probably over the Help! album more than anything else. There would be occasional U.S.-only and U.S.-revised Beatles albums -- the Magical Mystery Tour album was the most prominent example of this -- in the years that followed, but these would be done on a wholly different level from Dexter's work. Additionally, aside from the Help! album deficiencies as a U.S. release, the biggest criticism of Dexter's work derived from his constant remastering of the original British recordings -- his sculpting of the Beatles' albums had some basis in raw economics and practicality, but his re-sculpting of the sound of the actual songs seems to have been an active, aesthetic choice that he later had to defend many times. Dexter and other executives at Capitol apparently believed that American listeners preferred their rock & roll music drenched in reverb, and added layers of it to many of the group's recordings when they hit these shores. It made the British originals, when they started coming over as direct imports, all the more impressive to U.S. ears. The one defense of Dexter is that neither he (nor anyone else) could ever have envisioned that listeners would ever be evaluating every nuance of the Beatles history, either then or four decades later, or putting their work (and, by extension, his) under a microscope.

Dexter was let go from Capitol in 1974, after 30 years with the company, and eventually wrote a book about his experiences in the business, entitled Playback. It was received negatively, as a self-serving, ill-tempered piece of personal payback against everyone whom he felt had slighted or wronged him across his career, and people he simply didn't like personally. It fit with his own status within the business -- he was, by then, perceived as little more than an unhappy sore loser in the generational "culture wars" of the 1950s and 1960s, who had blown his one major opportunity to contribute to American popular culture, between his own prejudices and short-sightedness. He passed away in 1990.

Dexter might have made some good calls. It seems he was bowing to the thematic tendency in keeping those sequencings the same. Maybe he put them on there in the right spot because they were great deep underdog lennon mcartney songs that were fantastic as mood setters.[/QUOTE]

Moving goalposts again? Who's arguing they aren't great tunes, great melodies? As for execs OK'ing or not OK'ing, my understanding is that wasn't the process and, sadly, since that process focussed on Dexter, he was removed from working on Beatles product soon thereafter, the last bit of leftover tracks mess was more or less tidied up (not completely, though -- See the Hey Jude LP, Rarities, etc.) and The Beatles got the power to call the shots on their LPs with their new 1967 contract.

So you're arguing that it's Occam's Razor -- the simplest explanation is likely the fact -- to suggest that It's Only Love and I've Just Seen A Face were included as a result of Dexter's deep understanding of Beatles' music and the fans when, as the biography above points out (in the section above what I excerpted -- follow the link), the man:

*couldn't abide the music (rock 'n roll) nor the people who listened to it...and seemed to loathe the kids even more for their ability to appreciate it

*was 25 years older than most listeners (and 50 years old at the time Rubber Soul was released, so more like 30+ years older than most Beatles fans)

So it seems to me Occam's Razor very strongly suggests the opposite, i.e. it was the result of coincidence/accident/happenstance/rushed deadlines/etc.

I'm not saying it's impossible Dexter added those two tracks because they sounded like a fit, but I find it pretty seriously unlikely, given what is publicly known about the man.

The notion that he gave deep consideration to the 'theme' of the album and added I've Just Seen A Face and It's Only Love to fit the 'theme' sounds pretty far out there to me. Not impossible, but I'm trying to imagine me sequencing an album of music that I more or less hate and for whose fans I have basically no respect, music that's being marketed to teens and young adults decades younger than myself and that I don't listen to nor appreciate myself...I'm wondering if I'd give much of s***. I'm not sure. If my job was on the line, I guess I might well better if I were able, but Dexter's memos from late '65 regarding his "exec" decisions do not sound like they come from a guy worried his job might be on the line, nor does he sound like someone at all concerned with theme or anything much beyond expedience...

If we're going to employ Occam's Razor here I think the more likely explanation is, "hey, I've sliced four and need two...I've got these...they sound nice ... let's stick 'em in here." Again, the idea that the man had his finger -- on the pulse of young America, the new adult rock album market, acoustic folkrock, the new counterculture winds blowing, and the new appreciation of the rock album as artistic statement -- are pretty much taking Occam's Razor to butter knife territory IMO.

For those who love the US Rubber Soul, I'd say the tracklist was a happy accident.

YMMV.

 

OK, I grant you the Byrds and Dylan, but it still only gets you a notch on the belt. They were friends. What would anyone expect? How about SF bands, Southern bands, singer songwriters, Chicago bands, Boston, NY. I'd love to ask Todd what he thinks about this.

 

Uh-oh. We're on the football field again. You win -- you have more.

On the other hand, I don't think there's any argument The Beatles inspired dozens and dozens of American artists as well as British and others. I think it would be difficult to pin exactly where that starts -- Rubber Soul for some, SPLHCB for others. The Byrds' inspiration came earlier -- Meet The Beatles/A Hard Days Night in a mix with Dylan. You need interview citations to make an argument one way or another, with the people involved.

 

Moving goalposts again? Who's arguing they aren't great tunes, great melodies? As for execs OK'ing or not OK'ing, my understanding is that wasn't the process and, sadly, since that process focussed on Dexter, he was removed from working on Beatles product soon thereafter, the last bit of leftover tracks mess was more or less tidied up (not completely, though -- See the Hey Jude LP, Rarities, etc.) and The Beatles got the power to call the shots on their LPs with their new 1967 contract.



So you're arguing that it's Occam's Razor -- the simplest explanation is likely the fact -- to suggest that It's Only Love and I've Just Seen A Face were included as a result of Dexter's deep understanding of Beatles' music and the fans when, as the biography above points out (in the section above what I excerpted -- follow the link), the man:

*couldn't abide the music (rock 'n roll) nor the people who listened to it...and seemed to loathe the kids even more for their ability to appreciate it

*was 25 years older than most listeners (and 50 years old at the time Rubber Soul was released, so more like 30+ years older than most Beatles fans)

So it seems to me Occam's Razor very strongly suggests the opposite, i.e. it was the result of coincidence/accident/happenstance/rushed deadlines/etc.

I'm not saying it's impossible Dexter added those two tracks because they sounded like a fit, but I find it pretty seriously unlikely, given what is publicly known about the man.

The notion that he gave deep consideration to the 'theme' of the album and added I've Just Seen A Face and It's Only Love to fit the 'theme' sounds pretty far out there to me. Not impossible, but I'm trying to imagine me sequencing an album of music that I more or less hate and for whose fans I have basically no respect, music that's being marketed to teens and young adults decades younger than myself and that I don't listen to nor appreciate myself...I'm wondering if I'd give much of s***. I'm not sure. If my job was on the line, I guess I might well better if I were able, but Dexter's memos from late '65 regarding his "exec" decisions do not sound like they come from a guy worried his job might be on the line, nor does he sound like someone at all concerned with theme or anything much beyond expedience...

If we're going to employ Occam's Razor here I think the more likely explanation is, "hey, I've sliced four and need two...I've got these...they sound nice ... let's stick 'em in here." Again, the idea that the man had his finger -- on the pulse of young America, the new adult rock album market, acoustic folkrock, the new counterculture winds blowing, and the new appreciation of the rock album as artistic statement -- are pretty much taking Occam's Razor to butter knife territory IMO.

For those who love the US Rubber Soul, I'd say the tracklist was a happy accident.

YMMV.[/QUOTE]

I get it. But if they fit, then it is churlish to try to remove his credit from history for that one decision because it didn't come out like you thought his decisions should. He made the calls and took the heat when it went wrong.

Do you agree that it is possible that the songs were left over for a reason, and the reason could have serendipitous effect on the sound of the resulting record, making them a good fit instead of a bad fit? I've said this 3 or 4 times, and it's crickets.

 

Why don't you? Or at least find documentation of some sort to support your arguments and assertions?

I'm sure people tire of my long posts, but I have to do it. I have to support my assertions. It's in my nature.

 

Who's removing the credit? I don't have a copy handy, but I'm sure his name is on the back cover. I'm equally sure everyone posting here knows he was the man during those years.

Sure, but then "serendipitous effect on the sound" and "the record company put songs on there on purpose" (#1991) seem at odds to me.

 

I'm extremely late to the party here, so someone has likely already noted this, but the only reason "A Collection Of Beatles Oldies" was released was because the Fabs didn't have a "Christmas release" album in 1966 as had always been the case (and the plan) since they started recording.

I think the band were probably averse to a "singles album" coming out, but EMI gave them not choice.

"Revolver" had come out in August and, as we all know, the Fabs were taking a lot longer to produce an album (in addition to slowing down their hectic schedule for the first time since 1963.

Whereas they had previously been putting out two albums a year, it took almost a full year (June 1967) until their next, "Sgt. Pepper" was released.

This delay led to rampant rumours that the band had broken up.

.

 

For the same reason that Let It Be would be considered a definitive Beatles albums even though The Beatles had nothing to do with it's sequencing, it contained a song not recorded during the Get Back/Let It Be sessions and Paul didn't even agree with Phil Spector as it's producer or what he did with The Long and Winding Road.

And yes, the guys did put more thought into the arrangements of the songs when it came to Rubber Soul. But, to my knowledge, there is no proof that they put any thought into the actual running order of the album. What is known is that it was ultimately George Martin who came up with the UK track listing.

 

We have already demonstrated that those songs were not left over for a reason. Of the fourteen songs recorded for the UK Help, seven were released on the US soundtrack LP. Three, You Like Me Too Much, Tell Me What You See, and Dizzy Miss Lizzy, were ready for release in time for inclusion on Beatles VI and were sent over to Capitol by George Martin for that purpose. Hence, when the U.K. Help was released, it included four songs not released on the US soundtrack or Beatles VI: Yesterday, Act Naturally, Face, and IOL. Yesterday had “hit” written all over it and was released as a single; it was paired with Act Naturallt because, according to Beatles historian Bruce Spizer, Ringo was the most popular Beatle in the States. That left Dexter with two unused songs in December 1965. It made basic economic sense to get some use out of those songs before placing Yesterday on an album, since neither of them were potential singles.

Those two songs could not have been “held back” because unless they were tacked on to Capitol’s soundtrack LP, there was nowhere for them to go. They were recorded too late for Beatles VI. There was no way either was a better single than Yesterday. I suppose Dexter could’ve paired one of them with Yesterday in lieu of Act Naturally. Nowhere in all this is any clue that Dexter spotted some new maturity or sophistication in those two songs that augured a new direction the Beatles would take on their next LP. That’s part of what made RS astonishing—it was a leap forward that their earlier work did not presage. And as noted above, Dexter had only disdain for rock music. It’s HIGHLY unlikely he was listening carefully enough to the band’s mid-1965 tracks for clues of growth to come.

 

I'll say it again. There were business reasons they were left over. Music business decisions. There is nothing that does not have a reason, except the universe.

 

How so?

 

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to go out and prove. Don't you think Rubber Soul is pivotal for US music over the last 50 years? If not how are you here? I thought that was kind of mainstream thought.

Don't mind me. I love to hash things out. I love all beatles fans, I hope we all know. I never ask why have a discussion if there are things to say.

 

It was all of the future musicans on the continent that it made a difference for and all of the rest of us in the end who love US music. The numbers of sales is not my bailliwick. Just musically. I mean that the messages on that LP were being taken to mean things to different people than teenage girls or rockers, for the firt time in the bealels career. It sounded like it. It was taken that way, as a mood LP for cool people. Who were getting high, and didn't need to hear some of those dropped songs frankly. . Therefore the UK version will never succeed for a US listener. Drive My Car is an offense to the feel of the LP. The others are just distracting or wrong sounding. Maybe it's wrong but what can I do? Going forward who knows. It may die out, like latin. We have a special sensitivity.

Anyway the whole music scene in the US was changed because of it in the US version. I heard that on the radio. I read about it in my little journals and trouser presses etc. I lived it. What's there that I could prove?

 

I think we all agree Rubber Soul was crucial. But we disagree as to whether the US version was a happy accident or a premeditated artistic move on Capitol’s part; further, even if someone produced proof that Capitol had any deep artistic intent, I for one don’t believe that matters since it contravened the Beatles’ intentions.

It’s inportant to remember that the music itself was so good that it would have been a success no matter how sequenced and presented. Look at those horrible eight tracks with the albums completely out of sequence. Hell, some of the awful Dexterized mixes prove that, I think. So simply saying that Americans were influenced by the American versions is a tautology as those were the only available versions. The question presented, as I understand it, is whether, now that we all know about the U.K. versions, the US versions matter as anything other than historical artifacts or “alternate playlists” or compilations. I believe they do not have value beyond the foregoing because neither the Beatles nor George Martin, who saw what they were doing as an artistic endeavor long before Capitol or the older generations did, wanted the music to be presented in anything other than the UK formats. We have evidence quoted throughout this thread to substantiate that, from mid-1965, pre-RS.

All that said, I think some of the Capitol albums were important in their time and place. Meet the Beatles did a good job of presenting the group as a unit that wrote their own songs with the “hook” of a hit single; while I think Americans would have bought the U.K. version, I think the US configuration was right for the marketing challenge presented at that time and place. I don’t think it’s necessary now, but it’s an enjoyable “playlist” of some late 1963 tracks. I think Magical Mystery Tour was a useful way to present that material in a country that didn’t buy EPs, and the Beatles evidently thought so too, because they signed off on it. I don’t think that either of those albums reveal some genius for presenting the Beatles better than the Beatles presented themselves. What’s more, even if I did—even if everyone in the world besides the Beatles did—because the Beatles’ music is now understood to be art, not “product,” we the consumers don’t get to decide how it’s presented. We can argue about whether the artists’ decisions were best. That’s part of consuming and appreciating art. We can skip songs. We can make playlists or mix tapes. But no one—not us, not Capitol—should treat anything other than the versions the Beatles approved, containing the songs they intended to be heard together, as the versions that form the basis of that discussion, because we are not the artists.

 

Someone should change the thread title to:

"Who wants to Fight over the the Track List Differences between the UK and U.S. 'Rubber Soul'"?

 

I think where you err is in presuming your subjective experiences are universal. I get it that you prefer the songs on the US album, but not everyone agrees with you. Your opinion that the songs removed were inferior and/or didn't fit is a valid opinion, but it's not a consensus opinion. As I said earlier, I think to large degree it was shaped by your experience of not hearing those songs on the Y&T album until many years later than when you first heard Rubber Soul.

Of course the UK version can work for a US listener. I first heard the US version when I was in fifth grade, and I loved it. I also heard Yesterday and Today that same year and I loved it too. It was a few years later when I became aware that the UK album had a different tracklist, and several years after that when I first acquired a copy of the British album. And I loved it. Finding out that four songs from Y&T actually belonged on Rubber Soul made me like it even better. I missed "I've Just Seen a Face" but the additions, particularly "Drive My Car" and "Nowhere Man" made it a stronger album in my opinion. Beyond that, the Beatles' artistic intentions were important enough to me that I saw value in listening to the songs configured in the way the band wanted.

Yes, the US Rubber Soul was influential. But (since it contained 10 of the same songs) it seems reasonable to argue that the UK version would have been just as influential if it had been released instead. And it's not like the US Rubber Soul had some sort of special significance to the world that the rest of the Beatles' work did not. Maybe it did to you, but it didn't to everyone else. It was influential, but so was the Nowhere Man/What Goes On single, and so were the Y&T and Revolver albums that were released shortly thereafter. The work on all of them was equally important. Again, maybe not to you, but to most fans.

 

What we do know is that for every UK album, the band would typically record around 16 releasable songs in a block of sessions (since their last album). Once they were finished, they would select which two songs would be the new single and which 14 would appear on their new album*. Even if they left the running order to Martin, it made no difference to the actual contents of the album.

* this was slightly different for AHDN, the songs being split 4 for the Long Tall Sally EP, 13 for the album.

 

There was the American Beatles canon of albums and the U.K. Beatles canon of albums.

Other things can be argued endlessly... and surely will be.

Let the analysis, opinion, and sharing of perspectives...continue.

 

First of all, comparing George Martin's role in The Beatles career with Dave Dexter feels insane to me. Martin was basically a fifth beatle, working closely with them, writing scores, adding instruments, shaping the songs with the boys, sharing the decisions... Dave Dexter never worked with The Beatles, never even consulted them. He just received the material and did whatever he did to it.

Second, you are downplaying The Beatles' role in the configuration of the albums. We already have read in this thread quotes by them stating how they planned the albums and prepared them to be "a complete thing", and Lennon quotes about how they discussed with Martin which songs were selected for singles, which went to the albums, the sequencing etc. Even if they left the final list to Martin, it was after working closely with him.

Third, the UK is definitive because it's the one devised and sanctiones by the band. It doesn't mean you can't prefer the US version, or that it was relevant in the US back in the day. But the authentic Rubber Soul is the original album.

 

I'm not saying I would like it in RS, I'm just saying "maturity" was not a factor to hold the two songs Capitol held, since Yesterday is the most mature song left from Help!

I respect your opinion, I just don't think you have made your case regarding Nowhere Man being "commercial" or "backwards looking", especially in relation to something like IOL, which could be in any early album.

Drive My Car shows a great arrangement innovative to what they had done before and witty lyrics, and IINS has definitely a distinctive sound. I can concede that What Goes On is a mediocre song and its absence may be the only adavantage the US album has over the original.

In any case, I'm sure you do realize the original RS is considered one of the best albums in history, so your opinion, respectable as it it, it's not shared by the majority.

I disagree with all that, but anyway, those thing have nothing to do with it being "personal". It was not. For Lennon it was filler, a song to meet demand.
In fact, the way he sings "very bright" always sounded kind of ironic to me.

I like both, and I also like discussing about this issue. Isn't that allowed in a music forum?

Except he had no idea what The Beatles were going to do next. And even if he did, there weren't that many choices. There were only 4 songs left, and Yesterday was an obvious choice for single.

Brian Wilson had access to the UK version via Derek Taylor too.

The problem is, your idea of the "feel" of the album is determined by what you heard first. Drive My Car is not an offense to the feel of the album when it is in the original album. There's no "special sensitivity", I can understand the US version flows well and works, and I can understand somebody likes it better than the original. But you can't deny the original is the album statement The Beatles wanted to make, and that it was very well received all around the world.

Of course, I believe you. But that has more to do with the music and less with the specific configuration. Since the original had that effect on the rest of the world, why wouldn't it in the USA had it been released?