The Beatles - US Albums

[Brad]

I received an email from the Beatles saying the US Albums are due out today, as follows:

"The new 13CD Beatles collection spanning 1964’s Meet the Beatles! To 1970’s Hey Jude has been released and mastered for iTunes.

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of The Beatles first visit to the USA, The U.S. Albums, a new 13CD Beatles collection spanning 1964's Meet The Beatles! to 1970's Hey Jude, are released by Apple Corps Ltd. / Capitol."

I don't know if this has been discussed before but how do these differ from the box they re-did in Mono a few years ago, or is this just another money grab.

[jazzbo]

As far as I can tell of what I read in the massive threads about these on the Hoffman board they basically use the same mixes as in the '09 releases except for a few dozen items where the US mix was different. Also there are a few "incidental music" cuts from one or both of the movie discs not available in UK editions, and "The Beatles Story" (an interview disc) is only available in this box set--not available separately in the '09 releases.

In this box all the albums but "Hey Jude" and "The Beatles Story" have both the mono and stereo versions of the album on one disc.

I bought and received "Hey Jude" because this was the album I listened to most in the 'seventies from the Beatles and I really like a lot of the material there and am so used to the sequencing. That's all I plan on buying of the US "albums."

Edited January 22, 2014 by jazzbo

[Scott Dolan]

In other words, trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

[mjzee]

Go to Amazon and read the customer reviews of this new release. They're uniformly negative. It looks like the earlier 2 4-disc boxes were truer to the original U.S. LPs. I have the first of those boxes and think it's great.

[felser]

In other words, trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.

Yep, and they'll get it, too.

[jazzbo]

I could certainly see the allure of this if I were a huge American fan, grew up with the lps, and hadn't gotten the UK versions in '09. None of that is really true in my case.

[Scott Dolan]

Not to mention the simple fact that the '09 box was all of their official albums to begin with. The U.S. releases were just resequenced from those.

Mrs. Claus got me the remastered box set for Christmas that year, which officially brought my Beatles buying days to a close.

[jazzbo]

Not entirely true, and why this release is pissing off so many (who didn't read about this in advance, Apple did exactly wha they said they were going to do though this is not what many fans wanted). The US albums were from different tapes and there were differences in many tracks. The "Capitol Albums" box sets of the past took care of this for the US, but of course had that earlier cd sound. This box set really doesn't duplicate the US albums precisely, and collectors can often be all about the details and they got left behind here. I can sympathize in spirit with them even though I don't give a darn in this instance. Beatles pre Rubber Soul means little to me, didn't much like it in the past and I've liked it even less since. I first heard these in Africa in UK versions, and never bought the US albums.

Edited January 22, 2014 by jazzbo

[Scott Dolan]

Not entirely true, and why this release is pissing off so many (who didn't read about this in advance, Apple did exactly wha they said they were going to do though this is not what many fans wanted). The US albums were from different tapes and there were differences in many tracks. The "Capitol Albums" box sets of the past took care of this for the US, but of course had that earlier cd sound. This box set really doesn't duplicate the US albums precisely, and collectors can often be all about the details and they got left behind here. I can sympathize in spirit with them even though I don't give a darn in this instance. Beatles pre Rubber Soul means little to me, didn't much like it in the past and I've liked it even less since. I first heard these in Africa in UK versions, and never bought the US albums.

Regardless, they were the same songs. That was my point.

As for pre-Rubber Soul, I used to be in the same boat as you. But sitting down and listening to the box set from disc one, I actually found myself enjoying the earlier material immensely. I think it may have to do with the fact that in recent years I have gotten into Alt. Country and more stripped down Rock. And those albums are indeed stripped down, and at times amazingly raw. The very earliest stuff is somewhat forgettable at times, but starting with Beatles For Sale they really started taking off. Actually, it may have even started on A Hard Day's Night.

Either way, having grown up listening to The Beatles, it was not only nice to revisit the earlier material that I didn't care for all that much, but to also find out how good it really was.

[jazzbo]

But my point is that the same songs isn't the point about this set for many, it's the same mixes, sound and albums.

I've relistened to all the early stuff several times via the '09 mono and stereo versions. I still don't get that excited about it, just too pop and peppy for me for the most part. To each their own.

[colinmce]

What I don't get most about this is that these albums (up to Rubber Soul) were released in two box sets in 2005-6, sounding authentic and very nice indeed (even praised on Hoffman!).

But yeah, they need to keep product coming every year or two, so this is what you get. Hopefully next they'll put out some more unreleased stuff that didn't make the Anthology sets next time around.

[etherbored]

I received an email from the Beatles.....

so how are john and george, anyway.....? sorry - i couldn't resist.

[Scott Dolan]

But my point is that the same songs isn't the point about this set for many, it's the same mixes, sound and albums.

I've relistened to all the early stuff several times via the '09 mono and stereo versions. I still don't get that excited about it, just too pop and peppy for me for the most part. To each their own.

Fair enough, brother.

YMMV, but I was just passing along how much I appreciated the earlier stuff.

It certainly isn't for everyone, no matter how much they love The Beatles. It's certainly hard to "get", but I'm glad I lucked into "getting" it. And I'd never fault anyone for not "getting" it.

To be perfectly honest, even though I do "get" it, it's not like I'm going to try to convince anyone that they are missing out. It's pretty marginal, truth be told.

[jazzbo]

I'm not sure I don't "get" it but I just don't really enjoy it. Never had. Sometimes being around and listening when music was first out one reacts differently to it than hearing it later on in its release life. When it came out in my experience in my then world this was music that girls went nuts about and that guys were like . . . okay, what's the big deal? I still sort of see it his way, it's cute and pop music and I really don't like those guys til they tried to be heavier and harder.

[medjuck]

IIRC (and I often don't) the Canadian Lps were different again. Maybe they'll do a Canadian set next.

[colinmce]

A bit. With the Beatles was released as Beatlemania! With The Beatles; Please Please Me was released in jumbled order + "She Loves You" as Twist and Shout; and there was one called Long Tall Sally with a cover resembling the US Second Album but with a totally unique tracklist.

Expect the box set for Christmas 2025.

[Scott Dolan]

I'm not sure I don't "get" it but I just don't really enjoy it. Never had. Sometimes being around and listening when music was first out one reacts differently to it than hearing it later on in its release life. When it came out in my experience in my then world this was music that girls went nuts about and that guys were like . . . okay, what's the big deal? I still sort of see it his way, it's cute and pop music and I really don't like those guys til they tried to be heavier and harder.

Cute, yeah. But there was also some really raw stuff mixed in with it. Unfortunately, those raw tunes never made the radio.

Trust me, there is some good stuff in there.

Wheat/chaff

Hard to separate, but worth it if one is interested.

And again, keep in mind I completely agreed with you on the earlier stuff not so long ago...

[JSngry]

Go to Amazon and read the customer reviews of this new release. They're uniformly negative. It looks like the earlier 2 4-disc boxes were truer to the original U.S. LPs. I have the first of those boxes and think it's great.

So what is this, they used UK mixes on this new American albums set? All kinds of wrong if so.

I just ordered the two Capitol albums boxes for fear of getting bit in the but for procrastinating. I don't want/need (and have never wanted/needed) The Beatles Story, have A Hard Day's Night & Revolver (American & UK) on LP from back in the day, so we are good now with all that. Actually have a lot of it from LPs from back in the day, but have either lost or overplayed my favorites. Mainly just want to hear a proper mono The Beatles Second Album, the first LP I ever bought, and still one of the great Rock & Roll albums as it stood, in its own form (I think of it as "the Ringo album" because that's what it is, Ringo's all up in everybody's ass on that one, start to finish, even some schlocky-pop like "Devil In Her Heart", Ringo got them kick-fills that hit HARD, yeah, RINGO, the little girls don't know, but the men all understand, and so did Tony Williams). In fact, I might break it down into two CDs so that I can get up to change sides - or let the same side play over and over and over. The rush from hearing Side Two begin cold with "Long Tall Sally", hey.

UK mixes? Really?

[jazzbo]

Trust me, I know I've heard these things more times than you, I'm fifteen years older. Yeah there's some raw stuff on there but I turned on the BBC one day in Africa and there was Cream and Hendrix and even the rawest of the early Beatles just sounded like stuff made for the kids.

There's good stuff in there but I don't value it the way you do, possibly because I lived through their time and have the awareness of their presence then and now. Your view of the early Beatles is not right for me.

I'm going to listen to "The Ballad of John and Yoko" from Hey Jude, that will be my next Beatles listen.

Edited January 23, 2014 by jazzbo

[mjzee]

When I got the US box, it was such a rush because I didn't own the albums when they came out, just heard them when I went to friends' houses (usually their older brothers owned the LPs) so hearing them now brought me back to when I was 9. Cool! In college, some friends had a few of the UK albums, and that was interesting, but they weren't our albums, y'know? And the US albums definitely sound different than the UK albums - more energy, they sound more alive.

People bought those US albums until the CD era, so it wasn't just a kids thing.

[JSngry]

When I got the US box, it was such a rush because I didn't own the albums when they came out, just heard them when I went to friends' houses (usually their older brothers owned the LPs) so hearing them now brought me back to when I was 9. Cool! In college, some friends had a few of the UK albums, and that was interesting, but they weren't our albums, y'know? And the US albums definitely sound different than the UK albums - more energy, they sound more alive.

People bought those US albums until the CD era, so it wasn't just a kids thing.

Yeah, I mean, ok, the UK mixes are the originals, and now that I've lived with them, I consider them "definitive" as far as the music goes. But as far as how that music sounds, hey, don't expect me to unlearn what, 20+ years of aural memory. What, just tell myself that everything I heard never really happened?. What kind of retro-revisionist brainwashing is that?

For that matter, don't play whatever mix it is of "Satisfaction" where you can hear the organ part loudly and clearly on STEREO FM oldies station and expect me to just act like nothing's wrong with that.

I think all pre-New Wave (not Punk) pop music should be required by law to be played only on AM radio, and only on vinyl/shellac, and only LPs when that's all there was. Rock them 78s , rock them 45s, non-stop, day and night, higher RPMs, wider grooves, and (for a truly great 45) compressed so dam much that it punch you in the jaw so hard every time you get back up that you keep getting back up. Especially on R&B records with saxophones (plural), especially those made in New Orleans. Hell yeah. That's what those records sound like, and if you've lived with the records, you know that - what the records sound like - that's a whole 'nother thing than what the music is.

As a practical matter, I jest. But in my heart, I know I'm right. Vote for me with both absolute confidence and an unshakeable sense of impending dread. Either way, you're right!

[mjzee]

I'd like to also propose something else. I call it the "Gary Puckett & The Union Gap dictum." To wit: Pop music should have an expiration date, beyond which it's rarely heard. I remember hearing Woman, Woman when I was a child, thinking it was a godawful song but that's OK, because 3 months from now the song will drop off the radio and I'd rarely have to hear it again. Then came the advent of FM Oldies stations and, low and behold, I could never stop hearing Woman, Woman. Good lord! Not only was it a shitty song, it was the shitty song that kept on giving. There oughta be a law, and that's what I'm proposing. Mind you, it would be hard to codify what's awful (Puckett) and what's not (Beatles), but it can be done. This would leave room for new awful pop music, where we'd have the same blessed reaction: only 3 months for this, hopefully.

[JSngry]

But what about Lou Christie?

Chicks dug it because they fantasied about being on the receiving end of one or both of the guy's impulses, just DO ME LOU, WITH OR WITHOUT A RING ON MY HAND, regular dudes dug it because, yeah, that's the them they either are or would like to be, a cute begging dog-puppy who gets it both ways, OH YEAH BABY YES I WILL DO YOU WITH AND/OR WITHOUT A RING ON ANYBODY'S HAND, but, REAL MEN & REAL WOMEN dug it because of the bari part (and many other such things that have nothing to do with doing anybody or their rings), and to them, the real hero is Charlie Calello, and/because sooner or later they will get around to reading the label or its modern-day equivalent.

But yeah, that Gary Puckett cat, pure bullshit, and pedophillic bullshit at that. That dude was a nightmare. Shoulda never happened, one of the failures of character of the music industry, all-time failure. Yes music industry, you have raped generations and you have cheapened so many lives, but we love you anyway...EXCEPT for shit like Gary Puckett. SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. But you can't forget that it happened, so you just...learn the difference between Gary Puckett & Lou Christie, and thank god for Charlie Calello and bari parts on teen pop records and other such meaning(ful)(less) miscellany. There should always be room for that in life, or even three tenors and three baris, Little Richard to the extreme, like on "Savoy Truffle", to bring things full circle, more or less, sorta/kinda.

[mjzee]

I actually have that Lou Christie MGM single, and I hear what you're saying about Charlie Calello, but I could never relate to the falsetto voice. There are very few falsettos I like (Little Anthony is one, but even there, it just sounds so strange). The 4 Seasons songs are successful in spite of Frankie Valli's falsetto, not because of it (IMHO).

[GA Russell]

I had the 45 of Dew Drop Inn, as I recall in 1971, on the Reprise label.