...... "The albums, which have been remastered from the original tapes,
include stereo and mono versions of each song." ........

I can tell you after listening to vinyl of both lately, the Mono
versions are MUCH better. Just super sounding music in Mono.

http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/ar..._id=1000664137

(Johnston West) wrote in message . com...
..... "The albums, which have been remastered from the original tapes,
include stereo and mono versions of each song." ........

I can tell you after listening to vinyl of both lately, the Mono
versions are MUCH better. Just super sounding music in Mono.

http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/ar..._id=1000664137


There was a big article in yesterday's LA Times where a Capitol exec
was bragging about how the new CDs will finally provide customers with
access to the "original" US versions of the early Beatles records!?!?

Are they that clueless that they think we want Help and Hard Days
Night missing 6 songs each, replaced by lame studio movie soundtrack
muzak? Or that we prefer vocals on the right, band on the left
"stereo" over the carefully crafted mono mixes? Or that we don't want
to hear all of the hard rockin' early cover versions of American 50's
hits (left off of the USA records because another label owned the USA
rights to those songs).

This clown is either clueless or he knows what he's talking about and
he's lying through his teeth while spewing marketing nonsense. What a
complete waste of time.

steve

On 14 Oct 2004, (hollywood_steve) wrote in
om:

Are they that clueless that they think we want Help and Hard Days
Night missing 6 songs each, replaced by lame studio movie
soundtrack muzak?

Many people heard these versions first and have a fondness for them.
Also some of the mixes are slightly different, so completists will
like them for that. I think they will sell well.

Or that we prefer vocals on the right, band on the left "stereo"
over the carefully crafted mono mixes?

I do. Or rather, I like both.

I like the sequencing of songs for "Meet The Beatles" much better than
"With the Beatles".

Or that we don't want to hear all of the hard rockin' early cover
versions of American 50's hits (left off of the USA records
because another label owned the USA rights to those songs).

I never heard that was the reason they were left off. I thought it
was because they were shortening the albums. And which rockers are
you talking about? I can't think of any that weren't released. One,
"Bad Boy" even came out in the USA before it did in Britain.

I wish they'd just stick to the British releases.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:16:59 GMT, Nil
wrote:

Or that we don't want to hear all of the hard rockin' early cover
versions of American 50's hits (left off of the USA records
because another label owned the USA rights to those songs).

I never heard that was the reason they were left off. I thought it
was because they were shortening the albums. And which rockers are
you talking about? I can't think of any that weren't released. One,
"Bad Boy" even came out in the USA before it did in Britain.

Songs were left off not because of label rights but because that way
Capitol could milk an extra LP out of the Beatles catalog every couple
of years with the left-over tracks.

Al

"play-on" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message
...
Songs were left off not because of label rights but because that way
Capitol could milk an extra LP out of the Beatles catalog every couple
of years with the left-over tracks.

At that time English pop albums generally contained several more songs
(typically 14) than most American releases did (typically 10-12.) They also
cost considerably more to British fans.

Capitol did exactly what every other American label did by dropping a couple
tracks and holding the retail list price at the usual $3.98 mono $4.98
stereo. Doing this reduced mechanical license costs and enabled the LPs to
be cut hotter which allowed the label to use less expensive vinyl. People
would have bitched even more if Capitol had charged extra for Beatles
records to cover the additional expense.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

hollywood_steve wrote:

This clown is either clueless or he knows what he's talking about and
he's lying through his teeth while spewing marketing nonsense.


I'll say both. But I'll buy 'em anyway.

I bought the UK versions on vinyl back in the '70's (after the US
versions), so I'm just hooked.

Bob Olhsson wrote:

Capitol did exactly what every other American label did by dropping a couple
tracks and holding the retail list price at the usual $3.98 mono $4.98
stereo. Doing this reduced mechanical license costs and enabled the LPs to
be cut hotter which allowed the label to use less expensive vinyl.


I remember those prices!

i never thought about the hotter levels. I knew the concept, but I never
compared it in the Beatles' records case.

(Johnston West) wrote in message . com...
..... "The albums, which have been remastered from the original tapes,
include stereo and mono versions of each song." ........

I can tell you after listening to vinyl of both lately, the Mono
versions are MUCH better. Just super sounding music in Mono.

http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/ar..._id=1000664137

I have the first 4 on CD plus past masters CD releases which is great
for me but as someone else said I am sure there are those who have a
fondness for the american releases the way they are.


Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

"Your Add Here!" wrote:

I wish they'd just stick to the British releases.


They'll co-exist. EMI is just milking the cow again.

Mike wrote:

I have the first 4 on CD plus past masters CD releases which is great
for me but as someone else said I am sure there are those who have a
fondness for the american releases the way they are.

Are these the MSFL cough cough "imports"?

Another thing I'd buy is the early UK albums in stereo.

Or that we don't want to hear all of the hard rockin' early cover
versions of American 50's hits (left off of the USA records
because another label owned the USA rights to those songs).

I never heard that was the reason they were left off. I thought it
was because they were shortening the albums. And which rockers are
you talking about? I can't think of any that weren't released. One,
"Bad Boy" even came out in the USA before it did in Britain.

Songs were left off not because of label rights but because that way
Capitol could milk an extra LP out of the Beatles catalog every couple
of years with the left-over tracks.

Al

Sorry, but did you think I was making this up? The article went into
detail of the 8 or 9 songs, from Roll Over Beethoven by Chuck Berry,
Money by ???, etc., mentioned the label that owned them (VeeJay) and
discussed when Capitol frantically trying to acquire them for the
follow up records. The xtra records were a welcome benefit for
Capitol, but THIS is the reason. From several current and former
Capitol execs inteviewed for the article.

steve

hollywood_steve wrote:

Sorry, but did you think I was making this up? The article went into
detail of the 8 or 9 songs, from Roll Over Beethoven by Chuck Berry,
Money by ???, etc., mentioned the label that owned them (VeeJay) and
discussed when Capitol frantically trying to acquire them for the
follow up records.


I don't think you made it up, but I think the nail hit the head when you
said "This clown is either clueless or he knows what he's talking about
and he's lying through his teeth while spewing marketing nonsense."

The VJ songs on "Introducing The Beatles" were not all covers, and they
later (not much later) appeared on a Capitol album called "The Early Beatles"

If you like, check out:

http://www.beatles-discography.com

On 14 Oct 2004, (hollywood_steve) wrote in
om:

Sorry, but did you think I was making this up? The article went
into detail of the 8 or 9 songs, from Roll Over Beethoven by Chuck
Berry, Money by ???, etc., mentioned the label that owned them
(VeeJay) and discussed when Capitol frantically trying to acquire
them for the follow up records.

If you're not making it up then you're believing someone else who's
making it up. All those songs you mention WERE on the early American
albums. The Beatles Second album was itself mostly full of covers.

Like the article said, the covers that were on the 1st British album, were
such big hits, that local US dealers were buying Canadian vinyl to sell in
the states. Capitol rushed to get things in order to get Roll Over
Beethoven onto the second USA record. And so it went. The marketing mook
that I referred to was not the one detailing the history of the early
records. That was an old Capitol exec who was in charge back then. You
guys should really read the article and a couple of related ones published
elsewhere.

steve





"Nil" wrote in message
...
On 14 Oct 2004, (hollywood_steve) wrote in
om:

Sorry, but did you think I was making this up? The article went
into detail of the 8 or 9 songs, from Roll Over Beethoven by Chuck
Berry, Money by ???, etc., mentioned the label that owned them
(VeeJay) and discussed when Capitol frantically trying to acquire
them for the follow up records.

If you're not making it up then you're believing someone else who's
making it up. All those songs you mention WERE on the early American
albums. The Beatles Second album was itself mostly full of covers.

On 15 Oct 2004, "hollywood_steve" wrote in
news
Like the article said, the covers that were on the 1st British
album, were such big hits, that local US dealers were buying
Canadian vinyl to sell in the states. Capitol rushed to get
things in order to get Roll Over Beethoven onto the second USA
record. And so it went. The marketing mook that I referred to
was not the one detailing the history of the early records. That
was an old Capitol exec who was in charge back then. You guys
should really read the article and a couple of related ones
published elsewhere.

I wish I could, the subject is very interesting to me. I went to the
Times web site, but it looks like you have to be a subscriber to read
that article.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:20:33 GMT, Nil
wrote:

On 14 Oct 2004, (hollywood_steve) wrote in
. com:

Sorry, but did you think I was making this up? The article went
into detail of the 8 or 9 songs, from Roll Over Beethoven by Chuck
Berry, Money by ???, etc., mentioned the label that owned them
(VeeJay) and discussed when Capitol frantically trying to acquire
them for the follow up records.

If you're not making it up then you're believing someone else who's
making it up. All those songs you mention WERE on the early American
albums. The Beatles Second album was itself mostly full of covers.

Thank you... this guy probably wasn't even alive when the records came
out.

Al

(hollywood_steve) writes:
Sorry, but did you think I was making this up? The article went into
detail of the 8 or 9 songs, from Roll Over Beethoven by Chuck Berry,
Money by ???, etc., mentioned the label that owned them (VeeJay) and
discussed when Capitol frantically trying to acquire them for the
follow up records. The xtra records were a welcome benefit for
Capitol, but THIS is the reason. From several current and former
Capitol execs inteviewed for the article.

The way I recall, Capitol wouldn't TOUCH a British rock group with a
ten-foot pole in 1963 -- despite PLEADING from the mothership EMI,
so they let the small indie labels like Veejay (and its subsidiary
Tollie), and Swan buy up the rights.

But in late '63 and early '64, The Beatles hit it big in the US
capped by the Sullivan show. Capitol scrambled to "buy back" the
rights and some lawsuits went around ... I think that's why there's
different cuts on different version of VJ's Introducing The Beatles -
the 1st American album (basically the Please Please Me album
from the UK, much less butchered than the Capitol albums).

"hollywood_steve" wrote in message
om...
Sorry, but did you think I was making this up? The article went into
detail of the 8 or 9 songs, from Roll Over Beethoven by Chuck Berry,
Money by ???, etc.

Barrett Strong.

As already noted, the explanation doesn't make a ton of sense.

For one thing, I don't think either of the songs you mention were ever
released by anyone other than Capitol in the US. They were on the Capitol
album, "The Beatles Second Album," which was released a whopping 10 weeks
after "Meet the Beatles." The explanation does not, I think, have anything
to do with rights per se, but is exactly what Bob Ohlson already said: they
just wanted to reduce the number of songs on the album for various reasons
(including royalties / retail price). Why they cut covers is a subject of
conjecture. A likely reason is that if you're going to pick stuff to
release, you probably pick the original stuff nobody's heard before (in any
form). "Meet the Beatles" did include Till There Was You, which was most
definitely a cover, if a slightly odd one. Another note: "Meet the Beatles"
also *includes* singles that were not on "With the Beatles" in the UK (I
Want To Hold Your Hand is an obvious example).

VeeJay and friends released the Beatles early singles and the tracks from
the first album ("Please Please Me") ... both covers *and* Lennon/McCartney.
I don't know what the contractual arrangement was whereby VeeJay got the
right to release these from Parlophone, but I don't see why there would be a
difference between the covers and the Lennon/McCartney songs. The important
rights were the rights to release the master recordings: the performances,
not the compositions. The covers were subject to the usual compulsory
license arrangement, I believe. I suppose Capitol might've been trying to
negotiate a sub-statutory royalty or something ... but that was between them
and Messrs. Berry, Strong et al., and shouldn't have had anything to do with
VeeJay. In any event, Capitol later had no hesitation about releasing covers
in the US. If anything, once they knew the Beatles has enough staying power
to last more than 10 weeks, they were probably pushing for more covers, just
to get more product out faster (they probably did not believe the Beatles
would have anough staying power to last more than a year or two).

A side note: didn't Capitol "re-master" some of the Beatles' early releases
by adding reverb (in addition to the bizarre "stereo-izing")? I wonder what
they're doing for these releases. Also: my understanding is that there
*were* no real stereo mixes of the early Beatles records, in England or
anywhere. By Sgt. Pepper, or a little earlier, they created stereo and mono
mixes -- the mono was a different mix, not just the stereo combined.

sjjohnston wrote:

A side note: didn't Capitol "re-master" some of the Beatles' early releases
by adding reverb (in addition to the bizarre "stereo-izing")? I wonder what
they're doing for these releases. Also: my understanding is that there
*were* no real stereo mixes of the early Beatles records, in England or
anywhere. By Sgt. Pepper, or a little earlier, they created stereo and mono
mixes -- the mono was a different mix, not just the stereo combined.


Right on target. If you want to know more of the minutia, there are some
rec.music.beatles posters who really know this stuff, and others who do not.

Where they lack, is knowledge of anything to do with recording and
mastering on a professional level. Of course this group is the place to
go for that.

sjjohnston wrote:

A side note: didn't Capitol "re-master" some of the Beatles' early releases
by adding reverb (in addition to the bizarre "stereo-izing")? I wonder what
they're doing for these releases. Also: my understanding is that there
*were* no real stereo mixes of the early Beatles records, in England or
anywhere. By Sgt. Pepper, or a little earlier, they created stereo and mono
mixes -- the mono was a different mix, not just the stereo combined.

More than "a little" earlier - Help, Rubber Soul, and Revolver were all
in stereo. The first four albums were intended to be mono only. You
can get the complete story by picking up a copy of the Beatles Sessions
book (there may still be some on closeout at your local Borders store).

On 15 Oct 2004, "sjjohnston" wrote in
:

A side note: didn't Capitol "re-master" some of the Beatles' early
releases by adding reverb (in addition to the bizarre
"stereo-izing")? I wonder what they're doing for these releases.

I wonder that, too. Some of the US tracks were oddly EQed and the fake
stereoizing and reverb were rather ugly. I'm hoping they are at least
using true stereo versions when available.

Also: my understanding is that there *were* no real stereo mixes
of the early Beatles records, in England or anywhere. By Sgt.
Pepper, or a little earlier, they created stereo and mono mixes --
the mono was a different mix, not just the stereo combined.

I don't think that's accurate. It's more the opposite - there were
separate mono and stereo mixes of everything up through the White
Album. The last couple mono releases were folded down from stereo. The
first few albums' stereo versions were hastily done from the 3- and 4-
track multis, but they were separate from and different than the mono.
The first two were the very strange band-on-the-left-vocals-on-the-
right type stereo, but by A Hard Days Night, they started to get better
at it. I think AHDN and Beatles For Sale sound very nice in stereo,
much better than in mono.

"sjjohnston" wrote in message
...

A side note: didn't Capitol "re-master" some of the Beatles' early
releases
by adding reverb (in addition to the bizarre "stereo-izing")? I wonder
what
they're doing for these releases. Also: my understanding is that there
*were* no real stereo mixes of the early Beatles records, in England or
anywhere. By Sgt. Pepper, or a little earlier, they created stereo and
mono
mixes -- the mono was a different mix, not just the stereo combined.

Not really. Supposedly the early stuff was all mono, with the L-R stereo
tapes never intended to be released. But I have here a German LP, "The
Beatles' Greatest", released on Odeon (same cover photo as the US album "The
Early Beatles". The following tracks were real stereo (L-C-R, at any rate,
with the vocals centered):

I Want to Hold Your Hand
A Hard Day's Night
Eight Days a Week
I Should Have Known Better
Long Tall Sally
Rock and Roll Music
Ticket to Ride
Can't Buy Me Love

The following were L-R (instruments on one side, vocals on other):

Twist And Shout
Please Mister Postman
Please Please Me
It Won't Be Long
From Me to You
All My Loving

And the following were rechanneled mono (= synthesized stereo):

She Loves You
I Feel Fine

Now, most of the real stereo tracks come from the post-Hard Days Night era,
so it's not surprising that they're in real stereo. But I was quite
surprised to discover the real stereo mix of I Want to Hold Your Hand. Was
it ever released outside of Germany?

Peace,
Paul

Jim Gilliland wrote:

You
can get the complete story by picking up a copy of the Beatles Sessions
book (there may still be some on closeout at your local Borders store).


Excellent book. $7.99 at Borders.

"hollywood_steve" wrote in message
news
.. You
guys should really read the article and a couple of related ones published
elsewhere.

I've gotten to spend some time as a fly on the wall with the people who were
the top executives of VeeJay and Capitol along with visiting the EMI
engineers and Motown's EMI label manager in London. They all tell a VERY
different story from anything I've ever seen published and a few years ago
some of this was corroborated by a former executive of the plant that VeeJay
used for their west coast Beatles pressings. I'd suggest maintaining a VERY
open mind for when the real story finally emerges. One also shouldn't forget
about Swan Records.

At Motown we had a framed copy of our rejection letter on the wall from when
we had turned down the Beatles.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

"sjjohnston" wrote in message
...
... I suppose Capitol might've been trying to
negotiate a sub-statutory royalty or something ...
In any event, Capitol later had no hesitation about releasing covers

I'm sure there was a lot of pressure to not push the covers from Dick James
because his publishing company had paid for all of the Beatles' European
record promotion. Ironically the publishers of the covers may well have
quietly provided the Beatles most of their initial radio promotion in the
States. Too bad I never thought to ask Barrett Strong, the writers or
anybody at Jobette.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com

"Nil" wrote in message
...
On 15 Oct 2004, "sjjohnston" wrote in
:
Also: my understanding is that there *were* no real stereo mixes
of the early Beatles records, in England or anywhere. By Sgt.
Pepper, or a little earlier, they created stereo and mono mixes --
the mono was a different mix, not just the stereo combined.

I don't think that's accurate. It's more the opposite - there were
separate mono and stereo mixes of everything up through the White
Album.

No, Pepper's was the very first to have a stereo mix which was done after
the fact by the engineers in an attempt to match what had been signed off on
in mono by George Martin and the group. Capitol had obtained copies of the
last 3 and 4 track generations and used them to make the odd stereo mixes of
the earlier albums.

Everybody I met when I toured EMI in 1969 was absolutely livid about the
"stereo," about Capitol rolling off all the low-end and about a Capitol A&R
executive having the nerve to give himself a label credit as the co-producer
on what they considered an abomination.



--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com