Beatles Albums

[braxus]

I have some of their albums, but want to get the remaining ones I'm missing so I can tape them all in order of release dates. According to Wiki- there were 12 UK release albums, plus come compilation albums. In the US there was like 20 of them.

How did the US end up with more albums then the UK releases? Did they repeat songs on more then one album? And what real difference is there between the US and UK releases? The list I gathered was:

Beatles Album List


UK Releases:

1. Please Please Me. 1963
2. With the Beatles. 1963
3. A Hard Days Night. 1964
4. Beatles for Sale. 1964
5. Help! 1965
6. Rubber Soul. 1965
7. Revolver. 1966
8. Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. 1967
9. The Beatles (White Album). 1968
10. Yellow Submarine. 1969
11. Abbey Road. 1969
12. Let It Be. 1970

Extras:

1. Hey Jude. 1970
2. Magical Mystery Tour. 1967
3. Anthology 1, 2, and 3.


US Release Albums:

1. Introducing… The Beatles. 1964
2. Meet the Beatles. 1964
3. The Beatles Second Album. 1964
4. A Hard Days Night. 1964
5. Something New. 1964
6. Beatles 1965. 1964
7. The Early Beatles. 1965
8. Beatles VI. 1965
9. Help! 1965
10. Rubber Soul. 1965
11. Yesterday And Today. 1966
12. Revolver. 1966
13. Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. 1967
14. Magical Mystery Tour. 1967
15. The Beatles. 1968
16. Yellow Submarine. 1969
17. Abbey Road. 1969
18. Hey Jude. 1970
19. Let It Be. 1970


Anyone with info on this list let me know. Also if you have a link to each albums length in time- please post it.

[clhboa]

British albums had more tracks than their American counterparts. The American record companies would hold back the deleted tracks so they could squeeze out an extra lp, hence the "Yesterday + Today" album". The same thing happened with the Stones. If I was going to tackle such a project I would either pick British or American and stick with it. My preference is the American versions because those are the versions I'm more familiar with. You didn't say if you were going with vinyl or cd. If you choose cd, a good head start to your collection would be "The Capitol Albums Vols. 1 + 2". You get 8 albums in both stereo + mono versions. There has been some controversy with these sets regarding the incorrect master being used on several cuts, but that probably wouldn't matter too much, except to the die hard Beatles fanatic. "The Early Beatles" is Capitol reissueing the Vee Jay album "Introducing The Beatles" under a different title.

[BlazeES]

As clhboa correctly points out, Capitol Records would thin down the EMI offerings and repackage. It was very contentious between EMI (U.K.) and Capitol in the States; pretty much up until Sgt Peppers in 1967, then everything sync'd up. Interestingly enough, not only did Capitol insist on repackaging everything on the 1st (7) Beatle's albums for reasons of "understanding the american market better" (as they put it), they also saw to it that the recordings themselves were treated to re-equalization, very slight content edits (song trimming if you will...) and the adding of reverb in many cases. On the plus side, Capitol was more progressive in releasing Stereo LPs than EMI, so you'll find versions of songs offered on the American counterparts with not only stereo (absent on British releases) but actual re-channeling is many instances, to what I refer to as, poorman's-stereo. If you take a listen to the Capitol Years like clhboa suggests, you'll hear some songs with (about as simple as you can get) left - right splitting of content (vocals & instruments).

So how did Capitol pull it off? Simple, they would reduce track count from the EMI original schemas and pull in B-Sides and single only releases to create new compilations with the tracks hacked earlier, or flatly reissue songs previously released on another entirely different label - hence - The Early Beatles. Also, the U.K. version of 'Help' is all Beatle tracks, but the US release was mastered in the States to include movie soundtrack cuts that spanned the entire 2nd side of the album - creating a another large chunk of songs towards creating even more album stretch. Incidentally, 'A Hard Days Night' was a United Artists release in the States and not included in the Capitol Years, Volume One.

Capitol was very crafty indeed. And why not, look at all the pimply pubescent teenage girls that made up the "mania" just itching to throw down more money.

Why the hell not stretch the catalog?

Capitol"lism" at it's best...




Here's a bit of trivia.
Which EMI LP release was in response to Capitol's 'Yesterday & Today' compilation?

'A Collection of Beatles Oldies' released in 1966.
The funny thing is, many of the songs weren't that old...

[braxus]

I took an invetory of the albums I do have. Seems I have more compilation albums more then anything. One I have that isn't even on the Wiki list. It has 20 greatest songs and has a white cover. It was released in 1982.

The records I do have are:

Yesterday and Today
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Magical Mystery Tour
Beatles White Album

Beatles Rock and Roll #1 and #2
Beatles 20 Greatest Hits
Beatles 1967-70 Blue Album

So it looks like I'll be collecting the US versions since this is what I mostly have to start with. I have a long way to go to get all the ones on the main list.

[speakerman1]

There was a LP called Off White. I have it.

[BlazeES]

There was a LP called Off White. I have it.

That's a bootleg not an official US release; I think Brax is looking to understand the full scope of the legit catalog releases speaker. Having said that, a lot of the stuff on 'Off White" made it's way onto the 'Anthology' releases of the mid-nineties, and somewhat cleaned-up I might add...good stuff indeed!

Another interesting factoid, for those interested, is that if you research the origins of beatle songs you'll find the composing of many songs doesn't necessarily correspond with the release 'year' of a particular album. In other words, there are many songs that showed up on solo efforts that were in fact "beatle" period compositions, and there were songs that made into later Beatle albums, like 'Let it Be' that were actually germinated way, way, I mean, way back - as just a few examples.

There's lots of good books that delve into the chronology of each and every song. Interesting reading if you got nothing better to do and want to expand your knowledge of musical genuis...

[braxus]

Yes Im going for the US versions. Easier and less expensive for me to come by. Im not going for audiophile quality for this set of records. I just want the songs and on vinyl. Already am bidding on a few records from one seller and already won 1 of them. Will take some time to complete the set.

[braxus]

I finally figured out what that odd ball album was. Its "Beatles: 20 Greatest Hits" which was released in 1982 as my copy said it was.

[braxus]

Well add two more I've got to the list now. Hopefully get more soon.

[Pablo_Carolas]

I finally figured out what that odd ball album was. Its "Beatles: 20 Greatest Hits" which was released in 1982 as my copy said it was.

I have that one too. Bought it for some cents in a second hand store some years ago before the vinyl renaissance.

On the curiosity side, that was the first Beatles album I had. A nice prerecorded K7 offered to me when I was a kid.

Other second hand buys in that store:
Sgt Peppers
Abbey Road
The Beatles Rock and Roll Music

Everything for a few euro cents. Try to do it now...

[braxus]

Well I've got 17 out of the 19 +3 albums I need to complete the USA list of records. Just need Let It Be, Yellow Submarine, and all 3 Anthology albums.

[BlazeES]

Brax,

I'm a HUGE Beatles fan!

Let me know if you have troubles getting decent copies of the Anthology LPs.

I might be able to help...

[speakerman1]

I won this yesterday.
http://www.shopgoodwill.com/viewItem.asp?ItemID=4733407

[speakerman1]

I just scored The Beatles Anthology 1&2. 1 is CD. 2 is on cassette. It sounds good.

[Eldorado]

There's lots of good books that delve into the chronology of each and every song. Interesting reading if you got nothing better to do and want to expand your knowledge of musical genuis...

Isn't Revolution in the Head considered one of the best of those? I remember there was a lot of praise for it when it came out in the 90s.

[braxus]

Brax,

I'm a HUGE Beatles fan!

Let me know if you have troubles getting decent copies of the Anthology LPs.

I might be able to help...

Hi Blaze,

Do you have some you want to sell? Not looking for taped copies, but the actual albums themselves.

Also update- I got all 19 albums now. Just need the Anthology ones to complete it all.

[BlazeES]

Isn't Revolution in the Head considered one of the best of those? I remember there was a lot of praise for it when it came out in the 90s.

I believe so, although "best" is certainly a relative term when it comes to books. One to check out if you're in the hunt for a few reference sources...

[BlazeES]

Hi Blaze,

Do you have some you want to sell? Not looking for taped copies, but the actual albums themselves.

Also update- I got all 19 albums now. Just need the Anthology ones to complete it all.

PM sent your way

[Eldorado]

There's a site called Better Records I just came across that has a lot of Beatles related information. Mind you, some (no, a lot) of their claims look completely ludicrous.

[Jay Pemberton]

From what I understand, one big reason Capitol limited their albums to 12 or fewer songs had to do with the royalty policy here, where the rate is by the songs, and not by the album. In other words, in the UK it's a flat fee per album no matter how many songs are on it, but here in the US, more songs=more royalty outlay=less record company $ made per copy sold....

[Eldorado]

To me it just seems you get a fairer picture with releases from the country of origin. Without knowing much about Beatles albums - I'm not a huge fan and don't own any of their records - it's well known that they were closely involved in the process and with their producer, and so an album released in Britain would be a better reflection of that than an album that's been completed to the satisfaction of the band and producer, and released in one place, then tinkered with and released in a different form in another.

If I knew this was the case with any group, on whichever side of the Atlantic, I'd go for the original release.

[braxus]

To me it just seems you get a fairer picture with releases from the country of origin. Without knowing much about Beatles albums - I'm not a huge fan and don't own any of their records - it's well known that they were closely involved in the process and with their producer, and so an album released in Britain would be a better reflection of that than an album that's been completed to the satisfaction of the band and producer, and released in one place, then tinkered with and released in a different form in another.

If I knew this was the case with any group, on whichever side of the Atlantic, I'd go for the original release.

I looked at that and weighed it both ways. In order to get the original albums as they were released in Europe would have made it harder for me to locate the copies then if I went with US releases. Also keep in mind that the Euro releases didn't have the singles mixed in with them, so I would of had to search those out as well which would have made it VERY expensive for me to get their entire catalog. So this is why I went with the US releases. The singles were added into those albums and the albums would be easier to locate and buy then choosing the Euro option. And all this includes the fact they released a 13 album box set in Europe of their albums. I would still need all the singles with that which are hard to come by today.

[Naknut]

To me it just seems you get a fairer picture with releases from the country of origin. Without knowing much about Beatles albums - I'm not a huge fan and don't own any of their records - it's well known that they were closely involved in the process and with their producer, and so an album released in Britain would be a better reflection of that than an album that's been completed to the satisfaction of the band and producer, and released in one place, then tinkered with and released in a different form in another.

If I knew this was the case with any group, on whichever side of the Atlantic, I'd go for the original release.

I completely agree with Eldorado and having said that most of us on this side of the world remember the Beatles from their US releases and connect with those recordings on a very personal level. I grew up with the Beatles and their US singles but being the huge fan that I am I have everything I can lay my hands on...US,UK, Japanese releases they are all good with the UK releases the best as far as fidelity and artist intent. The UK monos are the best way to collect them but be prepared to spend big bucks.

[BlazeES]

A good way to get all the original Beatle LP's from the UK in one fell swoop is to hunt for the blue box set that first came out in the US in December 1978. It's called 'The Beatles Collection' and has all the original UK format albums as originally engineered and packaged, early ones in mono, later ones in stereo - in a box with the addition of a rarities compilation LP. It is designated as "BC-13" and after the initial limited edition serialized north american release (approx 5000 boxes were marketed), the 80's saw additional non-serialized versions that flooded the US and European markets. As previously noted, the quality of the UK pressings is phenomenal. Another nice bonus of the earlier UK releases were that the LP jackets were plastic coated making the shelf life of the artwork/finish of each release exceptional. You should see Sgt Peppers with this extra durable jacket, especially when you open it up and look at the gatefold. The BC-13 sets that continued to be produced into the early 90's started to suffer from stamping "generational" degradation and at some point along the way (not sure when) the jackets ceased to be coated.

Next to scoring the venerable MFSL Beatles Collection box set, the "Blue Box" BC-13, either in limited edition or early production standard release, is a super cool collector item and again, the pressing quality is outstanding - so it makes for a great analog source.

[Eldorado]

I completely agree with Eldorado and having said that most of us on this side of the world remember the Beatles from their US releases and connect with those recordings on a very personal level. I grew up with the Beatles and their US singles but being the huge fan that I am I have everything I can lay my hands on...US,UK, Japanese releases they are all good with the UK releases the best as far as fidelity and artist intent. The UK monos are the best way to collect them but be prepared to spend big bucks.

Of course ideally, you'd want the whole bloody lot. It's a worthy enterprise.

Since I got back into vinyl around nine years ago, I've only bought albums, but on a trip home I picked up some original Stones singles quite cheaply, and they look and sound so great I want to get more. Singles is a whole different thing to me, less serious minded, but there's something wonderful about them anyway. I've got no idea how easy or difficult it would be to get all or most of what the Stones released in Britain in the 60s, but it would be fun to start hunting some down. If there's more available at the price I paid, I'll be all over it.