Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[oldbrownshoe]

Well, the original UK pressings gave everyone the best of both worlds, the hits on the 45s, 99% original material on the EPs and LPs.

One thing we probably can agree on is that in 2015 the Stones' 60s catalogue is in complete disarray; it's Brian Jones' birthday tomorrow n'all.
I'd go so far to say it's a disgrace and, until it's sorted, I'm in absolutely no danger of lining Jagger & Co's pocket ever again. 

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

Well, the original UK pressings gave everyone the best of both worlds, the hits on the 45s, 99% original material on the EPs and LPs.

One thing we probably can agree on is that in 2015 the Stones' 60s catalogue is in complete disarray; it's Brian Jones' birthday tomorrow n'all.
I'd go so far to say it's a disgrace and, until it's sorted, I'm in absolutely no danger of lining Jagger & Co's pocket ever again.

Yes, the Stones' 60's catalogue has become a mess, but that's a big problem only if you are a completist, which I'm not. I think I have every Stones record I need; I'd say that I only miss "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women".

[Hello Goodbye]

If I Fell

Henry Mancini - If I Fell

The Music of Lennon & McCartney   1965

[Kevin]

That's interesting.  I think most references play down the importance of albums prior to the mid 60s and give the impression it was just a way to repackage the popular singles. And the Beatles first two singles went on an album named after their number one hit. Which I thought was the more common practice.

It's possible there were different approaches and the Beatles just adopted primarily the no single on album one. As they were the most famous it became associated with them.

It surprised me. From what I can see the shadows, cliff,billy fury and lonnie donegan all released single free albums. Even the tornadoes, with a uk single the first to to top the us charts, omitted it from their only album.
So in fact bunging two singles on their debut actually makes The Beatles look a little remiss. Naughty Beatles!

[oldbrownshoe]

I'm far from a completist, myself.

'Come On' to 'Let It Bleed' and all things in-between.
Everything else I leave, in Ed Reardon's words, to the '12-year olds'.

[Moogmodule]

It surprised me. From what I can see the shadows, cliff,billy fury and lonnie donegan all released single free album. Even the tornadoes, with a uk single the first to toothy us charts, omitted it from their only album.
So in fact bunging two singles on their debut actually makes The Beatles look a little remiss. Naughty Beatles!

I had a look and found similar. Although in 1962 Acker Bilk, Frank Ifield and Joe Brown also did the other thing of releasing an album of the same name as their hit single. So it looks like both approaches were pretty common. Maybe it depended on the type of artist and expectation of whether they'd sell albums in any number influenced it.

I took a slightly more cynical approach to the Beatles "generosity" of not including main singles on albums anyway. I thought it was a good way to maximise single sales. The record company just had to be confident you could sell albums without the singles. Once they new you could it made sense not to cannibalise single sales by letting some people in the market wait for the album.

[oldbrownshoe]

The only Beatles UK single actually lifted from an LP was right at the f**-end of the decade, 'Something'/'Come Together', on the instruction of a man who knew exactly which way the wind was blowing, Allen Klein (see also Peter Grant.....these guys were MADE for the 1970s).
The Beatles themselves had, by that time, rightly and honourably jumped ship.

The first Stones' A-side (along with its B-side!) to appear on an LP was, whaddya know, the first one after the 60s!
By the end of the 1970s, two 45s were routinely taken from LPs, then three in the dire 1980s.....etc. etc.

Value for money out the window, pack all the consumers into vast stadia, sell 'em T-Shirts and baseball caps.
Hyde Park, Woodstock and Altamont had all pointed the way in 1969.

It's only a hop, skip and a jump to the farce of 'Thriller' by the....erm.....'King of Pop', again in the dire 1980s, when the plundering of singles over a full two years off said LP all but killed the pop single, the pop chart, and made shows such as 'Top of the Pops' almost completely redundant.

Thank the Lord, The Beatles were around when they were as, if The White Album had been released in 1982, they'd have released seven singles off it.....and the need to produce new music like 'Get Back', 'Ballad of John & Yoko' and 'Abbey Road' would have been unnecessary, and would probably have never existed.

[oldbrownshoe]

Why was that three-letter F-word, slang in the UK for a cigarette, deleted?!!!!
So long as you know it was that one, and not the other one!

[Kevin]

Hyde Park, Woodstock and Altamont had all pointed the way in 1969.

Or Shea stadium. Those bloody Beatles again, ruining things again.   

[Klang]

If I Fell

Henry Mancini - If I Fell
The Music of Lennon & McCartney   1965

My, what a unique ...eh...um...nifty tune. I can't thing else quite like it.

 

[Mr Mustard]

Thank the Lord, The Beatles were around when they were as, if The White Album had been released in 1982, they'd have released seven singles off it.....and the need to produce new music like 'Get Back', 'Ballad of John & Yoko' and 'Abbey Road' would have been unnecessary, and would probably have never existed.

You're falling into that trap again.

Assuming that the market which evolved after The Beatles era would have prevailed anyway, had they stayed together....

Rather than them remaining market leaders whose quality control would have steered the industry away from such an unimaginitive, lazy practise 

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

Rather than them remaining market leaders whose quality control would have steered the industry away from such an unimaginitive, lazy practise 

I think the Beatles were a product of the 1960's more than the 1960's a product of the Beatles. So I don't believe in your theory.

[Fab4Fan]

...but as Beatle fans we do tend to credit The Beatles with inventing the wheel.

Kevin, you have just obliterated all knowledge I have ever held sacred and crushed my world!!! You mean The Beatles DIDN'T invent the wheel?! O.M.G! 

[Fab4Fan]

Anyways, I love the Beatles and I believe they had some magic amongst themselves, but they don't hold a monopoly on modern music like a ton of people think.

Um, sir, I beg to differ with you:

[Moogmodule]

I think the story and the magic of the Beatles grow the more I read how they became what they became. That they were a product of what went before and what was going on around them. That there were enormous chunks of luck that got them to where they were. But luck they had the attributes to take advantage of.   I don't now needed to think they were some super musical geniuses who sprang into being to change music. The real story is much more interesting in my opinion.

And all the fêted artists of all eras; Mozart, Puccini, Shakespeare, had stories much more interesting than that they were simply gifted geniuses.

[KelMar]

I think the story and the magic of the Beatles grow the more I read how they became what they became. That they were a product of what went before and what was going on around them. That there were enormous chunks of luck that got them to where they were. But luck they had the attributes to take advantage of.  I don't now needed to think they were some super musical geniuses who sprang into being to change music. The real story is much more interesting in my opinion.

And all the fêted artists of all eras; Mozart, Puccini, Shakespeare, had stories much more interesting than that they were simply gifted geniuses.

Very well put Moog! I don't just love The Beatles for their music but also for their sociological impact and how they fit into history.

[oldbrownshoe]

Haven't fallen into any trap, Mr. Mustard.

'Abbey Road' was released on 26th September, 1969 - Something/Come Together was released as a 45 on 31st October, 1969.....The Beatles, within their own era, had ALREADY succumbed to this 'lazy, unimaginative practice'.

If, however, I do fall into a trap I'll be the first to tell you! 

[Mr Mustard]

A brace of tracks forming just one single (not several) at a time when The Beatles were already losing interest and bailing out of their own group identity. The Sixties HAD to end; The Beatles didn't have to end with them.

They bent and flowed with the times I grant you, but to believe that, had they stayed together, they wouldn't have remained a major cog shaping (not inventing) the wheel of the music industry IS to succumb to the trap of assuming those hideous 70s/80s would have been no different to how we now remember them. I firmly believe a music scene containing an extant Beatles would have evolved somewhat differently to the way it did. But we'll never truly know. They would have absorbed some emerging styles but initiated and steered others.... don't imagine them with eye-liner, shoulder pads and back-combed mullets - they always had more taste. 

Not having a pop at anyone by the way... I respect all views.

[oldbrownshoe]

If the Record Industry of the time wanted four or five 45s off an album, I don't see how The Beatles would have changed it or, judging by the marketing of McCartney's albums over the years, even if they would have wanted to change it.

I can think of no major (i.e. shifted product worldwide) post-60s artist who put out distinct 45s and LPs.

I don't think The Beatles had any more taste in the 60s than any of their rivals. They were all from the same stock.

[Kevin]

"What if" is a hard and dangerous - but fun - game to play.
As The Stones managed to stay relevant until the mid seventies I guess The Beatles could have done the same.
But there's no escaping the fact that they broke up when they did because they could no longer function as a working unit. So for them to continue in our fantasy seventies universe would require either a personel change or a  change in the groups dynamics.
Let's say they managed to continue in a working relationship. Rock has many stories of artists barely on speaking terms making great music - you could even argue that it helps, not hinders, a bands creativity.
If you take the best songs from contempory solo albums, get The beatles to record them and Mr Martin to produce them and you get for a few years at least a brace of perfectly acceptable albums.
But I would guess that their days as movers and shakers were probably over, though I know the medley on Abbey Road is often cited as evidence of a possible career in the prog rock field, and maybe so.
Maybe Paul would have come up with something (again) that coulkd have breathed new life into them. Maybe.