|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Nov 17, 2019 18:34:33 GMT
Yep - for the Beatles/ex-Beatles, Apple was a facade. They were NEVER Apple recording artists. Badfinger and Mary Hopkin et al were Apple Records artists - evidenced by their records all going OOP between Apple folding as a label (mid 70s) until Apple was re-activated in the early 90s (after all the group lawsuits had finally been settled). Certainly no Beatles/ex-Beatles albums went OOP in that same time period...except Wonderwall Music, Electronic Sound, Two Virgins, Life with the Lions, Wedding Album, Live Peace in Toronto, Sentimental Journey, Beaucoups of Blues, Sometime in NYC (I think).......and Let It Be. All on Apple. Let It Be went OOP? For how long? Why would EMI (NOT Apple) let a Beatles album go OOP? Did it have something to do with the United Artists/movie soundtrack connection? The experimental albums were actually on Apple (rather than EMI IIRC) so they would have gone OOP along with all the other "real" Apple stuff anyway. So these ones you mentioned are out: Electronic Sound Two Virgins Life With the Lions Wedding Album Also notice every Lennon album you mention is actually a John & Yoko record. Hardly a coincidence. Those two Ringo albums (on EMI, not Apple) also wouldn't justify staying in print consistently due to their low sales potential. OTOH ALL the real Apple stuff went (and stayed for at least a decade and a half) OOP despite (in some cases) fairly high sales potential). For example Mary Hopkin's Greatest Hits album and Badfinger's 'Straight Up' album - that won a mid-80s magazine reader's poll of albums most wanted to be released on CD. This was BEFORE 1987 when the Beatles catalog wasn't yet on CD. Do you really think that James Taylor's debut didn't warrant remaining in print due to its sales potential/Taylor's superstar status throughout the 70s? Yet like EVERY other "real" Apple album in went OOP until the early 90s. He even had to re-record a song or two from his Apple album for his greatest hits album to be able to include them. The fact that Ringo's Sentimental Journey (EMI) didn't justify itself (sales potential-wise) in remaining in print consistently hardly disproves that high sales potential albums by Mary Hopkin/Badfinger/James Taylor etc went OOP for different/opposite reasons. If ALL of Ringo's EMI (let alone ALL of George's, John's or Paul's) album went out of print from the mid 70s to the early/mid 90s, you might have a point, as that would at least be circumstantial evidence of a logical connection. ALL genuine Apple albums went OOP and stayed OOP for about a decade and a half. This is not a coincidence! Ringo's Sentimental Journey (EMI - not Apple) going OOP due to extremely low sales potential hardly disproves this fact. Yes, sometime in mid-1970s, United Artists was in transition, and the Let It Be album went out of print in the USA. Apple owns the "real" Apple albums (Badfinger/Mary Hopkin/James Taylor et al) and EMI owns the "fake" Apple albums - ie the Beatles and ex-Beatles albums (with a few exceptions - most notably the experimental albums which were on Apple (and 2 on Zapple) probably because EMI didn't want them, as I would assume EMI had first refusal on anything any band member wanted to release, since they were all signed collectively and individually to EMI until early '76). Really, I thought Paul owns and controls all his albums going back to his first solo album. He managed to negotiate that with EMI in 1975 as part of his deal to re-sign with the label when the Beatles' recording contract (which also covered them as solo artists) ran out in early 1976. So he does NOW own everything 1970-75 but that didn't happen until the Beatles' record deal lapsed at the beginning of 1976, and his new solo deal with EMI commenced. Prior to that EMI owned those albums. Plus EMI still (AFAIK) owns all the John/George/Ringo regular/non avant-garde solo albums until the Beatles contract lapsed in early 1976. What Paul (due to his huge success at the time which gave him increased bargaining power) was able to negotiate with EMI is irrelevant to the fact that prior to that EMI owned all the (so-called) Apple Beatles solo albums, and still does in the cases of John/George/Ringo. Not to mention that (roughly) between the mid 70s and mid 90s (the time during which no Beatles or solo albums bore an Apple label) everything bore EMI/Capitol labels, and that all the "real" Apple label stuff (ie Badfinger, Mary Hopkin, James Taylor et al) went OOP.
|
|
|
Post by Last Rock Hope on Feb 16, 2021 16:00:57 GMT
Imagine being this fired up about Mull of Kintyre.
Jack White:
wildstar:
Jack White:
wildstar:
tonyballz:
wildstar:
|
|
|
Post by powerpoppackage on Feb 16, 2021 16:33:05 GMT
Fuckin' hell, I just assumed that huge text blocks of arguing involved Dildodipper.
|
|
|
Post by hugofuguzev on Feb 17, 2021 2:05:01 GMT
Wildstar is one of the biggest argumentative cunts over in SHiTEland, and that's saying a lot...how this insufferable prick can go a day without somebody beating the shit out of him is amazing, because you know he's that much of a prick to everyone he deals with in real life, not just on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by mudflapslim on Feb 17, 2021 17:30:05 GMT
How can that fucker talk about REAL Apple artists without mentioning Long Dong Eaton?
|
|
bradman
Better than Steve
Posts: 5,116
|
Post by bradman on Feb 17, 2021 19:05:48 GMT
A true legend.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Aug 17, 2021 17:21:05 GMT
Lennon alone would have had NO trouble getting a contract - this is true, but they weren't looking for a record company to sign Lennon to a solo contract - they were looking for a record company to sign them to a JohnandYoko contract. Do you really not see the difference? It would be a risky move for a record company to make, due to the lowered sales potential of including half Yoko tracks (ultimately proven by the fact that the album was hardly flying off the shelves prior to his murder). I'm sure any offers (if any were made) to sign them were for a smaller amount than they would have been for Lennon alone. Do you really think that a record company expecting a solo Lennon album to sell platinum (or more) and a duo album to only sell gold (or less) would offer them the same (financial) deal together as they'd be willing to sign for Lennon alone? She was clearly a financial risk/liability in the music industry's estimation. There's also the possibility that the record companies were confident that they'd all end up turning the duo down, and that the couple would eventually give up and Lennon would "come to his senses" (so to speak) and come back to them looking for a solo deal for Lennon instead. If Geffen (or someone similar) hadn't stepped up, they probably would have had to give up their quest for a JohnandYoko record deal eventually - or if they were stubborn/determined enough to not give up on releasing a duo album, start their own record company to release it. Remember Yoko had never been signed to a non-nepotism record deal before that. Apple released all her solo albums prior and was 1/4 co-owned by her husband, but Apple no longer existed as a record company in 1980....so for the first time ever she needed to actually *earn* a recording contract, and she was unlikely to be able to do that without piggybacking on Lennon's deal. BTW - this reminds me of my theory of why STINYC was a double album - that EMI likely rejected the (single studio) album as only being a half-Lennon album, and that they never signed Ono to their label and had zero interest in releasing her music. The double album may have been a compromise as between the two albums, EMI got roughly the equivalent of a full single disc Lennon solo album. It would be interesting to know what Lennon got as a royalty rate for the album. If he got paid royalties as if STINYC was a single album rather than a double, then my theory is probably correct. However Zappa's material was included and I doubt he would have allowed his material to be used on the album without getting paid for it. So who knows. Point is NO record company was chomping at the bit at any time in the 70s (or in fact in 1980) to sign Yoko Ono. Further evidence for this is her final (at the time unreleased) studio album of the 1970s (which first saw release on Onobox in the 1990s) was completed too late to be released on Apple (which had just folded as a record label). If any other label wanted her at the time, they could have easily had her as she had a completed album all ready for release, but unsurprisingly no one was interested. She was always trading on Lennon's corpse, using his unreleased material to secure her own releases. The John Lennon Anthology box (released on Capitol) was sandwiched between her two Capitol releases. Coincidence? Well since she wasn't dropped from Capitol after the first of those two albums flopped miserably (it sold only 11,000 copies) I think its safe to say she had two Capitol solo album releases guaranteed, regardless of their sales performance in exchange for her agreeing to sanction the release of the 4CD Lennon Anthology Boxset. BTW her second Capitol album sold 3,000 copies, while the John Lennon Anthology box went Gold. I'd imagine that she left Geffen for Polydor (dragging Lennon's corpse behind her of course - or is that pushing his corpse ahead of her to clear a path) because Geffen wasn't interested in releasing any more of her solo albums after 'Season Of Glass' flopped. So Milk and Honey (along with her next two solo albums - pure coincidence, I'm sure :rolleyes:) were released on Polydor. Would she have really got a two album solo deal if it didn't include a new Lennon (half) album? If so, then why just the two solo albums if Polydor were so happy to have her solo records on their label? BTW the first of the two only charted in the US at #98 and the second charted nowhere, while Milk and Honey did reasonably well on the charts and sold Gold. I don't think I'm going too far in assuming that those sales were driven far more by Lennon's half of the album than by Yoko's half. ...and I'm sure Sean put her through an extensive set of musical auditions, and market research when it came to deciding whether in was in his label's best business interests to sign her - just like I'm sure John did when it came to signing her to Apple. :rolleyes: Man, you certainly have a lot of axes to grind in this thread. :confused: Huh? OK - So explain where my logic fails/provide proof that my educated assumptions are illogical. It was postulated (with no evidence provided) that Yoko legitimately earned all her record deals. Do you agree that's true? I don't and I backed up my position. Why is that a bad thing? Do you hear a voice in your head repeating, "Do it, do it, do it," when you write this stuff? Do I hear a voice telling me to correct nonsense assumptions - in this case that she legitimate earned all her (major label - no less!) record deals? Well I don't hear voices, but when I see something being asserted that pretty much cannot be correct (based on logic and the known facts) I do feel compelled to correct it. You consider that a bad thing? Or do you just believe I'm incorrect or at least do you believe my conclusions based on the known facts are illogical? Saying "Trading on Lennon's corpse," is in extremely poor taste, but understandable in a Beatles obsessive with no awareness of social cues. Her cynical trading on Lennon's corpse (ie his unreleased material/rough boombox recordings/etc that he would surely have never meant for public consumption, and much of which I'm sure he'd be embarrassed by if he knew they'd be released) to further her own career is far more "in poor taste" than someone pointing that fact out - but thanks for the insult. It had to be done. Don’t let them make you feel guilty for speaking truth. It is clearly a disorder. Chapmanesque. WOW - now THAT'S in severely poor taste! They can't. It isn't just him, there are a bunch of them. Have you noticed the pattern of no humor, taking things literally, fixation on random detail, fierce loyalty to obsession target to the point of near total identification ? To where if I were Yoko I would be looking over my shoulder every day of my life? A strong candidate for inclusion in DSM-6. Funny how the insults and the strawmen just keep on coming, but NOTHING to refute any of my actual points - not that I'm surprised of course. Pointing out a disorder is an observation, nothing more. The inability to see how the phrase "Trading on Lennon's corpse" is horrific is a sign of a sociopath. Not unless you are a licensed medical professional (who has actually done a proper in person medical exam and diagnosis of the patient in question) - otherwise its just an unprovoked, childish personal insult. No need to take personal umbrage, it isn't just you . Ir's ok, you just hate Yoko Ono. I am sure she has been worried about people like you her whole life. You’re being ridiculous. It’s not the least bit controversial to accuse Yoko of trading on Lennon’s fame. I simply called out the phrase "trading on Lennon's corpse" as being a strange and macabre choice of words. Anyone with an ounce of politesse could have swatted away my remark with a casual "I suppose it is a bit over the top, I just meant trading on fame" as you put it. That is because you can converse - unlike the narcissistic obsessive who digs in, it is all terribly personal. I haven't offered any fuel to the debate. That is your bone to dig up and fight over. Enjoy! Am just sorting out the fans from the psychos, don't mind me! Your inability to see how your claiming that any criticism of Yoko is "Chapmanesque" is FAR worse. Especially since I didn't even criticize her - I simply followed the evidence -EVERY TIME she released anything on a major label, it was invariably tied to a Lennon release coming out on that same label at nearly the same time (or time frame) - her two Capitol solo albums sandwiched the release of the Lennon Anthology Box for example (one a couple years before and the other a couple years after) and she never released anything else solo on Capitol before or since. That's what we call a logical deduction based on an examination of the known facts - which of course you still refuse to address (or attempt to refute), instead doing nothing but lobbing personal insults - which I certainly haven't done. I *would* add to that "...so who is the real sociopath here?" but unlike you I'm not pretending to be a medical diagnostician - so I'll refrain. OK yet another strawman from you - what a shocker. For the record I don't care about Yoko personally, musically or whatever other way you could bring up. You're sure she's been worried about people like me all her life? You mean people who are smart enough to notice that she has been blatantly using Lennon since at least 1981 - if not since 1980 (while he was still alive!) to get her own music heard - to the detriment of his music being heard in some cases, such as: 1 - hurting his album's sales potential for those who refuse to pay full price (for an album they'd otherwise very much want to buy) because only half the songs on it are his. 2 - her songs on the album being sandwiched between his - with crossfades between them on Double Fantasy! You couldn't even easily record a cassette of just his songs to listen to cleanly with everything being crossfaded. Her whole life? Nah - but the last 40 years? Sure I could believe that... Hey YOU'RE the only one making anything personal here with all YOUR insults, so... By the way are you claiming you have even half an ounce (let alone a full ounce) of politeness with your constant insults? That's rich! Hey I haven't personally insulted you in this thread have I? If one person starts lobbing unprovoked personal insults at someone who wasn't even talking to them in the first place, and the other is remaining calm and dealing only with the facts (that the insult lobber refuses to even address (let alone attempt to refute - one must assume because he CAN'T ) which of those two is more likely to be a psycho? ...logically speaking...
|
|
|
Post by mintyjackhole on Aug 17, 2021 19:22:26 GMT
Speedracer the voice of fucking reason?! Where have you gone Grtan? Our nation turns its lonely haert to you!
|
|
|
Post by Potsie Hoofman on Aug 18, 2021 1:02:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Aug 18, 2021 15:00:28 GMT
Wildstar is being a dick in the thread about the Tattoo You reissue. Not sure what I'm more excited for: new Stones music or seeing everything he's saying be verified to be complete horseshit.
|
|
|
Post by mikaelaarsehole on Aug 18, 2021 16:57:38 GMT
What an asshole.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Aug 18, 2021 18:11:04 GMT
We know nothing yet, so don’t start yer ‘missed opportunity’-crap. Sometimes people seem to love spanking themselves with misery. Irritating. Anyway, out from the picture we can draw the following: Titles spotted: Living In The Heart Of Love Don’t Let The World Pass You By Troubles Are Coming Come To The Ball -All titles are ‘new’ songs. However, it all does not seem complete. We can also spot: Start Me Up Black Limousine Neighbours Tops Heaven Waiting On A Friend -Pressume they are the master takes. Missing are: Hang Fire Slave Little T+A Worried About You No Use In Crying My guess: All titles are just tip of the iceberg. There are both master takes and outtakes here. There is more, no doubt. So you decided to go in the opposite direction and raise everyone's hopes based on imaginative speculation that is not actually based on a sober reading of the info we have? That is clearly NOT a title - its a graphic with the title listed beside it - 'Tops' . So there's 3 new songs listed - and they're all crossed out. This is probably why we are being told its a bonus disc containing either 9 OR 10 songs. Whoever posted that originally seems to be acknowledging their own confusion about that graphic (ie whether its a song title or just the graphic for 'Tops)'. Why would you presume that? Is there an indication that we are only seeing half of that picture? It doesn't look cut off or ripped to me. There are nine song titles on it - the same number Ronnie said a few weeks back that he was working on with Mick. Why would they only list some random incomplete sampling of the full musical contents? Is there a "...and many more" that I'm not seeing printed on that graphic somewhere? Doubt...doubt...DOUBT! You're just wildly guessing/making stuff up. We are told there are 9 or 10 songs on the bonus disc (looking at the picture its 9 songs listed - along with one somewhat confusing graphic as that graphic includes/consists mostly of text, which could be confised as an additional song title). If it IS a song title then why isn't it crossed out, like the other three are? You certainly like to play the boss, don’t you? Did you not get enough attention in kindergarden? Are you still in kindergarten? WOW! Angry? Is that projection? Whatever... As far as pessimism - where do you get that. I made a plain sober reading of what that picture/flyer/whatever it was said, and didn't infer or add anything to it. Am I supposed to "read between the lines" somehow to see something that isn't there? As far as "the one alternate version" thing. OK - what specific kind of alternate version? It didn't say did it? It could very well be that they don't consider any possible underdubs/redubs/alt mixes of the album tracks on the bonus disc as "alternate versions" which I suppose would technically be true because it would still be the same basic track versions, but with different overdubs from the regular album versions. The "one alternate version" might be the reggae 'Start Me Up" which is obviously not the same basic track as the album version just with different overdubs - its a completely different version. But I'm sure if it is included, Mick will re-sing it with the final lyrics from the Tattoo You version. That's my guess, but once Mick re-sings it using the final lyrics from the Tattoo You album version, it will be called 'Start Me Up'. So the official announcement is unlikely to say: "Never Stop" ...but rather... "Start Me Up (Reggae Version)" Wasn’t it something you said about wild guessing and making things up? I said "my guess is" - I ADMITTED it is a guess. Why is that a problem exactly?! Unlike you in your post I didn't base my admitted guess on an obvious misreading of that flyer. I have better reading comprehension skills than that. I was talking about exactly what the other info post (not the flyer meant by "alternate version" since it did not say. It was wrongly pointed out to me that I was "ignoring" that there's only one "alternate version" on the bonus disc according to that post. How can I ignore something that is not defined? What do they mean by alternate version? 1 - instrumental version of master? 2 - underdub of master? 3 - new overdubs on master? 4 - remix of master? I guessed - as did the poster I was agreeing with that by "alternate version" they probably mean "alternate take" rather than a reworking of an existing album take. If that is the case then "never Stop" is the most likely (if not only known) possibility. Are we clear now? Well that post didn't define alternate My final prediction for the contents of the bonus disc before the announcement on Thursday is the 9 songs listed on that flyer: - the three songs that are scratched out on the flyer that are previously unreleased songs that I can't read through the scratching out, but that others have (correctly or incorrectly) deciphered the names of upthread. - The "one alternate version" is "Start Me Up" (Reggae Version - aka Never Stop) - the other five songs will be the album masters in some way altered, such as instrumental mix, remix, newly overdubbed, vintage alt overdub - blah blah blah, the possibilities are endless - suffice to say they all will be some variation on the regular Tattoo You album versions. Those songs (as listed on the flyer being): Neighbours Tops Waiting On A Friend Black Limousine Heaven (not necessarily in that order of course) C ya on Thursday! You are guessing just as wild as I am. You make predictions while accusing me and others for doing the same. My predictions ended with ‘there is more, no doubt’, which meant that no matter how, there will me more, being it alternate versions or outtakes. Thing is, you are being wildly offended both by others not believing what you believe and you are also offended if people say you are just another person with a guess. Must be hard trying to rule the world while destroying it at the same time. "We know nothing yet, so don’t start yer ‘missed opportunity’-crap. Sometimes people seem to love spanking themselves with misery. Irritating." So what was this then? Hypocrite! I'm sure each title consists of multiple words (that can't always necessarily all fit on one line, and probably all the words in each title are capitalized. Actually looking at the image again EVERY LETTER of every word in every title is capitalized, so.... Plus the titles 'Waiting On A Friend', 'Start Me Up' and 'Black Limousine' are each printed as two lines. Does that make them six songs instead of three? Why would every song on the album proper be mentioned if that's just a listing of the songs on the bonus disc. If that's only a partial list of EVERYTHING included across both lists, then why doesn't it say somewhere "...and many more" or words to that effect? Plus how is it NOT clear that every song has its own graphic, since every song that is not scratched out has its own graphic? The lack of logical deduction used in some of these posts is astounding. Then immediately afterwards - in the same post - he turns around and does the same thing in the opposite direction claiming that they're wrong and we have evidence that the bonus disc will only contain ONE song that is also on the regular album and otherwise will be full of completely unreleased material (ie 8 new songs we haven't heard before - outside of bootlegs) - based on his blatant misreading/misunderstanding/twisting of pretty much everything that that flyer/picture states! He even turned a graphic into a song title - making the three unreleased tracks into four unreleased tracks! Do YOU think he's likely correct (or logical) in his predictions? As for myself I'm pretty confident that I'm pretty close (if not exactly correct) because I am reading that flyer meticulously/clearly/soberly and not instead trying to read between the lines of what it says. The only real question is "what does 'alternate version' mean?". It doesn't mention that on the flyer but it was mentioned elsewhere - but it was not in any way defined. I mentioned some of the possibilities of what they might not consider to be "alternate versions", such as alt mixes and instrumentals and things like that, as they would derive from the same take/version as the one on the album. One possibility I forgot to mention is we might also get an extended/unedited mix of a regular album track, which could be cool if there's some interesting band interplay/jamming. Oh BTW - I predict/guess that if they do include an instrumental mix of an album track, it will be 'Heaven' as that would probably work quite well as an instrumental. Also my prediction (based on a clear/sober/unbiased reading of that flyer) is VERY close to what we got with the GHS deluxe: 3 new songs 1 arguable alt version (depending on one's definition of "alt version") + a bunch of instrumentals and alt mixes of the regular album tracks. I'm not being pessimistic OR optomistic....I'm just being realistic. Well since you were unable to logically read what the flyer said without misunderstanding things it very clearly DOES say - yes that amounts to the same thing as "wild guessing" which you'll likely discover tomorrow! Some of us are having fun speculating, you seem to enjoy being a misery, and putting people’s opinions down. Really?! so what about this, then? "We know nothing yet, so don’t start yer ‘missed opportunity’-crap. Sometimes people seem to love spanking themselves with misery. Irritating." In that very same post he ironically and hypocritically went on to do the same thing in reverse - misreading/inflating the info given on that flyer out of all proportion, trying to raise false hope in people that this release will be the exact opposite of what others envision it being - while none of the other bonus discs were anywhere close to his pronouncements (with the possible exception of the 'Some Girls' bonus disc). PS - remember that he responded back to my first response to him with literally NOTHING more than a personal insult about kindergarten - which is quite clearly against forum rules - is it not? Logically: 1 - 9 songs are supposed to be on the disc we are told and there's 9 songs listed on the flyer 2 - graphics are clearly there to illustrate song titles - the graphics are not song titles themselves 3 - that is a one page flyer which contains 9 songs. You claimed that that list covers the contents of both the original CD AND the bonus disc. So where's the rest of songs then? There should at least be an "...and many more" or something similar printed on the flyer if you are correct, no? 4 - my reading is pretty much in line with/very close to what we got on the previous bonus discs (bar Some Girls). Its especially close to the GHS bonus disc contents, which also happens to be the most recent release in the series. ...shall I go on?
|
|
|
Post by respiratoryproblems on Aug 18, 2021 20:29:56 GMT
I was just looking at this thread, mildly interested in some of the info as I only heard the album for the first time recently. This guy is like some sort of Black Plague of fun, isn’t he? Christ.
|
|
|
Post by mikaelaarsehole on Aug 18, 2021 20:40:20 GMT
I can just imagine the veins popping on this guy's head, I expect at some point he'll stroke out at his keyboard.
|
|
|
Post by respiratoryproblems on Aug 19, 2021 10:07:06 GMT
This guy needs to shut the fuck up
|
|