|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Dec 4, 2020 19:21:45 GMT
This is what I would like to see: McCartney Trilogy Collector's EditionLP 1 - McCartney - Half-speed remastered - Red vinylLPs 2-3 - McCartney II - Half-speed remastered - Blue vinyl - Paul's original double-album vision for the record* LP 4 - McCartney III - Half-speed remastered - White vinylLP 5 Bonus McCartney : Side A1. Oo You (remix) 2. Momma Miss America (remix) 3. Maybe I'm Amazed [live] (previously unreleased version) 4. Check My Machine (remix) 5. Temporary Secretary (remix) 6. Coming Up [live] (original 45 full-length version) Side BTwo previously unreleased tracks from III + the four color edition demos Hardback book detailing the making of all three albums with in-depth interviews with Paul about his process of recording alone and self-producing, insight from mixing engineers who worked on the albums, and unreleased photos by Linda and Mary. McCartney Trilogy poster
|
|
|
Post by hoffa_nagila on Mar 31, 2021 19:29:42 GMT
I'm gonna put my shite hat on and give 'em the benefit of the doubt that they mean going on 20 years since the DVD set. (Which I rate highly. Not for the actual documentary, but there are some good remixes featured and other interesting bits, all extracted and made available on the Purple Chick discs.)
I personally am looking forward to 2027. Maybe we can get 40th anniversary reissues of the original Beatles CDs.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Sept 27, 2021 18:01:42 GMT
Beatles' Past Masters: practical functionality vs. uninspired discontinuityLet's have a deep talk about the Past Masters, the beloved/infamous repository of non-album Beatles tracks. First of all, I'll admit that if this collection didn't exist, lots of fans would be claiming for it. So I'm not questioning the need or the utility of its existence. It certainly fulfills the expectative of completist fans who don't want to have the same tracks repeated here and there. Another option could have been the inclusion of those recordings as bonus tracks in albums from the same period; but that's another discussion. I'll just say that I respect the decision of not adding anything to such classic works, even if they did that for commercial reasons rather than historical purism. Now what I'd like to argue about the Past Masters is its use as listening experience and contextual representation of the remaining Beatles catalog. As an initial criticism, I think the inclusion of some tracks is redundant. The original single version of "Love Me Do" is not only much inferior to the definitive album version, but it also lacks of legitimity since the master tape no longer exist. The German versions of "She Loves You" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" are fun curiositities, but they add little to nothing, since the original versions are included as well; so they just serve to make a cult to historicism despite they disrupt the fluidity of the tracklist. Even the WWF version of "Across The Universe" is quite pointless, including amateurish female vocals. Yes, I'm aware that all the mentioned tracks were official releases, but in my opinion they should have been reserved to another kind of compilation, such as the Anthologies. The single versions of "Get Back" and "Let It Be" are a different case, since they are the hit recordings and have historical importance, even though variations from the same masters were included in the Let It Be album. Other point I want to make is the unbalanced and discontinuous nature of the tracklist. I mean, there we have all time classics such as "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "Hey Jude" next to a bunch of obscure (if the term can be used for a Beatles song) B-sides. Here I'm not judging the quality of the songs, I'm just referring to the weirdness of that mixture. And there's also those jumps in time, particularly that from Paperback Writer/Rain to Lady Madonna/The Inner Light, almost two years, because the 1967 singles and EP were already included in the Magical Mystery Tour album. I think it's more natural to listen to all the hit singles together in chronological order, while the rarities may belong to another release for completist purposes. Thus, I can't avoid the messy feeling I get when I try to listen to the Past Masters as a proper artistic approach. Not to mention the unimaginative black and white album covers, as an honest declaration of what the collection was intended to be. I also have my criticism regarding the Red and Blue Albums and, especially, the "1" compilation. But at least their tracklists are much better contextualized. Still, the Past Masters compilation constitutes a coherent selection of tracks; so coherent to the point of making an incoherent listen. First, the Past Masters were not a Beatles invention. And second, this is not about being satisfied or dissatisfied, it's about the pros and cons of such approach. Well, that's exactly the point I stated at the beginning of the OP. Then that approach has its pros and cons, and that's what I'm inviting to discuss in this thread. No problem regarding what the collection was intended to be. I'm just saying that the fact of not being thought as an artistic statement led to a disappointing listening experience. Sometimes one must choose between pragmatism and creatitivy, can't get both. My issue with the Red and Blue Albums is that they include too much songs for what a summary of a band's career is expected to be. Indeed, they collect about 25% of the Beatles original catalog. No matter how great songs are, if you need all that material then you'd better get the original albums. I'm ok with the idea of mixing hit singles and essential album tracks, especially when we talk about such an important band. But, in my opinion, the selection should have been more reduced (i.e., a total amount of 40 tracks). On the other side, "1" misses too many essential songs to be considered a serious representation of the Beatles. So I think the ideal Beatles compilation hadn't been released yet. Just my opinion. I'm also sure that some fans prefer versions of some Beatles songs released in the Anthologies, in comparison to the originally released versions. I just think the first single version of "Love Me Do" with Ringo on drums, which soon was replaced by the version with Andy White on drums and Ringo on tambourine, belongs to such category of curious material. I want to make it clear that I'm not against the existence of the Past Masters, because its purpose is highly understandable. I'd just like to have the same material presented in alternative ways, for fans who look for a more artistic approach. For instance, in the late '70s they released the Rarities (UK) compilation as a complement. So you were able to get all the essential singles together in the Red and Blue Albums, and the rest of non-album, relatively rare tracks in a different compilation. Not that I agree on how they did that, but I think it was a more creative, if less pragmatic, approach. Right, that's the spirit of my argument. Past Masters works better as a repository of non-album tracks than as a listening experience. No more and no less, for good and for bad. But 2 has that big jump in time from 1966 to 1968. Still I'm not one of those fans who wanted the MMT tracks included in the Past Masters. Thus, I'm not saying that the concept of the Past Masters could have been done much better. I'd just prefer an alternative concept to make available those non-album tracks. The job was perfectly done. I'm just not so glad with the ending result from an artistic point of view. The art of making a compilation could be summarized as unimaginative objectivity vs. creative subjectivity. Simon & Garfunkel's Greatest Hits is a good example of the second case (I know the Past Masters had a different purpose, but I'm referring to the approach). The first single version of "Love Me Do" was officially released, but it was soon discarded and replaced by the album version for all the next releases (including singles, EPs and compilations). The German tracks were only intended for the German market; and as far as I know, they were not released in UK during the '60s. The WWF version of "Across The Universe" was not originally released in a Beatles record. Thus, I think a case could have been done to exclude those tracks from the Past Masters. It's ok to disagree anyway. I actually did that. I've made my reduced versions of the Red and Blue Albums (20 tracks per album) and included the rest of the non-album material in another compilation called Rare Songs: 1. Thank You Girl 2. I'll Get You 3. This Boy 4. Long Tall Sally 5. I Call Your Name 6. Slow Down 7. Matchbox 8. She's A Woman 9. Bad Boy 10. Yes It Is 11. I'm Down 12. Rain 13. The Inner Light 14. Don't Let Me Down 15. Old Brown Shoe 16. You Know My Name I feel those tracks fit better together in a different compilation, separated from the most famous stuff. Of course, that's why I understand very well the purpose of the Past Masters. In my case, I sometimes think that less is more. But like I said, I'm not questioning the existence of the Past Masters, I'm just pointing out what I consider as disadvantages of that approach. Yeah, that's the great advantage of the current days. But I also think it's fun to discuss this around here. Yes, but I don't think many fans would have claimed that much for those four tracks, if they happened to know about their existence. They were all released in different, definitive versions anyway. I consider "Get Back" and "Let It Be" as different cases, since they were actual hit singles, produced by George Martin. I think their historical value is more relevant. Arguments can be made for either side. But I think the fact that they were songs released as alternative versions allows us to treat them as special cases. "Get Back" and "Let It Be" are special cases as well, but I also gave my arguments to admit their inclusion. This is all a matter of opinion, I'm not imposing my view to anyone. I have the right to think that in this case less would have been more, because the absence of those tracks would have benefited the listening experience, in my opinion (and that's not my only complaint, anyway). Yet I agree they took the most logic and coherent decision; that is, including all the remaining material that was officially released. But, precisely, my point is that objectiveness and completeness do not always work for a better result. The inclusion of the Yellow Submarine tracks in Mono Masters was another logic and coherent decision. But putting them between Hey Jude/Revolution and Get Back/Don't Let Me Down (according to the chronological release of the songs) contributes even more to the mess and disruption of the tracklist. Those were all 1967 and early 1968 outtakes with a whole different spirit to be included between those singles. But they certainly did what they were supposed to do, regardless the result. Regarding "Love Me Do", I think it's not a minor detail that they decided to use the Andy White version when they reissued the UK singles on CD, even though they already had the Ringo version available. And I'm not amazed they did that, because that's the version that was definitely approved and the one that can be found in an actual master tape. Indeed, the structure of the recordings is virtually the same, and I believe they finally decided to keep the most polished performance. I don't even have the Mono Masters, but thanks for the suggestion! I think the harmonica in the PPM LP version sounds quite bluesy, especially in the intro. When I hear the first single version, I am distracted by Paul's nervous vocal and the lousy sound of the harmonica. But I guess that's the charm people find on the recording. I may not care because I wasn't there at the time. Song by song, I agree. But I also give points to fluidity and continuity, and that's what Past Masters is lacking in my opinion. In this case, the whole is less than the sum of the parts (again, in my opinion). Regardless our opinions about the inclusion of Ringo version of "Love Me Do", why does the master tape no longer exist? Was it deleted? Was it lost? In any case, I assume they weren't aware of the historical value of such recordings at that time. It's uninspired because the tracklist was made by default; and it's discontinuous because of the mixture of great hits and obscure B-sides plus time jumps. It means that the advantage of a coherent selection may also carry the disadvantage of an incoherent listen. Job well done in terms of logical approach, but not necessarily a good result. I agree it's a great comp for what it's intended to be: a repository of non-album tracks. I don't think it plays well. They are mostly great songs, I agree on that. The flow is one of its weakest points, in my opinion. The variety is always welcome by me, but in this case I think the continuity is hurted by the time gaps. I don't have issues with the chronological order, I think it was the right decision. Even for a listening experience, it's always subjective how to change the order to make an improvement. The discontinuity is actually provided by some weird inclusions, such as the German recordings, and the gaps given by the absence of singles that were included on original albums. I'm just putting this as a case of pros vs. cons, having one thing at the expense of another thing. Yes, it was a wise decision to create this compilation for completists, a usually unseen approach in the music world. But those who look for an artistic statement may not be so satisfied. I actually agree on this, I don't think the compilation could have been much better with a different tracklist order. I think its limitations are merely given by its triumphs. You only want non-album material? Ok. This is what you got, completeness at the expense of fluidity. On the other side, the Red and Blue Albums, while I consider that the track selection was excessive, I think they flow better, or at least they tell the story better, and there's art in their subjectivity. I understand very well that the objectives of these compilations were different, I just think that some songs from the Past Masters fit better within a different context. But I'm not against the eventual release of those four tracks. I just think they don't add a substantial value to the canon catalog and they could have been released in a later project, such as the Anthologies. I understand very well that they were included in the Past Masters because they were official releases, but there was no need to be so rigid in that rule. But well, I have a selectionist rather than completist mind, sometimes I think that less is more, so we can happily disagree on this. In the same way that I admit that Past Masters works perfectly as a repository of non-album material, I acknowledge that the rigid concept of "1" was successfully accomplished, as the objective was to include all the #1 hits the Beatles had in UK and US. My criticism regarding Past Masters is how it works as a listening experience; and my criticism regarding "1" is how it works as a summary of the Beatles career. I'm not against the existence of those compilations, I just have no use for them. I prefer to listen to the same material in a different presentation. Yes, that's the point, the collection shouldn't be taken as a listening experience. But to me any valuable album must represent a suitable listening experience, something I enjoy listening to from start to finish, even if it's a compilation. Thus, I'm not questioning the concept of the Past Masters, I even think the minimalist design of the album covers was a right decision. I'm just explaining why it is not my way to go when I want to listen to those songs. Actually, several people here who like the Past Masters are also saying that they don't usually listen to the collection in the configuration it is presented. This is a music forum where we usually talk about such things. No one will pretend to change the past, but it may be fun discussing the past (masters). I agree, I wouldn't have wanted the singles included as bonus tracks in the original albums. This thread may sound a bit pointless, because I admit the utility of a collection like the Past Masters, and I'm not saying it should have been made different. I'm just saying that I prefer to listen to the most classic stuff in a different kind of compilation, including singles and essential album tracks, to appreciate those songs within a proper historical context. And I like the concept of a rarities compilation for the rest of the non-album material. Fair point, as those albums show a lot of diversity. But they were presented that way in 1966 and 1968, and we have learnt to enjoy them that way. Anyway, my listening experience is not affected by the diversity of styles, which I actually appreciate. When I try to listen to the Past Masters, it may be my psycological reaction what prevents me from enjoying the collection, as the story sounds incoherent and discontinuous to me. It's like reading a book that lost many key pages (and has a couple of pages added in a different language!). Maybe if I didn't know how the Beatles story was developed, I wouldn't care about this and I'd just enjoy the album for what it is. I agree, like it or not, "1" is what was supposed to be, such as the Past Masters. But I don't see "1" as a suitable introduction to the Beatles, as it was intended to be to some extent, beyond the concept of #1 hits. IMO, the ideal Beatles compilation is a proper summary of their career, telling their story by a selection of essential songs. I think the Red and Blue Albums are the closest alternative to that ideal, but still the number of tracks is excessive from my point of view. Thus, my ideal Beatles compilation would have more songs than "1" and less songs than Red & Blue (i.e., 40 tracks). Past Masters was never intended as that kind of compilation; but for the same reason I don't enjoy it as listening experience or artistic artifact. It fulfills its function perfectly, but it's cold and incoherent to my ears. I think it would be a better way to present those tracks; and probably I would put A-sides on CD1 and B-sides on CD2 in chronological order (a virtual B-side should be chosen for double A-side singles). Yet that would not be my personal way to go. As I've explained, I'd like to have the most classic stuff in a proper collection summarizing the Beatles career with hit singles and essential album tracks, like Red & Blue but no that extensive. And I'd put the rest of the non-album material in a rarities compilation. My approach is rather unpragmatic, but it benefits my enjoyment of the Beatles music. All true, but I don't understand why that would disable the discussion. Besides, the thread is not specifically intended to put Past Masters down; the purpose is to discuss its merits and deficits. It's like the short blanket dilemma: functionality and creativity usually don't go together. But you still don't seem to understand the point of the thread. The discussion is focused on the Past Masters, pointing out its pros and cons, and then anyone can talk about his/her preferences. It's not about being satisfied or unsatisfied, because nowadays anyone can build his/her own tracklists; and as you say, there are multiple formats and versions to satisfy virtually every fan. In my case, I don't even need that much. I'm still glad with my old 1987 CDs. I just prefer to listen to the stuff included in Past Masters in a different configuration. But I'm not asking Apple to do what I want, I just share my point of view. Yet this thread is only presenting a dichotomy regarding how to get the non-album material. There's no real solution to the dilemma, just subjective preferences. Now you're talking, interesting question. Actually, the Red & Blue albums were my first Beatles CDs (released in 1993). But I had previously bought several Beatles albums on cassette. Indeed, the rest of the material included in the Past Masters was the last original Beatles music I listened to. So I guess I was not used to listen to those great hits within that context. I still feel they fit better in a different kind of compilation. But it's all a subjective opinion based on personal experiences, such as many old US fans who still prefer the Capitol albums. And it never pretended to go somewhere anyway. There are not right or wrong opinions here, just preferences regarding how that material is experienced. Right. You summarized the whole point of the thread, actually. Some fans prefer one way and other fans prefer the other way, with pros and cons in each case. You finally got it. Even if this was discussed before, you missed totally the point when you brought the "never-satisfied fans" subject. I never meant to carry the thread through that path. Now if you think this debate is futile, well, welcome to the world of music discussion. I did a quick search before, but didn't find a recent specific thread about this. What's the problem anyway? If you don't care about this, just ignore the thread. Or are you the police of the forum? Say what you want anyway, you're free. From now I'll be focused on the main subject of the thread, if other people still want to talk about this. Yes, that's the spirit of the discussion. Thanks for pointing it out. It's not a new subject of discussion anyway, I just think the Past Masters is a good reference to share different preferences regarding how this kind of material is presented. I also get why the Past Masters are so popular among serious fans. The approach was the correct one, even if it's not the one I prefer. I never said that I don't like your opinion, I just said that you missed the point at the beginning. Because this has nothing to do with being satisfied or unsatisfied, right or wrong. It's just a matter of preferences. Actually you eventually made some interesting points. So I have no problem with your opinion, I just asked you not to miss the point. Nice to read an opposite opinion to mine. I do prefer the Red & Blue approach. But I also think they rehash too many albums tracks, that's why I would have preferred more reduced tracklists, with less overlapping. We agree regarding the inclusion of singles as bonus tracks on original albums; I neither like that idea. That's the common opinion among serious fans, and I can understand it. I guess I'm a rare fan, but not less of a fan. It doesn't have to be, it just couldn't be. That's the point. Most fans are glad with that functional approach. Other fans like me just prefer to have that material in a different configuration. Happily nowadays each fan can build his/her own tracklists. Silly thread topic? You're probably right. But I enjoyed the discussion. Take into account that the MMT album was already released in UK since 1976. Indeed, there were hints indicating that it started to be considered as an official album in the late '70s. For instance, see the Rarities (UK) album. It collected all the material that was absent in the Red and Blue albums, the original UK albums plus the MMT album. So it was supposed that MMT must be part of a complete Beatles collection. Otherwise, Rarities should have included the tracks "Baby You're A Rich Man", "Flying", "Blue Jay Way" and "Your Mother Should Know". I understand. But my point is that certain consensus regarding the MMT album already existed before the CD era. Indeed, EMI finally decided to release that album in UK due to the high number of imported copies that were being requested. All this surely had its influence at the time they had to decide to include MMT as part of the official canon on CD. I also think it was treated as a compilation, that may be another reason why they released that CD after all the UK albums in 1987. But that's precisely the main point. Like I said, the short blanket dilemma. You can make an objective tracklist at the expense of the listening experience. Or you can make a subjective tracklist at the expense of practical functionality. It all depends on what the collector is looking for. For mere completist reasons, the Past Masters are perfectly designed, including the minimalist album covers. Now those fans who want to listen to those songs as part of an integrated artistic statement would prefer a different approach. It's a dichotomy between easy access to material and the art of making a compilation, with pros and cons in each case. I did recognize the intent of the collection from the very beginning. And I never said it should have been different (apart from the inclusion of some few tracks that I consider as redundant). Read my first post again, I never complained about the existence of the Past Masters nor asked for a change. Conversely, I acknowledged its need to make those tracks easily available to fans, particularly completists. Preferring an alternative approach doesn't mean that I'd like to delete the Past Masters from history. My objection regarding the Past Masters is how it works as a listening experience. I understand very well that it wasn't intended as an artistic statement; but for the same reason it doesn't reach the main objective of a musical album: art appreciation. Of course, you can appreciate the songs individually, but the collection as a whole appears to be an organized mess. Surely some fans are able to enjoy the collection as it is, and even consider it as a wonderful listening experience. That's a matter of taste and opinion. But in this thread you can read people who are glad with the Past Masters and still admit that they generally don't listen to those songs in that configuration. Thus, it works as a repository of non-album tracks rather than a proper album to be listened to from start to finish. My alternative approach would be a Red&Blue-like collection, but including a reduced tracklist, with less album tracks, plus a rarities compilation to include the rest of the non-album material. Other fans purpose a singles collection. And we can go on mentioning subjective options. The main merit of the Past Masters is the unifying objectivity. I'm just indicating the limitations carried by such triumph.
|
|
|
Post by powerpoppackage on Jan 4, 2022 22:18:41 GMT
This fuckin' Hombre asshole again:
The Beatles' Red Album for the US market
I imagine, back in 1973, American Beatles fans were a bit disorientated with the Red Album (1962-66), as the tracklist was clearly created following the British catalog, not only in terms of track selection but also regarding the chronological order. For instance, all UK A-sides were ordered chronologically; but UK album-only tracks were allowed to disrupt the rule, in order to favor the flow of the album, I guess (e.g., "All My Loving" located after "I Want To Hold Your Hand"; "Eight Days A Week" located before "I Feel Fine"; "Yesterday" located before "Help!"). Some selections may have been surprising as well; "From Me To You", for instance, was kind of a rarity in US, only reaching #41 as a B-side and never included in an US album before. I actually think that was the correct approach for a compilation that was intended to be distributed worldwide. On the other side, the Blue Album (1967-70) pretty much represented both UK and US, as the Beatles discography had been unified for that time period.
Now what I propose in this thread is to make a new tracklist for the Red Album, following exclusively the US discography in terms of both track selection and chronological order. The title should actually be The Beatles 1963-1966. I'd allow to make a double album including up to 14 tracks in each disc.
I'd think something like this:
Side 1:
She Loves You I Want To Hold Your Hand I Saw Her Standing There All My Loving Please Please Me Twist And Shout Love Me Do
Side 2:
Can't Buy Me Love A Hard Day's Night And I Love Her I Feel Fine She's A Woman Eight Days A Week Ticket To Ride
Side 3:
Help! (including James Bond intro) You've Got To Hide Your Love Away Yesterday We Can Work It Out Day Tripper I've Just Seen A Face Norwegian Wood
Side 4:
Michelle In My Life Nowhere Man Paperback Writer Here, There And Everywhere Eleanor Rigby Yellow Submarine
I didn't include personal favorites such as "Taxman" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" since I don't think they belong to this kind of compilations. "Do You Want To Know A Secret" (reached #2 in 1964) could have been there, but I think there are enough early songs in the tracklist (put it instead of "Twist And Shout" if only original songs must be selected). "She's A Woman" reached #4 as a B-side, so I guess it must be part of the collection. The inclusion of some album-only tracks may be subjective, but I suppose they were quite popular in US: "I've Just Seen A Face" as the opener of Rubber Soul; "Here, There And Everywhere" as an outstanding love ballad from Revolver.
|
|
|
Post by audiopro on Jan 6, 2022 11:28:59 GMT
"For instance, all UK A-sides were ordered chronologically; but UK album-only tracks were allowed to disrupt the rule, in order to favor the flow of the album, I guess (e.g., "All My Loving" located after "I Want To Hold Your Hand"; "Eight Days A Week" located before "I Feel Fine"; "Yesterday" located before "Help!")."
I thought that most of the filler on those albums was there because they were hit singles in the USA.
|
|