Beatles sell 2.25 million albums in 5 days

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Nearly 40 years after breaking up, The Beatles are still breaking records for album sales.

EMI Group PLC says consumers in North America, Japan and the U.K. bought more than 2.25 million copies of the Fab Four's re-mastered albums in the first five days after their Sept. 9 release.

Most of the records were broken for most simultaneous titles in the top-selling charts by a single artist.

On Billboard magazine's pop catalog chart, for example, the band had 16 titles in the top 50, including all 14 re-mastered CDs and two box sets.




Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20090923/D9ASNJDG1.html

[Captain Hilts]

1. Except for the "Hey Jude" album which has mysteriously disappeared.

[onehandle]

2. The Hey Jude "album" was a collection of singles and b-sides for America only.

The songs are all in the set.

If you remember the American releases on vinyl (I have them), many were slightly different from the British releases. The CDs released around 1990 were the British releases and so is the new set.

All of the extra singles (like the song, Hey Jude) are on the "Past Masters" CSs included in the set.

[Captain Hilts]

5. I know, but I miss the Hey Jude album...nt

[onehandle]

6. I did like the cover a lot. nt

[LTR]

9. Just get the remastered "Abbey Road"

It's got both the front and back covers to "Hey Jude" on the inside cover.

[Captain Hilts]

33. Then why don't they just re-issued Hey Jude? Weird. nt

[LTR]

44. "Hey Jude" is an obsolete album

It's merely a compilation, and has been more or less superseded by "Past Masters", which has most of the songs from HJ anyway.

Back in 1987, they made the decision to issue only the British configurations, with all the non-LP stuff on PM. That way, fans don't have to buy so many albums to get all the songs. Makes things easier.

[LTR]

11. Useless album

And virtually obsolete.

It was a meaningless hodgepodge of songs not released on LP, thrown together by Allen Klein. That tells you everything.

[Treo]

16. But it has historical value NT

[regnaD kciN]

54. Not for anyone outside the U.S...

And never out on CD.

Besides, if you look around (cough*cough*torrents*cough) you should be able to find a "needledrop" copy if you're desperate to have it.

[Trajan]

18. Useless album ?

or useless commentary ?

I have decided ....

You just got KICKED by my Old Brown Shoe ....

[LTR]

23. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about the music contained within

But rather the album itself.

Granted, it served a purpose back then (since it contained mostly tracks not found on LPs). But it always seemed like a hodge-podge collection to me, like "Rock And Roll Music" and some of those Capitol collections from the late 1970s. Especially nowadays, since the catalog now follows the British releases (though I have always maintained that "Meet The Beatles" was way better than its British counterpart, and the American version of "Rubber Soul" does have its charm).

The way it is now is much simpler, and allows the inevitable purchase of fewer albums.

[Captain Hilts]

34. But the British albums do not have the hits. This one is a nice combination of hits. The Ballad of

John and Yoko, Don't Let Me Down, etc. deserve better than the "Past Masters."

[Romulox]

49. It's fairly common on vinyl. I picked up a copy of "Hey Jude" a few years back for $3 or $5...

So they're out there.

[Captain Hilts]

57. I've got a bootleg Russian version I bought at the Melodia store on Novi Arbat. nt

[fir coat]

53. Um...did you ever wonder why they put it out? Those were songs not available on albums

Only released as singles, like "The Ballad of John and Yoko." I had this album!:eyes:

[DoBotherMe]

3. Beatles!

Love them. D ; )

[MisterP]

4. do they get the $, or does Joe "I belted my children out of love, not punishment" Jackson? n/t

[onehandle]

7. Ringo, Paul, Yoko and Olivia get a cut. nt

[regnaD kciN]

55. While MJ's estate (not his estranged father) has the "publishing" rights...

...i.e. the copyright on the songs (lyrics and music) themselves, the "synchronization" rights -- i.e. the rights to the recorded performances themselves -- is held by EMI. When the new CDs are sold, a cut of the royalties will go to Jackson's estate, who will in turn pay out songwriting royalties to McCartney and Ono for a majority of the songs, with Olivia Harrison getting the share for the songs written by George, and Ringo getting a cut for "What Goes On," "Flying," "Don't Pass Me By," and "Octopus's Garden," and all four will get performance royalties for all of the CDs from EMI.

Hope this helps.

[onehandle]

8. I got both sets from my wife for my birthday.

My birthday was the day before the release, so I got my presents one day late. :-(

The stereo set is excellent. Haven't torn into the Mono yet. :-)

[Captain Hilts]

38. She's a keeper! I'm anxious to hear how "And I Love Her" sounds.

Is it double-tracked like the US version or is it single-tracked like the UK version?

[onehandle]

41. It's double tracked. I will check out the mono this weekend. I suspect it will be single. nt

[Romulox]

48. Keep us updated!

I have the mono box, and I'm almost certain that I'm going to buy the stereo one some of these days... :sigh:

Wouldn't mind your opinion if it is worth it, after you take some time with both...

[EndersDame]

10. I was into them before Rockband

:)

[mvd]

12. I'll add to thise numbers when I can

They made the kind of music that just doesn't go out of style.

[msongs]

13. they will be the 1900's equivalent of mozart in 200 years :-) still around nt

[femrap]

14. Having been so lucky to see

The Beatles twice in person, I'm so glad that latter generations appreciate their genius. I so miss John and George. John was murdered by our gov't. George died from the stress of worry over being murdered.

Nothing compares to them.

[AngryAmish]

46. Boy, the way Glenn Miller played!

Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days!

And you knew where you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Didn't need know welfare state.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

50. To me, George was the the real spiritual center of the Beatles...love his songs the best. nt

[femrap]

58. I liked John, the Peace Revolutionist, the best.

Then George. I can't believe they are gone. But their fabulous music remains.

[LTR]

59. I was always more of a McCartney guy

A man of the common people. No grand statements. No big image to maintain. Just an average bloke who makes music for people to enjoy. Isn't that what it's all about?

And not afraid to admit he's made mistakes. Even he admits some of the music he's done isn't all that good (like some of the Wings stuff). And he's not above riding a NYC transit bus and chatting up passengers. He may be worth obscene amounts of money, but he's rather humble about it.

He just seems more amiable to me than the others, except perhaps Ringo. Nothing against John and George, but they both tend to come across as rather self-absorbed. Paul never expected his fans to buy ridiculous albums like "Two Virgins" or "The Wedding Album". Even when he released boring shit like "Red Rose Speedway", he at least tried to make it listenable.

[lunamagica]

62. Ditto

Another thing that makes Paul my favorite it's how much he has LOVED and LOVES to perform. That has always been apparent. He loved being a Beatle and touring, he went on the road again (relatively) soon after the split and you know he was born to make music and sing. Nothing better that to go to a concert and see that the star is enjoying the show as much as you are, and he's giving it all. Paul has been that each time I've been lucky enough to see him live.

[maxpower]

15. I have listened to the Beatles my whole life

And hearing these remasters is like the first time. I am usually wary of remasters, but these are amazing.


Peace,
Max

[LTR]

22. I have heard many differences with remastered CDs

I've compared many different artists' works in remastered versus original 80s-era CDs. The differences are remarkable. Much more depth and clarity in the newer ones.

Keep in mind that mastering technology today compared to the way it was back in the 80s is much improved (especially on the Beatles' CDs, the quality of which sounded rather poor back then). Just think how much computer technology has changed. As Neil Young said recently, CDs now finally sound as good as vinyl LPs.

I've done some comparisons of different albums (with a little help from the local library), listening to old masterings and newer versions. The differences are quite apparent on older albums (60s and 70s), but also more recent ones (like the Traveling Wilburys, R.E.M., Peter Gabriel, The Clash and U2). The old ones sound rather flat, while the newer masters have more warmth.

I wrote an entry on my blog a few weeks ago after initially buying three Beatles remasters (I've since bought a few more, and am slowly adding to the collection) - Abbey Road, Revolver and Past Masters. My review can be found here:

http://ltradio.blogspot.com/2009/09/does-old-really-sound-new-again-beatles.html

[Captain Hilts]

35. Which do you particularly enjoy or see an improvement in?

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. All that for plain old CDs?

Am I missing something? They released these in 1987 & then released the American issue line-ups later on, then everything else they could find with the "anthology" sets. I hope they sound better than the 87's did.

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. They sound WAY better

I've been working my way through the mono box, and the clarity and definition of the sound is stunning. Gone is the "digital harshness" that tainted the 87 cd's. This the Beatles as they're supposed to sound, as they should sound, as they deserve to sound.

[LTR]

26. Lucky guy

Those mono box sets are hard to come by. Which is why EMI started pressing more.

I have Sgt. Pepper in mono (one of those Dr. Ebbetts vinyl rips I downloaded). It's quite different than the stereo. Plus, I have always maintained that their very earliest stuff sounds way better in mono. Stereo is nice for picking out various instruments, but for listening to the songs, the mono sounds more direct.

[LTR]

25. For the ultimate comparison...

...take the old version of Past Masters (two separate CDs) and the newer one (one 2-CD set), and play them back-to-back. Past Masters is a great sampler for the skeptical, as it has older mono and stereo tracks mixed with later ones. There's great rockers (Paperback Writer, Revolution) and softer tracks (Yes It Is, The Inner Light, the single mix of Let It Be). In a side by side comparison, the differences are astonishing. The remasters are amazing.

The American issue you're referring to are two box sets consisting of eight early American albums, in both mono and stereo. It was a limited issue sort of thing, put out hesitantly by Apple Corps. to appease customer demand. And, in keeping with the way we initially heard them, they were cut from the Capitol master tapes, complete with added echo, reverb, fake stereo (on songs that had no stereo mix) and other quirks. Since they were reissued in a box set, they were not intended to be official CD catalog issues.

And in the past couple decades, there have been some interesting compilations, like Anthology, the BBC sessions, an alternate version of Let It Be (sans all the Phil Spector shit), and a couple remix projects, Love and Yellow Submarine Songtrack. Yeah, it gets a little confusing, but compared to most artists (the Stones' catalog has been reissued multiple times), it's actually not too complicated.

[Skip Intro]

19. Love the Beatles. nt

[KakistocracyHater]

21. iTunes doesn't show them #1, it's Miley instead. Top video also isn't the

Beatles. The top album is Pearljam-backspace. LP to usb has existed for years...
the practically the moment he was dead: Beatles everywhere! I DO think he was murdered over Beatles money. Not any themselves......BUT someone. Flame away, I am not now nor ever was a Beatles fan; Beach Boys all the way.

[LTR]

24. Yeah, good luck finding the Beatles on iTunes

There's a reason they're not #1 there, but I'm sure you know why that is...

The rest of your post makes no sense.

[KakistocracyHater]

27. I tend to see big patterns 1st & I tend to post snippets instead of all the

thoughts that connect the 2. The rest of my post? I think someone killed Michael for the licensing/money-making from the Beatles, now on Rockband or whatever it is.

They were not on cd i think, therefore I have noted that there is a turntable available, that plays records(the BIG round ones) & has a usb input/audio; this device would gives the option to load vinyls digitally, & so on to an ipod.
So?

[LTR]

31. Michael Jackson was not killed because of the Beatles

Remember, he only owned half of the publishing rights. That is, the songwriter's end. It's like fans of the musical Grease going after McCartney for owning the publishing on that. Many have a misconception about what it is exactly that Jackson had a stake in (he jointly owned it with Sony/ATV). And McCartney and Lennon's estate still get paid royalties from Beatles songs. Few artists from the 1960s actually own their publishing. A big band like U2 doesn't even own their publishing rights.

What Jackson didn't own was the recorded music. That's EMI, though they have to get approval from Apple Corps. (the Beatles' company) if they want to release anything from it.

As for the Jackson conspiracy theories, he was addicted to prescription drugs. He went out the same exact way as Elvis and the Beatles' former manager, Brian Epstein. Quite frankly, he surrouded himself with too many enablers too afraid to say no.

[ProudDad]

28. Uh, the Beatles don't get shit

Two of them are dead...

AFAIK...the other two are "out of the loop"...

Some big time capitalist fucks get all the dough -- EMI Group...

Even McCartney don't get shit... They sold the royalty rights years ago to M. Jackson who sold them to Sony...

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. No, not really true - McCartney and Yoko/Sean Lennon still get the songwriters' rights

A summary on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp

And The Beatles, via Apple Rcords which they own, still get royalties for the records: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02EFDB133FF930A25757C0A9619C8B63

[LTR]

32. Ah, thanks for that link

There's such a misconception about the whole Northern Songs thing.

And Lennon/McCartney lost their publishing rights the old fashioned way - they were screwed out of it back in the '60s. The Stones are even worse off, as their whole output prior to "Sticky Fingers" is owned by Allen Klein's estate. That includes publishing rights AND recording masters.

Of all the artists from that era, Led Zeppelin is the only one that comes to mind as one that still owns their own publishing. Jimmy Page was adamant about not getting screwed by the industry.

[ProudDad]

39. Not to mention Fantasy and Saul Zaentz suing John Fogarty

for writing and singing like John Fogarty...

"Zaentz brought a series of lawsuits against Fogerty, claiming defamation of character for the lyric "Zanz can't dance but he'll steal your money", and also claiming that the fundamental music in "The Old Man Down the Road" was a lift from the Fantasy-copyrighted-but-Fogerty-written song "Run Through the Jungle" from CCR's smash 1970 album Cosmo's Factory. Zaentz won on the defamation issue, forcing Warner Bros. and Fogerty to change the title and lyric to "Vanz Can't Dance", but lost on the copyright issue as a jury found Fogerty not liable.<3> Fogerty in turn claimed the label misled him about investing and managing his earnings from royalties, resulting in a devastating financial loss. Years later, when Zaentz sold his interest in Fantasy, Fogerty almost immediately re-signed with the label."

Fucking Leeches...

[LuckyLib]

51. It's Fogerty, not Fogarty. A common mistake, but lethal in the Fogerty families!

[ProudDad]

60. Darn!

Now they might not let me order another pizza at LaVal's...

[Crabby Appleton]

42. Mick Taylor who played on some of the Stones greatest hits

ended up with little to show for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1213013/The-Rolling-Stone-whos-stony-broke-Why-Mick-Taylor-lives-rundown-Suffolk-semi-shabby-car.html

[LTR]

45. Mick Taylor was essentially a hired gun

Though that lineup was arguably the Stones' best.

His replacement, Ronnie Wood, didn't become a full-fledged equal partner until 1990, even though he joined the band in 1975.

[ProudDad]

40. Songwriter's royalties on a record

are peanuts...

The real songwriter money is on air-play (if you're a rich song-writer...the run of the mill song-writers' royalty payments are below the threshold and they don't get shit)...

These re-releases aren't going to change the 25-50% of air-play royalties that they have left much and THAT'S ALL they have.

The article you cite is about on-line royalties for iTunes distribution. It's not clear at all that McCartney, et.al. get any royalties for the records.

There ARE no performer royalties... That's how Barry Gordie got away with paying NOTHING to most of those great MoTown groups -- they had to make what little money they made on crumbs from the bone grinding bus tours he had them on.


The bottom line is that the capitalist leeches get the gold and the artists usually get the shaft...(or pieces of the box that the gold came in)

[LTR]

43. The Beatles DO get sales royalties from EMI

They started at a piddly rate back in the early 60s, then were renegotiated over time. I'm not sure what they make on record sales currently, but I imagine it is quite generous. The truth is, they do get per piece royalties, and this is backed up in virtually every Beatles biography out there.

Granted, this varies from performer to performer. Gordy and a lot of other impresarios signed talent to what could be viewed as slave labor contracts. That's the way things were in the old days, then recording artists got smarter about the money management stuff.

And some artists actually own their masters and merely lease them to the labels. The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney (his solo stuff) are notable examples. The Stones seem to change distributors every few years or so, and McCartney recently announced plans to take his solo catalog away from EMI and distribute through indie labels.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. No, the link is about record royalties

Beatles' tracks are still not available from iTunes or any online distribution. It's about past record royalties that Apple Corps (owned by the Beatles, not to be confused with Apple Computers) were owed by EMI:

The settlement announced on Thursday involved a lawsuit that Apple Corps filed in 2005, contending that an audit had shown that EMI was not living up to the terms of the contract under which it releases the Beatles music. Apple Corps contended that it was owed £30 million ($59 million) in royalties and other payments.

Here's an article from the start of the suit: http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/1820051562.htm

[paulsby]

29. the beatles rock band game is causing

a lot of interest in the beatles in a generation that was largely ignorant of their music.

i have never played it (i play a real guitar!) but i was reading an article on it, and apparently the creators worked closely with people involved in, or associated with the original recordings.

i think that's great that a new generation is enjoying their music.

i have to admit that personally, i think the who were a better band, but i still love me some beatles.

[Captain Hilts]

37. Kids know their music, but don't know it's they who are playing.

It's okay to like The Who. I like 'em too!

[OneBlueSky]

36. just proves that great music is eternal . . . the Beatles will never die . . . n/t

.

[provis99]

52. Who are the Beatles? are they like the Brittney Spears of the '60s?

[ProudDad]

61. Wow, you ARE old...

Brittney Spears is the Miley Cyrus of the 1990s...

The Beatles are Paul McCartney's band before Wings...