More unheard Beatles BBC recordings set for release!
-
^^ My background color is black...it looks like you did not post a message there.
-
Here is a review of the BBC Volume 1 that provides details on differences between the new release and that of 1994. http://www.themortonreport.com/entertainment/music/music-review-the-beatles-live-at-the-bbc-remastered/
-
I'm gonna order both volume one and two. I was gonna skip the rerelease of volume one from 94, but after reading they eliminated all those annoying crossfades and clipped endings, and improved the fidelity, I'm gonna get them both, I wish the new volume had a few more songs that were previously unreleased, there is only two songs on the new set that have never been out before. The rest are either live performances of songs found on the studio albums, or oldies already found on volume one, but the oldies are different performances than volume one, and in some cases supposedly better fidelity and better performance, well worth it, I shouldn't say that before I check the prices on these! Is it being offered as a set for both volumes?
-
A little surprised that the Beatles at the BBC Vol 2 hasn't made the UK top ten, in at 12, but i do think enough is enough and looks like the public think the same. It's the first time in decades i haven't bought a Beatles release.
-
whobeatle:
I'm gonna order both volume one and two. I was gonna skip the rerelease of volume one from 94, but after reading they eliminated all those annoying crossfades and clipped endings, and improved the fidelity, I'm gonna get them both, I wish the new volume had a few more songs that were previously unreleased, there is only two songs on the new set that have never been out before. The rest are either live performances of songs found on the studio albums, or oldies already found on volume one, but the oldies are different performances than volume one, and in some cases supposedly better fidelity and better performance, well worth it, I shouldn't say that before I check the prices on these! Is it being offered as a set for both volumes?
Yes!
-
BOYCIE:
A little surprised that the Beatles at the BBC Vol 2 hasn't made the UK top ten, in at 12, but i do think enough is enough and looks like the public think the same. It's the first time in decades i haven't bought a Beatles release.
And Beatles fans (like you) who aren't buying it is perhaps the reason it's only #12 in the UK. What chart position is it in the U.S.?
-
BOYCIE:
A little surprised that the Beatles at the BBC Vol 2 hasn't made the UK top ten, in at 12, but i do think enough is enough and looks like the public think the same. It's the first time in decades i haven't bought a Beatles release.
Don't understand this attitude .It not enough for me by a long way ! I'll take whatever they've got. No 12 for a band that hasn't worked together for over 40 years is decent in my book ...
-
stuartshire:
BOYCIE:
A little surprised that the Beatles at the BBC Vol 2 hasn't made the UK top ten, in at 12, but i do think enough is enough and looks like the public think the same. It's the first time in decades i haven't bought a Beatles release.
Don't understand this attitude .It not enough for me by a long way ! I'll take whatever they've got. No 12 for a band that hasn't worked together for over 40 years is decent in my book ...
I don't care if it charts or not. (But of course it will) I just think it's extraordinary to have a new Beatles' album 43 years after they broke up!
-
whobeatle:
I'm gonna order both volume one and two. I was gonna skip the rerelease of volume one from 94, but after reading they eliminated all those annoying crossfades and clipped endings, and improved the fidelity, I'm gonna get them both, I wish the new volume had a few more songs that were previously unreleased, there is only two songs on the new set that have never been out before. The rest are either live performances of songs found on the studio albums, or oldies already found on volume one, but the oldies are different performances than volume one, and in some cases supposedly better fidelity and better performance, well worth it, I shouldn't say that before I check the prices on these! Is it being offered as a set for both volumes?
Not sure about that...the performances or why we need two versions of "Lucille" or "Till There Was You" or even "I Feel Fine." The versions/performances of all three songs are better on BBC 1 as far as I'm concerned. They really should have avoided giving us "different" versions of the same songs....that really aren't all that different...or superior. BBC 1 is one great album! All the vocals are excellent and the band is very very tight. Love BBC 2 I guess, but it could have been a better listening experience with no duplication of song titles and minus the extensive interviews. They're nice to hear...one time. After that, not so much. The interviews could have been placed on another CD by themselves. (I had sort of forgotten that John almost totally dominates side one of BBC 1. Paul did some screamers and show tunes, which were all very nice, but John did the basic rock 'n roll and R& B songs...excellently!!! George did the rocabilly numbers...very well too. Their vocal were so great...and voices so clear! )
-
Its debut charts in the U.S. at number 7 with 37,000 copies sold.
-
Well? Is that good, bad or what, how it charted in the States on its debut : How has it charted elsewhere? I've read the first is better than the second, than part 2, but no doubt this latest Beatles release has its satisfactions and pleasures
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Well? Is that good, bad or what, how it charted in the States on its debut : How has it charted elsewhere? I've read the first is better than the second, than part 2, but no doubt this latest Beatles release has its satisfactions and pleasures
37,000: not great, but not too surprising since so much time is taken up by interviews and most of the songs have been released in other versions already. Can't find first week sales of the original "Live at the BBC" (found it: 360,000), although this week it re-enters at #34 and adds another 9,500 copies sold. In '94, it entered at #3 and eventually sold 8 million! By comparison, here are some other first week sales, rounded off: "1" - 623,000 "Let It Be...Naked" - 268,000 "Love" - 280,000 And when the catalogue was re-released in '09, all of these sold at least 37,000 (up to 97,000) that first week: Abbey Road Sgt. Pepper White Album Rubber Soul Revolver
-
favoritething, read this: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-beatles-set-new-billboard-record-20131121 ETA: Sorry, guess you already did!
-
Nancy R:
favoritething, read this: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/the-beatles-set-new-billboard-record-20131121 ETA: Sorry, guess you already did!
Yes, thanks, I knew that!
-
Ok. I was going to respond to this thread initially with why was there no inclusion of any of the '62 records with Pete Best. Perhaps The Beatles / Apple Corps. did not want to have Pete apart of this collection. But it is fast apparent the quality of the '62 broadcasts (as shown) are very sub-standard.
What are people's thoughts on not having any of the Pete Best sessions include regardless of the quality. -
MetalGod:
Ok. I was going to respond to this thread initially with why was there no inclusion of any of the '62 records with Pete Best. Perhaps The Beatles / Apple Corps. did not want to have Pete apart of this collection. But it is fast apparent the quality of the '62 broadcasts (as shown) are very sub-standard.
What are people's thoughts on not having any of the Pete Best sessions include regardless of the quality.That did not sound like Paul singing Dream Baby! Yeah, the quality is pretty bad. Maybe that was the only reason for not including them. Who knows?
-
Nancy R:
MetalGod:
Ok. I was going to respond to this thread initially with why was there no inclusion of any of the '62 records with Pete Best. Perhaps The Beatles / Apple Corps. did not want to have Pete apart of this collection. But it is fast apparent the quality of the '62 broadcasts (as shown) are very sub-standard.
What are people's thoughts on not having any of the Pete Best sessions include regardless of the quality.That did not sound like Paul singing Dream Baby! Yeah, the quality is pretty bad. Maybe that was the only reason for not including them. Who knows?
I thought it sounded like a very young Paul. But yes...the quality leaves much to be desired.
-
oobu24:
Nancy R:
MetalGod:
Ok. I was going to respond to this thread initially with why was there no inclusion of any of the '62 records with Pete Best. Perhaps The Beatles / Apple Corps. did not want to have Pete apart of this collection. But it is fast apparent the quality of the '62 broadcasts (as shown) are very sub-standard.
What are people's thoughts on not having any of the Pete Best sessions include regardless of the quality.That did not sound like Paul singing Dream Baby! Yeah, the quality is pretty bad. Maybe that was the only reason for not including them. Who knows?
I thought it sounded like a very young Paul. But yes...the quality leaves much to be desired.
It sounds like he is doing a total imitation of the original (Roy Orbison)
-
Nancy R:
It sounds like he is doing a total imitation of the original (Roy Orbison)
yep...that's what they did at that time.
-