1 December 2009
This is a nice collection - there was a lot of diversity on that label, and it's surprising that much of it was released as singles. But the elephant in the room that prevents it from being truly "the best" of Apple: There's no Beatles songs here! (Nor solo-Beatle songs, for that matter.) Not even "Hey Jude", the biggest seller in the history of the damn label.
I can understand the reasoning behind keeping the Beatles singles separate from this release, though I wouldn't necessarily agree with it. Whose decision was this, I wonder: an Apple exec; or Paul/Ringo/Yoko/Olivia? Or a combo, or someone else entirely? Was this decision a good thing or a bad thing? Do you care at all? I'm interested in your opinions if you have them!
1 May 2011
I guess the idea was to show that Apple werent just The Beatles but had other strong artists once upon a time, not that [m]any of the artists lasted for a period of time on Apple.
As for the omission I dont particularly care, and would have been more surprised if they were represented. As for where the decision came from it was probably right from the beginning of the project and The Beatles and their representitives were happy to go along with it ie couldnt care less. It may have sold a few more copies if the beatles were on it but i doubt it would have been a massive amount.
10 August 2011
When we list our "Favorite 25 songs" we start by excluding the Beatles.
Apple must have done the same thing for same reason. That's my guess!
19 September 2010
My guess is that EMI holds the masters, so they might have been unable to get them on, or b) they wanted to do the "Best of Apple" without removing perfectly good songs for rehashes they just rereleased.
I don't have a problem with it. If they'd put Beatles or solo Beatles songs on it, that'd mean a large proportion of buyers would be getting songs again that they already owned. Whatever they decided some people would probably complain, so Apple can't win, though I think they got it right.
14 December 2009
Well, I guess with ANY label sampler, you're taking the chance of some duplication - though when the label roster is largely "THE BEATLES!! and whoever else" that's more inevitable than usual, true.
My thinking is that "Hey Jude" was considered worthy of sharing a box with "Thingumybob" and "Sour Milk Sea" and "Those Were The Days" in 1968, so that - assuming there's no reason to suspect any latter-day song-snobbery taking place - including it as the lead-off track, followed by the latter three (all of which are present) would be a nice historical full-circle gesture. And of course it would help display the full breadth of the label more accurately. (As would a track or two by the Modern Jazz Quartet, but that's neither here, there or everywhere. Plus which, the MJQ didn't release any singles, as far as I can tell) But mostly I just admit that I think it'd be cool to see a compilation featuring The Beatles on it, that's my greedy reasoning.
1 May 2011
I like how the beatles dont appear on compilations nowadays (tho i do remember seeing a compilation album years and years ago which had The Beatles songs All You Need Is Love and Here Comes The Sun on it (and have found wikipedia has an article on that very compilation!). For me its a rare and cool stance for any group to undertake with their catalogue, that they are able to stand without appearing on some rubbish cd. And does the world need to have Let It Be on 'the best ballads in the world… ever'?
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: meanmistermustard, Funny Paper, C.R.A.
Currently Browsing this Page:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6916
Ahhh Girl: 5219
Mr. Kite: 3856
Ron Nasty: 3106
Guest Posters: 88
Newest Members: pocaloc, McBeetles, Lucy in the Sky, btzgibbonclyd, PostNoBills
Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5219, meanmistermustard: 9963, Zig: 4223, Joe: 3465
Administrators: Joe: 3465, Ellie: 1