Sgt Pepper voted #1

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:56 pm

Well, he may have said "let's make all the songs relate to each other," at least in the sense of a performance, or that's what he may think he thought when all he originally thought was an album by a fictitious band with a psyche name doing an intro and an outro. After all there were a lot of years and parties between those days and everyone wanting to know exactly what happened and how and writing books.

Or they may have quickly realized all they really needed was the intro and the outro and as long as the album was good the rest of it (concept) might be overwrought and no one would pay that much attention anyway.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:05 pm

I had heard that originally they were to do an album about places from their past, which is why "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" were written. Then Capitol was pressuring EMI for new Beatles product, so those two songs were issued as a single. Since singles generally didn't appear on albums in the U.K., the 'songs from the past' idea was scrapped.

Then Paul, still wanting to do a concept album, came up with the idea of SPLHCB. The idea was that the Beatles would be this other 'Lonely Hearts Club' band. The album cover was set up, costumes created, and all the celebrities the Beatles liked would be there - Even the Beatles were there to honor the band. But John and George started balking at the idea of being this other band, and the rest of the concept fell apart.

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:23 pm

I thought it was The Beatles getting outside of the stereotype of "THE BEATLES" and therefore, creating this "other band" which could do or write any song they wanted, especially since they were not going to tour it.
I'm pretty sure I have heard Paul explain it that way several times.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:52 pm

That would go along with what I posted about them being this other 'Lonely Hearts Club' Band. But the original idea was to do an album of songs relating to people and places from their past - Until Capitol killed it.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:38 am

How could Capitol, which only distributed their albums here, kill anything the Beatles chose to do in '67?

If anything, that was the year the Beatles killed Capitol's wish to strip songs off of every album they sent over here.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:40 am

I would assume that Capitol were able to put a great deal of pressure on EMI to get a single out. When I'm 64 was also one of the first songs recorded in Nov 66. That one, as we know, made the album.

I don't know if Capitol had any intention of stripping this album down. It is widely assumed that after SPLHCB all the albums were intact. But let's not forget that MMT was only an EP in England and Capitol was able to make an entire album that was rounded out with the rest of the 1967 singles.

paulv63 · Post by **paulv63** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:48 am

Who cares what it is/was. It's the damn Beatles!

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:07 am

Glenn wrote:
"How could Capitol, which only distributed their albums here, kill anything the Beatles chose to do in '67?"

Brian wrote:
"I would assume that Capitol were able to put a great deal of pressure on EMI to get a single out."

Exactly right, Brian. To appease the the American side of EMI, George Martin sent over "SFF" and "Penny Lane". And since they would be issued as a single in the U.S., those songs had to be issued as a single in the rest of the world, thus making them unlikely to be included on the next album.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:40 am

>>But the original idea was to do an album of songs relating to people and places from their past - Until Capitol killed it.<<

This is the quote by Kris that I was referring to.

Thus my answer. I can't even fathom why Capitol would have any say in (or even know in the early stages) what the idea was behind the next to be fabs album. Their label of record was Parlophone, not Capitol.

But clearly, when they handed over Pepper, they said "don't mess with it or else!" meaning they'd probably start dissing Capitol publicly, if not sue them.

Since MMT was an EP elsewhere, and an LP would likely mean more $ for them, I'm sure they didn't mind it being an LP here, especially when one considers how well their EPs sold here previously. Capitol all but said "no more EPs for America!"

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:20 am

Except ...

Impossible as it seems, Capitol Records/USA still managed to botch the USA release of SPLHCB.

First off they way Capitol manufactured their album cover jackets made them look very cheap, cheesie and shlock (I also quickly mail ordered for the original EMI/Parlophone British version at the 1967 time of release).

The British EMI cardboard dust jacket (manufactured for EMI by Garrod and Lofthouse) was much crisper, glossier had a higher resolution and the Sgt. Pepper cut-outs were printed on more expensive quality looking stock cardboard, verses the totally ****** ultra-cheap looking thin glossy paper the USA/Capitol version had.

And then there was the big issue of sonics. The USA/Capitol pressings used a very lousy sloppy disk cutting/ vinyl pressing process. The sad results was a muddy sound, screetchy reproduction and the "inner groove" at the very end of SPLHCB was omitted from the USA Capitol versions, simply because (as latter admitted) their disk cutting stamping and vinyl pressing process wasn't good enough or accurate enough to be able to reproduce the "inner grove" on vinyl!

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:19 pm

Sorry David, but you've got the cut-outs backwards. It was the U.K. pressings that used thin, glossy paper - American issues had the thicker cardboard stock. I know because I have several copies of each. All the U.S. issued cut-outs have the catalog number (S)MAS-2653 printed on them.

As for the covers, All American covers were made the same way at the time - tan cardboard with slicks pasted on. British albums were thinner posterboard that had the printing directly on it and then laminated. As far as the sonics go, I've never really heard any difference.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:26 pm

Glenn, keep in mind The Beatles made more money off all the butchered Capitol albums not just MMT. Also keep in mind that it wasn't Capitol that asked for Penny Lane and SFF. They asked for a single. George Martin handed over the songs.

How's that 1996 Glenn?

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:31 pm

Capitol wouldn't have known about the Beatles plans for the next album. They just pressured EMI for anything new by the Beatles. EMI probably pressured George Martin to send something over to appease Capitol.

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:36 pm

And let's remember this viewed from a Capitol Records perspective for most of the sixties. Going back to their original founding roots of the 1940's, Capitol first and foremost always considered themselves to be a "snob" label and also the final judge of good taste which was highly biased in the direction of jazz or jazz related.

This was very true of Capitol Records co-founder and Hollywood, California giant retail record store entrepreneur Clyde Wallicks (i.e., "Wallicks Music City").

This attitude was amplified by the signing of the early Capitol artists such as, Peggy Lee, Frank Sinatra, Kay Star, etc, etc.

And this attitude seemed also to carry over even after Sir Joseph Lockwood, EMI Chairman made the bold decision to purchase Capitol in 1954, making them an autonomous yet fully owned EMI Subsidiary.

Allen Livingston Jr.,who eventually became President of Capitol Records and a most obnoxious highly condescending Dave Dexter, Jr. took on the "Beatles USA project" with the sole attitude of making money. Period.

*(There is a 1ate 1980's audio interview on the web of an aging Dexter who clearly projects this obnoxious "superior" condescending attitude, when it comes to the subject of The Beatles).

Livingston once told the Canadian music press, that he dismissed all Beatles music as "teen music" and thought it would all wind up being played on very cheap record players.

So he passed the word to simply "make it payable"
for cheap records players and to be sure the cheap record players' stylus didn't skip!

So, out the door went all concept of true "high fidelity" from a USA Capitol Records standpoint!

EMI/Parlophone, on the other hand took the music and sound seriously as they would for any other EMI release and hence these are some of the reasons why a lot of the original first released vinyl Capitol Records USA stuff, just doesn't sound so hot.

The Beatles and George Martin were not unaware that this bastardization was happening to their carefully engineered recorded product, but had little control of what was done to it in the USA.

davclr · Post by **davclr** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:48 pm

"Sorry David, but you've got the cut-outs backwards. It was the U.K. pressings that used thin, glossy paper - American issues had the thicker cardboard stock. I know because I have several copies of each. All the U.S. issued cut-outs have the catalog number (S)MAS-2653 printed on them."

Well Kris you need eyeglasses. Because I'm looking at both the original 1967 USA version and original 1967 UK versions as I type this.
(and I bought both of them in June 1967)

You DIDN'T read my post properly!

I never said the UK dust jacket was "thicker" I said it looked better, was glossier and had a higher resolution.
What I did say was that the insert of the "Pepper cut-outs" inside the record sleeve on the 1967 UK version IS thicker printed on quality cardboard and the "Pepper cut-outs" on the 1967 Capitol release WAS thinner, printed on skimpy thin glossy
paper.