Path:
number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.tiscali.de!news.belwue.de!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!area.cu.mi.it!diesel.cu.mi.it!seltaeb.ghgcorp.com!rmb-mod
From: ian{at}beathoven.com (paramucho)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles.moderated,rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: UK vs US album standards
Followup-To: rec.music.beatles.moderated
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:36:43 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: -
Lines: 61
Approved: rmbm-request{at}seltaeb.ghgcorp.com
Message-ID: 
References: 
Reply-To: ian{at}beathoven.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: seltaeb.ghgcorp.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: atlantis.cu.mi.it 1106678203 23136 64.243.71.18 (25 Jan 2005 18:36:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet{at}diesel.cu.mi.it
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:36:43 +0000 (UTC)
Originator: rmb-mod{at}seltaeb.ghgcorp.com
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.music.beatles.moderated:16399
rec.music.beatles:913512

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:13:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Gill 
wrote:

>  It seems that everyone who writes about the differences between the
>Beatles' US and UK albums says something to the effect that the standard
>number of songs for an album in the UK was 14, but in the US it was 11;
>and also that in the UK the singles didn't go on the albums, but in the
>US they did. Sort of a picky point, maybe, but this bothers me because
>it's just not true.
>  The *Beatles'* first seven UK albums all had 14 songs on them (except
>Hard Day's Night, which had 13), but that was clearly *not* any kind of
>UK standard; it was just their standard. The Rolling Stones' first three
>UK albums all had 12 songs on them, as did their fifth; their only
>14-song album was Aftermath. The Kinks' first album had 14 songs, but
>the next two had 12 apiece. The Pretty Things' first three albums all
>had 12 songs on them.
>  As for singles going on albums: First, the Beatles had two singles on
>their first album, and ditto for the two soundtrack albums. So it was
>only some of their albums that didn't include the hit singles. Again,
>though, that was nothing like an industry standard; that was their
>choice, in trying to give record buyers full value for their money. The
>Rolling Stones were even more scrupulous about this; not one of their
>Decca albums (aside from the two "greatest hits" compilations) included
>a hit single.
>  But: Each Kinks album until 1968 included a hit single; every Pretty
>Things album included a single _ though, given their commercial
>standing, not always a hit; and the Who's first album, anyway, included
>My Generation. I'm sure some of you know a lot about other UK groups
>from that time and can corroborate this with other examples.
>  Anyway, I realize this isn't that big a deal, but it annoys me to see
>something clearly false stated over and over again as if it's common
>knowledge. Here in the US, we get enough of that from the White House.

The point regarding singles is overstated for the U.K. albums.

PPM had four (singles' tracks).
MTB had none.
AHDN had four.
BFS didn't have any, but should have.
HELP! had three.
RUBBER SOUL had none.
REVOLVER had two, IIRC.
PEPPER had none.
MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR (U.K.) had two.
YELLOW SUBMARINE reprocessed old singles tracks.
WHITE ALBUM had none.
LET IT BE had two or three.
ABBEY ROAD had at least two.

IIRC.

It's a bit like the "rule" that George and Ringo each got
"one track".
Ringo sometimes got nothing and George usually had more.

However, that doesn't do anything to improve Capitols reputation. 

--

All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.    
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please 
change your headers appropriately.   -- the moderators
---
 þ Derby City GateWorks:  UUCP  FidoNet