Path:
number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!nntp.infostrada.it!area.cu.mi.it!diesel.cu.mi.it!seltaeb.ghgcorp.com!rmb-mod
From: "Karl Uppiano" 
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles.moderated,rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: UK vs US album standards
Followup-To: rec.music.beatles.moderated
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:38:13 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Uppiano Family
Lines: 41
Approved: rmbm-request{at}seltaeb.ghgcorp.com
Message-ID: 
References: 
Reply-To: "Karl Uppiano" 
NNTP-Posting-Host: seltaeb.ghgcorp.com
X-Trace: atlantis.cu.mi.it 1106761093 12632 64.243.71.18 (26 Jan 2005 17:38:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet{at}diesel.cu.mi.it
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:38:13 +0000 (UTC)
Originator: rmb-mod{at}seltaeb.ghgcorp.com
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.music.beatles.moderated:16405
rec.music.beatles:913748


"Bob Gill"  wrote in message 
news:41F5B040.673FA854{at}erols.com...
>  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.

Here in the US we get enough of that from *all* sides. Don't delude 
yourself. 

--

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