Red & Blue . . . two or three?

This blog is an open discussion of The Beatles

Moderator: Mike

Red & Blue . . . two or three?

Postby Liam OSM » Wed Oct 23, 2002 8:32 am

Straightforward enough - does anyone else think that two compilations like this isn't the best way of taking the highlights?

Personally, I think it would have been better if they had taken 30-40 songs from each of their THREE eras, and had, say, a red, green, and blue album.

Red for 1962-64 - equivalent to disc 1 of the existing red album plus various other highlights (Things We Said Today, I Saw Her Standing There, Baby's In Black . . .)

Green for 1965-67 - equivalent to red2 plus blue1 up to MMT, and the other highlights (I've Just Seen A Face, Got To Get You Into My Life, Taxman, Tomorrow Never Knows, Within You Without You . . .)

Blue for 1968-70 - equivalent to blue1 from LM on, plus other various high points (Two Of Us, Because, Hey Bulldog . . .)
Liam OSM
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 4657
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 10:39 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby megs » Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:24 pm

... that would probably be better, or do like a box set type of thing[:)]
User avatar
megs
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 9:28 am
Location: USA...near Boston

Postby Steve-o » Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:26 pm

They really don't need a box, IMHO. Their original releases continue to sell at a good clip.
User avatar
Steve-o
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 11:18 pm
Location: USA

Postby megs » Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:28 pm

hmmm good point[:I]
User avatar
megs
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 9:28 am
Location: USA...near Boston

Postby Brains » Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:11 am

quote:if they had taken 30-40 songs from each of their THREE eras

That would mean 100-120 songs total. That's about half of everything they ever officially released. Then what's the point of releasing such a set? You can just buy all albums. It would be expensive, but buying three dubble cds is expensive anyway.
Brains
Bronze member
Bronze member
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 4:46 pm
Location: Netherlands

Postby Steve-o » Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:25 am

Exactly my point, Brains.....Liam wont agree, but good job! [:D]
User avatar
Steve-o
Supporter
Supporter
 
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 11:18 pm
Location: USA

Postby Liam OSM » Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:39 pm

OK, make it 20-30 . . . [:D]
Liam OSM
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 4657
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 10:39 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby skyjude » Sat Oct 26, 2002 5:23 pm

Beatles fans (like most of us here I presume) will probably buy everything anyway. Compilation albums like these are for people building record collections on band's greatest hits and any more than 2 (double) albums would have been a very unlikely purchase. I think they got it right as many of my non-Beatles friends own one or both of these and would probably have no other Beatles records at all if it wasn't for these. Or at least this was before '1' came out...
User avatar
skyjude
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: England

Postby Liam OSM » Mon Oct 28, 2002 8:47 am

Having said that, compare this to Queen, who have 3 successful volumes of GH . . .
Liam OSM
Gold member :)
Gold member :)
 
Posts: 4657
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 10:39 am
Location: United Kingdom

Postby DylansMrJones » Sat Nov 16, 2002 6:44 am

I think 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 should be reissued as a three CD set. It's really stupid that 1962-1966 is only about an hour long, but is a two CD set selling for an average retail price of $34.99 US.
DylansMrJones
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 5:18 am

Next

Return to The Beatles: General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron