Was watching something about this on TV and the Man From The Record Company was pontificating about how they had to release this stuff officially to preserve the copyright - otherwise just anybody could use it as music for "inappropriate" films or ads. So the Beatles' heritage is kept pure and unspoiled for another 50 years...

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-18 15:50 by Big Al.

Quote
Gazza
If the Stones are to follow suit, I guess they'll need to do what both Beatles and Dylan did and rush release their 1963 recordings out before the end of the year (Dylan did the same last year with his 1962 sessions, but the copyright on his 1961 material expired before the laws kicked in last year and as a result there are multiple versions of his debut album now available)

They already did - a part of the Blue Boy-recordings have been on iTunes now for a while. I hope there's more to come.

Man $70 on iTunes for Australia.

A bunch of outtakes and a cpl throwaway song demos. Think I'll go copy it from someone that's bought it...

Already up on the Harbour of Privateers.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

I don't see what the big deal is, I already have the 1963 studio outtakes on bootleg and own plenty of the BBC recordings with the two Beatles/Apple releases (love 'On the Air' BBC set).

So for me, no reason to purchase any of this off of iTunes.

Well, I'm only curious to hear the two demos that are included: Bad To Me and I'm In Love. I know they are scratchy, home-style recordings, anyway, but their sound on this recently-released iTunes compilation is supposedly an improvement on he versions circulating on the various bootlegs. Can anyone here, comment?

yes they both are better quality from what I had on boots.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
His Majesty
Won't the same kind of thing have to happen in the following years and for any bands or owners of unreleased copyrighted material?

Roll on 1966 - 1969/2016 - 2019

I seem to remember reading last year when the first Dylan Copyright Collection set came out that the regulations change in 2015 to 70 years instead of 50.

If true, that would mean they wont need to touch the late 60s stuff for another 20-25 years.

By which time none of us who care will be able to hear these songs anyway.

I am sure I will hear them in the afterlife.

Quote
silkcut1978_

Quote
Gazza
If the Stones are to follow suit, I guess they'll need to do what both Beatles and Dylan did and rush release their 1963 recordings out before the end of the year (Dylan did the same last year with his 1962 sessions, but the copyright on his 1961 material expired before the laws kicked in last year and as a result there are multiple versions of his debut album now available)

They already did - a part of the Blue Boy-recordings have been on iTunes now for a while. I hope there's more to come.

I never heard that, but I can't find anything on iTunes or through a Google search.

Well, they've definitely managed to reduce some of the tape hiss :-

Then again, listen to this persons own personal remastering of the same track. The remastered recording starts at around 0:37. Superb job

Still
sounds like the demo it is. Bad to Me is charming (birds and the bees), but I don't think either Lennon or McCartney took it too seriously (It sounds like Lennon's response to McCartney's '1 and 1 is 2' which I like sctually).

'I'm in Love' is a little more intriguing.

Quote
silkcut1978_

They already did - a part of the Blue Boy-recordings have been on iTunes now for a while. I hope there's more to come.

Quote
NoCode0680

I never heard that, but I can't find anything on iTunes or through a Google search.

Was it this one?



1 Blue Boy Medley: Little Queenie / Beautiful Delilah / La Bamba / Wee Baby Blues / Around and Around 1:12

2 Beautiful Delilah 2:20

3 I Ain't Got You 2:02

4 Little Queenie 4:40

5 Down the Road Apiece 2:14

6 You Can't Judge a Book 1:05



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-22 13:10 by Irix.

Quote
nightskyman

'I'm in Love' is a little more intriguing.

Yes, I agree. Bad To Me is a very typical early-60's style ditty. If offered to the Beatles by George Martin or another songwriter, I could imagine their response being similar to that of their reaction when Martin suggested they record How Do You Do It as a single. The demo of I'm In Love is definitely a little more interesting. Perhaps it's the nature of the recording; sparse piano arrangement and Lennon's slightly distant vocals, but I think they could have made something of this particular song.

The difference between the Beatles' Outtakes comp on iTunes and this 'Blue Boys' one, is that the former is 'official' The Stones' 'Some Old Songs' release is exactly what the Beatles want to avoid.

I can't understand why the Stones aren't doing the same thing with those early recordings, especially the BBC stuff which has been widely bootlegged. Surely that will be in the public domain in 2014!

Quote
Silver Dagger
I can't understand why the Stones aren't doing the same thing with those early recordings, especially the BBC stuff which has been widely bootlegged. Surely that will be in the public domain in 2014!

Maybe, but the IBC demos that were officially released with GRR Deluxe weren't as good of quality as the ones I already had on my boots and the BBC tracks that have been widely available are near perfect so makes no real difference to me either way. Especially since I don't really see anything new to be released that hasn't already been bootlegged.

Quote
shadooby

Quote
Silver Dagger
I can't understand why the Stones aren't doing the same thing with those early recordings, especially the BBC stuff which has been widely bootlegged. Surely that will be in the public domain in 2014!

Maybe, but the IBC demos that were officially released with GRR Deluxe weren't as good of quality as the ones I already had on my boots and the BBC tracks that have been widely available are near perfect so makes no real difference to me either way. Especially since I don't really see anything new to be released that hasn't already been bootlegged.

Yeah but it should make a difference to those money-grabbing cats at ABCKO who are sitting on a potential goldmine. I think the problem with the BBC stuff is that the Beeb are asking too much money for it, knowing its market value.

so sleepy

Quote
michaelsavage
so sleepy

Here ya go, scary. All seven of the Beatles Fan Club Christmas Messages. Enjoy!

Quote
Big Al
The difference between the Beatles' Outtakes comp on iTunes and this 'Blue Boys' one, is that the former is 'official' The Stones' 'Some Old Songs' release is exactly what the Beatles want to avoid.

It didnt stop them including a couple of Quarrymen-era songs on 'Anthology 1' though.

And rightly so. The story would have been incomplete without it. Likewise, the Little Boy Blue stuff, primitive though it is, IS significant to the band's history.

it remains me of the dylan anthology released last year. just 100 4 cds sets at 30 euros. now they released it on a 4 lp set for 200 euros

What they should really do--if they want to sell all the albums of their catalog yet again--is do a 2-CD deluxe treatment of each album. One disc would be the original actual album and the second would be the outtakes and alternates. I know I'd buy it, because it would be great to have all those previously bootlegged tracks in newly remastered quality.

Quote
tatters

Quote
michaelsavage
so sleepy

Here ya go, scary. All seven of the Beatles Fan Club Christmas Messages. Enjoy!

"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
stonehearted
What they should really do--if they want to sell all the albums of their catalog yet again--is do a 2-CD deluxe treatment of each album. One disc would be the original actual album and the second would be the outtakes and alternates. I know I'd buy it, because it would be great to have all those previously bootlegged tracks in newly remastered quality.

Hopefully avoiding brutal edits like they did for Loving Cup on the extra disc on the Exile remaster.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-22 22:33 by His Majesty.

Quote
Silver Dagger
I can't understand why the Stones aren't doing the same thing with those early recordings, especially the BBC stuff which has been widely bootlegged. Surely that will be in the public domain in 2014!

But those early recordings including singles and albums, IBC demos, and numerous BBC tracks--those are mostly covers, so the copyrights don't belong to the Stones or ABKCO. All those songs have been subsequently covered and released by others, so public domain wouldn't be a concern insofar as Stones versions go.

The only point where Stones recordings might go into the public domain is for original material, which concerning the 50-year rule wouldn't kick in until 2015, for songs such as The Last Time and Satisfaction and so on. But those songs have been subsequently reissued, so....

For 1963 and 1964, the only original material they did was Stoned, Little By Little, and Good Times, Bad Times--but those were re-released as part of Singles Collection The London Years and re-copyrighted once again with the 2002 remastering.

There's really no need for The Stones--or for ABKCO--to act on any such copyright-extending releases, because it's already been done.

Your missing out any unreleased takes etc.

Unreleased takes of already released songs were included on this Beatles album, a question I raised seems wanting for an answer. Why would they only release a few takes rather than all takes of a song?

Is this all they actually have of any unreleased 1963 Beatles music? Even earlier takes of released songs? That seems unlikley to me.

Doesn't this 50 year thing also cover performances?

Unreleased takes? Performances?

How many times can a single song be copyrighted?

Oh yeah, one other question: If something is unreleased, then how can it enter the public domain? Only released material can be public. If it's unreleased, it's not for public consumption, and therefore not subject to laws pertaining to publicly available material, because it's still private.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-23 04:24 by stonehearted.

Yeah, this is why I am puzzled. Why would they release a few previously unreleased takes of one already officially released song, but not all previously unreleased takes of that already officially released song?

It must relate to performances as in studio takes, radio sessions and live performances as well, hence stones stuff even as covers might fall under these wonky copyright laws.

As for your last question. I think it is simply the case that were someone to have written and recorded a song in 1962, but never released it... forward to 2013 and with the tapes found anyone could now release that song etc.