Magical Mystery Tour
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Report errors & omissions here
Forum Description: Seen a mistake in a band bio etc then please tell us
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19040
Printed Date: November 22 2024 at 19:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Magical Mystery Tour
Posted By: chopper
Subject: Magical Mystery Tour
Date Posted: February 15 2006 at 13:32
|
As the Fabs are here, we may as well get their details right. The MMT British EP is listed here, but the track listing is of the MMT LP from the US. These are two different beasts - the US album has the 6 EP tracks on side one with a number of singles from that year on side two. They need to be listed separately. And the year should be 1967, not '68. |
Replies:
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 15 2006 at 14:36
|
I was in a hurry The UK EP was indeed released in 1967, but the US LP was released in 1968. I guess this is a hybrid |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 15 2006 at 16:21
| You'll have even more of a problem with their earlier albums. None of the US albums matched the UK albums until Revolver. |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 15 2006 at 17:39
|
I know, I know - some of them weren't released on both sides of the Atlantic - like "Yesterday and Today"... I'll stick with the British releases for now - after all, they were a British band |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 15 2006 at 17:53
|
MMT "The album"..was so poular that it was in fact released in Britain too, eventually, and became part of the Beatles British catalogue. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 07:47
|
But it wasn't recorded as an album by the Fabs in the first place, so it doesn't count. If it had been, it would probably be their best album. Mind you, they should have put Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane on Sgt Pepper as was originally intended, what an album that would have been then! |
Snow Dog wrote:Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 07:48
I agree - the US releases are abominations. |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 07:49
Of course it counts, its part of their official British discography! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 08:50
Just like they should have put "Paperback Writer" and "Rain" on "Revolver", and left "Yellow Submarine" to the album of that name and forgotten the dirgy "Dr Robert" (although I recognise it's importance in the general scheme of things). "Rain" is up there with "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" - imagine what "Revolver" would have been like with this fantasy tracklist - perfection perfected! |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 08:55
Well I don't count it, well maybe as a compilation. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 08:57
You're right there cert. It's amazing that songs like that were just singles at the time. Rain is definitely a relatively unknown gem (although I did see U2 play it once). |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 16 2006 at 09:34
Even if you don't count it as a British album, it was an American album, so I don't understand your reticence at all! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 09:12
|
Missing in the Beatles discography is the compilation CD "1".
------------- Blog this: http://artrock2006.blogspot.com |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 09:18
|
^so add it! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 09:35
I only add albums (ten or so, so far) that I think are important.... 
------------- Blog this: http://artrock2006.blogspot.com |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 10:58
Don't worry mate, it's just me being awkward. I don't like it when people refer to it as a Beatles album along the same lines as Revolver, Abbey Road etc when it's really a compilation. And I don't want my original MMT EP to be devalued! Just tell me to shut up and I'll forget all about it. |
Posted By: Jimbo
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 12:15
|
Done. Is it ok now?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 15:14
| Err... I don't think we need any of their compilations - except the "official" one: "Oldies But Goldies". |
Posted By: Dragon Phoenix
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 17:19
|
New policy? Anyway, the red and blue double albums are already there, so what's the point in leaving out '1'?
------------- Blog this: http://artrock2006.blogspot.com |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 17:23
|
No - not a new policy, but the Beatles have so many compilations it's just unnecessary to have so many listings for a band that's only Proto Prog, IMO.
|
Posted By: marktheshark
Date Posted: February 17 2006 at 18:50
|
I don't see the point of including compilations either with maybe the exception of the Anthology releases. They are somewhat fresh in a historical context with unreleased gems like Leave My Kitten Alone, 64's One After 909 etc. Those 3 sets I believe should be included.
Sort of like Happy The Man's "Beginnings" posthumous release which is included in their discography. |