Talk:Past Masters

"This Boy" and "Yes It Is"

I requested a citation for the claim that "This Boy" and "Yes It Is" were issued for the first time in stereo in this compilation. That may be true in the UK, but may not be so in the US as both tracks are on American Beatle LPs, Meet The Beatles for "This Boy" and Beatles VI for "Yes It Is." The obvious question which I'm sure those who own those American albums can answer is: were those tracks released in the USA in true stereo? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"This Boy" and "Yes It Is" were originally issued by Capitol on LP, in fake stereo. Their first appearance in true stereo in the USA was on "Past Masters Volume 1". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.18.172 (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"This Boy" was released in stereo on an Australian single, IIRC. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 02:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split off Mono Masters

There is enough material now to split off the Mono Masters section into its own article. Because at this time, there are no plans for EMI to release this album independently from The Beatles in Mono box set, I am receptive to moving the Mono Masters section to The Beatles in Mono article. What do you think? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, moving the section into The Beatles in Mono makes sense, but any new article should only come if Mono Masters is released outside the box set. Cbing01 (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cbing. MaJic (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in its own article. It's clearly an album entitled Mono Masters which just happens to be only available in the mono box set. --kingboyk (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, I'm afraid. Tracks 9-16 are an alternate track list. The entire first disc and 8 tracks on the second are identical (other than the mix) and ALL of that information would have to be duplicated (lengths, writers, dates, source, and notes on every track). I feel like the history of the Mono Masters (MM) album is tied to Past Masters (PM) - other than changing the second disc, MM is sourced from PM, and thus the history of PM is relevant to MM, so all that history would again have to be dupilicated in a second article. The best place for MM is here where the reader can compare it to PM easily. TheHYPO (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I'd like to propose moving this article to Past Masters (The Beatles albums) on the premise that this is not really an "album series", as the two volumes were released concurrently, and now it has been compiled into one single release ("Past Masters"). The article used to claim that this was a "series" of four releases - the two CDs, one LP set and the 2009 set. I think this is misleading, as there are only two volumes of Past Masters. the LP and 2009 set are merely alternate release formats. I don't think Past Masters merits being called a "series" TheHYPO (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see this is already the name so I take it the move was done; I was about to say "album" would be preferable (as in "double album") but actually, shouldn't it just be Past Masters? PL290 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Songs in this album

This is a compilation album featuring EMI Beatle recordings not included in The Beatles' twelve original British albums and Magical Mystery Tour. This double album was issued so that every EMI Beatle recording would be available on CD. As such, every track listed on this album show how each track was released whether it be an A or B side of a single, an odd and end such as the German-language recordings, the Long Tall Sally EP tracks, the American album track or the charity album contribution. There are also tracks on this album which are different from the versions of the same songs in Beatle albums such as "Love Me Do", "Get Back", "Revolution" and "Let it Be." This information must remain in the article and any attempts to delete is essential material will be challenged. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Sources for Past Masters Tracks

Hello, Everyone. My name is Ernie Scribner. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for more than eight years, but I've only had a user name for the past six or so months. I've made a lot of anonymous contributions to Beatles articles, but I've cut way back on Wikipedia time lately. Anyway, I suggested to John Cardinal that he re-think a deleted change, and he suggested that I run it by this group.

My suggestion is that this article re-think the listing of "Sie Liebt Dich" and "Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand" as singles. Yes, those songs were released as singles in Germany, but by that logic, "Slow Down" and "Matchbox" are also singles because they were released as singles in the United States. And, virtually everything on the Past Masters series except "Love Me Do," "From Me to You," "Sie Liebt Dich," "I'm Down," "The Inner Light," "Get Back," "Across the Universe," "Let It Be," and "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)" are also album tracks because they were released on American albums in the 1960s.

It seems to me that identifying the songs as "singles," "album tracks" or "EP tracks" refers to their status in the official canon, that is the British releases between 1962 and 1970 (excluding A Collection of Oldies). Thus, "Sie Liebt Dich," "Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand," "Bad Boy," and "Across the Universe" were not released as a part of the official canon, and should be identified as such. "Bad Boy" is already listed as a U.S. album track, and "Across the Universe" is already listed as appearing on a various artist charity album. Shouldn't the two German-language tracks, which were not released as singles in Britain, which were not included in any of the re-issue series of British singles (the 1976 green sleeve editions, the 1980s picture disc series, and the 3" CD single series) and which do not appear in any of the three officially released boxed sets of Beatles singles (the blue box vinyl set, and the 3" and 5" CD single set), be identified as "German singles," rather than simply singles?

Therefore, I would like to suggest that under "Track Listing" for volume one of Past Masters the article state something to this effect:

Volume one contains 18 recordings originally released between 1962 and 1965:

• 11 tracks from British Beatles singles (including B-sides),
• 2 tracks from a German Beatles single.
• All 4 tracks from their Long Tall Sally EP, and
• A U.S. album track, "Bad Boy"

I leave the final decision to you guys, as you are the ones putting in most of the hard work in keeping these articles up-to-date. Thanks everyone, Ernie. Ernie Scribner (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for anything that brings greater clarity, though it sounds as though there's more than one "right" answer so let's see if anyone has a contrary suggestion. Not sure why you single out the German singles and not those US ones you mention though. PL290 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

PL, I agree. There are several "right" answers. I suppose that is why there are so many arguments. Perhaps Wikipedia has a different way to categorize Beatles releases, and, if so, I am fine with that. Certainly, I'm most familiar with the American releases as those were what I first acquired in the 1960s and early 1970s. But, I was basing my suggestion on what both Lewisohn and NY Times critic Allan Kozinn refer to as "the official canon," which they define as the 12 British album released between 1963 and 1970 (including Yellow Submarine but not including A Collection of Beatles Oldies), the twenty-two British singles released between 1962 and 1970, the thirteen British EPs released between 1963 and 1967, and the American Magical Mystery Tour album (which, they argue, was made part of the official canon by virtue of its 1987 CD release).

From that view, the American singles are merely a curiousity (though I still think they are highly collectible, especially if they have picture sleeves). The same is true of the German singles, except that they contain tracks not released in Britain (just as Beatles VI contained a track unavailable in Britain until late 1966). But, again, if the Wikipedia editors prefer something else, I defer to your wisdom. Keep well, Ernie. Ernie Scribner (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a slightly different version; the text above is an improvement over what I reverted and I'm fine with it except for some nit-picky stuff that's not related to what Ernie wants to change: "U.S." should be "US" per WP:ENGVAR, and I think the numbers ought to be spelled out, not digits. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry John. I simply copied the format that already existed. I was unaware of Wikipedia style preferring "US" to "U.S." and preferring that numbers be spelled out. By all means, the article should conform to Wikipedia style. Keep well, Ernie. Ernie Scribner (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ernie, it wasn't your error. I didn't intend to make it sound like it was. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I changed the article roughly as you had it above; I changed the numbers to words rather than digits, I changed "U.S." to "US", and I removed "Beatles" from a couple spots where it seemed unnecessary. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, John. I didn't take your previous note to mean it was my error. I was apologizing because I did not correct the existing non-conforming language. And, thanks for making the change in the article! Keep well, Ernie. Ernie Scribner (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember that this is a British article so mention of the original sources has to be from a British perspective which is clearly stated in the liner notes of the album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

language categories

Isn't this album much more a bilingual one than an Engish and/or German one? --Hlamerz (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's All to Much

Another note on the Mono Masters, the track 'It's All Too Much' is listed as recorded in October 68, but I believe it is from sometime during the sgt pepper sessions in 67. That said, I followed the link to the song's page and it is listed there as being recorded in 1967. Just a thought I dont command authority enough to cite it and change it in the track listing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.57.19 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't need authority to make a change as long as it's sourced. But don't bother changing it; it isn't wrong. It doesn't say it was recorded in October 1968, it says it was mixed in October 1968. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sides three and four

The supporting citation showing the record label for disc 2 is there for a reason because the disc 2 labels say sides 3 and 4. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Current configuration of Past Masters compilation.

While it is true that Past Masters was first issued as two separate CDs, the currently available configuration since 2009 is as a double disc collection. This configuration was first available as a double LP. Therefore, the track listing should be that of the double LP configuration, the way the double collection was first issued. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Steelbeard1, can’t follow your logic.

The fact remains that Past Masters was first released as two separate CD’s Past Masters - Volume One and Past Masters - Volume Two, and the track listing should reflect this. Remember, Past Masters was created to complete the release of the entire Beatles catalogue on CD.

That the albums were later released together on vinyl as Past Masters – Volumes One & Two, and have now been combined in remastered form as Past Masters is an interesting sidenote. memphisto 11:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

But since the 2009 remasters, Past Masters is available ONLY as a combined set. The individual discs are now out of print. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And using that logic - The Beatles studio albums are currently out of print in vinyl, therefore the Wikipedia articles should use the 2009 remasters CD track listings? No, Past Masters - Volume One and Past Masters - Volume Two were created for and first released on CD, and the track listing should reflect this. The vinyl version of Past Masters is an irrelevance. memphisto 12:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, Memphisto. [http://www.amazon.com/Abbey-Road-Vinyl-Beatles/dp/B000002UB2/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1302540324&sr=1-1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"You are wrong, Memphisto. Steelbeard1" And of the twelve Beatles studio albums, only the one you link to, Abbey Road, is in stock at Amazon.com. memphisto 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of putting something in that doesn't exist anymore? A mention that they were released originally on vinyl, or whatever, is enough.--andreasegde (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC) To memphisto. This disagreement should be resolved here first, before anybody gets into a revert war.--andreasegde (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Memphisto here - the Past Masters were created specifically for the re-issuing of the Beatles catalogue on CD, to gather up everything that wasn't included on an album. The CDs came first; it wasn't issued on vinyl until a few months later. I don't see how the vinyl listing is relevant. At the moment we have "Disc One" and "Disc Two" in the main heading and then "Side One", "Side Two", "Side Three" and "Side Four" as sub-headings, which doesn't make any sense - clearly it needs to be one or the other. I say go with how everyone knew the albums for the first 21 years of their existence, as two separate CDs, Volume One and Volume Two, and list the tracks accordingly.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Capitol LP issue of Past Masters clearly shows on disc two the side beginning with "Day Tripper" as Side 3. There was once a working link to that label. It should be reinserted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very confusing. "Disc" to most people means "compact disc." Are you referring to a LP or a CD?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking through this articles history, I see it featured the CD track list from the articles creation on 13 December 2008, [1] until 21 September 2009 [2], after which User:Steelbeard replaced it with the LP track list. Why? memphisto 16:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It took that long to find the revision so the LP track listing, because it WAS released a a double LP, was restored. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said above - when the article was created on 13 December 2008 it featured the CD track list [3]. It was you who removed it and replaced it with the LP track list. Again, Why? memphisto 18:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If you bother to look at one of the earliest edits of the combined article at [4], you will see that the Double LP track listing was given separately in the same article. This article was originally two articles, Past Masters, Volume One and Past Masters, Volume Two. The articles were combined in 2008. Look at the history of the old articles at [5] and [6]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And I also see that you created the short lived article Past Masters, Volumes One and Two [7], the integration of which into this article I think explains your attempts to foist the LP track list on us. memphisto 22:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That is in response to the edit warring in the main Past Masters articles. Remember that the solution was to include both track listings for CDs and LPs in the then new consolidated article. But when the LP track listing was removed, the remaining track listing was modified to reflect the LP sides. In case you did not know, I OWN the double LP set as released by Capitol Records to supplement my copy of The Beatles Collection so all I needed was the Magical Mystery Tour LP (of which I got the German version with every track in true stereo) to complete my collection of Beatle tracks issued commercially by EMI from 1962 to 1970. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of the stating the obvious, CDs do not have sides. The way the article stands at present, with both "Disc" and "Side" headings, is confusing and must be changed. Either list just the double CD, or the LP, but not both.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In case you have blinders, Pawnkingthree, the point of the discussion is the including of info on the Double LP release of Past Masters which is on four sides of which one side is clearly linked to a citation where it says "Side three" which goes to a photo of the record label in question which also says on the purple Capitol label "disc 2" so "disc" applies to both CD and vinyl releases. Here is the link again. [8] Once again, I OWN THE DOUBLE LP RELEASE OF PAST MASTERS which I intentionally typed in all caps at that point is being ignored by Pawnkingthree. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it - I saw what you wrote. But that is not the issue here. I am simply interested in producing an article that is clear to the general reader. They should not be expected to have to go to a footnote and then an external link! You are making this way too complicated than it needs to be. Just list the tracks, either in CD format, Disc 1 and Disc 2, or the traditional LP format, Side One, Side Two, Side Three, Side Four. It really does not matter if Capitol, for reasons best known to themselves, chose to confusingly call a vinyl LP a "disc".--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Then we could remove the "Disc 1" and "Disc 2" subheadings. When Past Masters came out on vinyl, it was a God send for me as I own the LP box set The Beatles Collection which was incomplete. Past Masters, by adding the Magical Mystery Tour LP, made the collection complete. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The current formating of the track listings would neccesitate a complete redesign so the details can be retained and allow for the headings to be summarized further up the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that User:Steelbeard1 and I cannot agree on which track list should be used in this article. I looked to see if a concensus had already been established within Wikipedia.

And for every Beatles album that has been released since the introduction of the CD, the relevant article uses the CD track list only (even though all the albums were also available on vinyl).

Live at the BBC

Anthology 1

Anthology 2

Anthology 3

Yellow Submarine Songtrack

1

Let It Be... Naked

Love

So, I propose to follow the concensus and use the CD track list in this article. This will also remove the confusion with the track list headings - "Disc two" "Side three" etc. memphisto 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You two are the only editors working on this, so wouldn't it be great if you could agree on a consensus between the both of you? I know that you, Memphisto, want to do the best thing, but Steelbeard1 also wants to do the same thing. Reach an understanding and work together. It's the only way forward.--andreasegde (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

How can they go foward, if they don't know, which way they're facing? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 20:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In 1988, when Past Masters was first issued, LPs were still widely available. That's why the LP track listing is included because LPs were still widely available as late as 1989. When 1990 came, LPs disappeared from store shelves. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Past Masters on vinyl; I'm trying to find a (vinyl) copy of PM, but to no avail, it's damn hard one to find -.-' --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 15:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Try eBay. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot, tht was the first place, I checked. :/ Prices too dear. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am quoting from the article: Past Masters was initially released as two separate CDs on 7 March 1988, with a two-LP vinyl set combining both volumes following on 24 October 1988 in the United States and 10 November 1988 in the United Kingdom. Based on this information the CDs were released month before vinyl editions. Thus these should be considered the original releases and their track listing should be - imho - the basis for the Wikipedia article. Likewise, the original vinyl releases should form the basis for all 1962-1970 releases. --Vertigo Man-iac (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the individual CDs are now out of print. Unless you are looking for used CDs, only the two-disc version of Past Masters is available. That is the album cover photo on the infobox, the cover of the 2009 combined collection which is also how the double LP and cassette versions of Past Masters was released. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with User:Steelbeard's replacement of the CD with the LP, is the difficulty in comparing the Past Masters track list with Mono Masters track list. And the article text also states "Mono Masters differs from Past Masters on the second half of disc two" and "The track lists of the second disc of the two sets are different" - neither of these statements now make much sense thanks to the removal of the Past Masters CD track list. memphisto 11:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Disc 1" and "Disc 2" subheadings, again, apply to both CD and LP configurations as the verifiable citations state. A compromise solution would be to have a third track listing for the LP configuration again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for an extra track list - all the Beatles album articles I listed above don’t have them. And the LP listing wasn’t removed due to “edit warring”, it was removed because it added nothing to the article (as was your short lived article Past Masters, Volumes One and Two). memphisto 13:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, once again, the LP format which was issued when LPs were still widely available, is the first configuration that the consolidated Past Masters compilation, the only version now available since the 2009 CD remasters was released, was issued in 1988. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Memphisto requested that I contribute to this discussion because I was the one who initially merged Past Masters, Volume One, Past Masters, Volume Two, and Past Masters, Volumes One and Two here along with the corresponding track listings. After reading this discussion, it looks like the argument for including the combined set track listing is that the combined set is all that is still in print. I do not find this argument compelling because I do not see why it is relevant. The arguments in support of the separate CD track listings are that the CDs were produced first, the standard convention is to use the CD track listing, and more editors seem to be in support of including the CD track listings than the LP track listing. The CD track listings appear to have a far more solid grounds for inclusion, and to duplicate the track listings would unnecessarily complicate the article. I recommend sticking with the CD track listings. Neelix (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't u two, just make a compromise? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If the limited edition double LP version of 1 (The Beatles album) can be listed in that article, then the more widely available Past Masters double LP should also have its track listing included. I had suggested that the double CD and double LP track listings both be given but that got rejected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, please read the comments by User:Neelix above. The fact that your first edit [9] to Past Masters, Volume One and second edit [10] to Past Masters, Volume Two were to replace the CD track list with the LP track list, shows that you have for many years held a view over this issue.

However, a concensus has been arrived at here that the CD track list should be used in this article. And please think carefully before reverting the article again. You might also want to have a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. memphisto 21:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence of a consensus developing. Also, you are ignoring my comment about the 1 article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Both?

As this page is only 20,634 bytes, why not put both LP and CD track listings in?--andreasegde (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems sensible and is what we've done at 1 (The Beatles album) which Steelbeard1 mentions above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As User:Neelix said above “to duplicate the track listings would unnecessarily complicate the article”. All that needs to be said in the article is that the albums were later released on vinyl as Past Masters - Volumes One & Two. memphisto 11:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly complicated and it does seem compromise is necessary; otherwise this will just drag on.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted above User:Steelbeard1's first edits to this articles two predecessors over five years ago was to replace the CD track list with the LP track list. This is a case of ownership, and User:Steelbeard1 really should take a break from editing this article. memphisto 12:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the two track listings once coexisted, but the LP track listing got deleted by someone. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with including both. Either way, the practice should be uniform across the board. Neelix (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's enough of this bollards. Both listings can go in, and that's the end of it. Now slap me with a wet fish. End of.--andreasegde (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The redesigned article looks great with all three track listings, the CDs, the double LP and Mono Masters. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Finally! An agreement! --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 14:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The first round's on me. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Album covers

Now we need the double LP album cover. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

significant fact that this was the final Beatles album issued in LP format before it was phased out by 1989

I have reverted this edit by User:Steelbeard1 as I can find no references that support this claim (including the citations referenced in the edit).

All the Beatles’ albums that followed were also released on LP: Live at the BBC, Anthology 1, Anthology 2, Anthology 3, Yellow Submarine Songtrack, 1, Let It Be... Naked and Love.

The LP was not phased out in 1989, there was just a general decline in LP sales from the late 1980’s. It should be noted that the audio market around the time of the release of ‘’Past Masters’’ was split fairly evenly into three formats - CD, LP and compact cassette. memphisto 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Answer this question then, Memphisto. Besides Abbey Road or other significant Beatle albums, can you buy a new Beatles LP right now? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not the point Steelbeard1. Please find a reference that actually supports your claims. memphisto 14:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I already did which clearly indicated that the recording industry stopped shipping vinyl albums in mass quantities by 1989. This makes Past Masters, released in 1988, the final new Beatle album issued in LP form in mass quantities. It's at [ http://books.google.com/books?id=0KOR8shcjVUC&pg=PA60&dq=%22by+1989,+CDs+have+all+but+eliminated+LPs%22&hl=en&ei=_1WwTfLeFIjpgQf60tT7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false] on the bottom half of page 60 which clearly stated that the LP stopped being a viable format in 1989. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Past Masters was released in 1988, and as I noted above the audio market at that time was split between three formats - CD, LP and compact cassette. And the citation you quote to support your statement "stopped shipping vinyl albums in mass quantities by 1989" applies only to the US market. The UK and European market were a year or so behind in the transition from CD to LP. memphisto 15:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The next new Beatle album to be issued after Past Masters was Live at the BBC in 1994 which was after the LP ceased to be a viable format so, as was already mentioned in the article and the supporting citation, was issued in the vinyl LP format only as a limited edition. So my statements, backed up supporting citations, still stand. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not try finding a citation that actually refers to sales of Past Masters and the following Beatles albums on LP. A link to a on-line store hardly supports the statement "Subsequent new Beatles albums were released in the vinyl record format as limited editions", and so I have therefore removed it. memphisto 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the prices being asked by shopping sources for new Beatle LPs. If the price is much, much higher than the price of the CD configuration, that is a clear sign of a limited edition. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

When I restored the limited edition edit, I replaced the disputed citation with a new one which clearly states "limited edition." Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is a reference that is viable then it stays in. End of. It seems that there are problems about finding the correct hi-fi needle in the haystack, but reverting is not the way to do it. Find the source, check the facts, and then reference it.--andreasegde (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Steelbeard1 - Do NOT remove my edits from this talk page, which I have been forced to restore. And what is viable about a link to a on-line store which is easily contradicted[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Love-12-VINYL-Beatles/dp/B000M06SU4]. Can anyone find a reference that actually supports the claim "Subsequent new Beatles albums were released in the vinyl record format as limited editions"? memphisto 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That was an accident. Sorry it was not my intention. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, it's all about references. Now how about you both trying to find as many as you can? It's about the article, y'know?--andreasegde (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Rarities?

Surely whoever said that this is a collection of rarities has to be kidding as many of the biggest hits The Beatles had are in this compilation. The earlier Rarities, which was issued as part of The Beatles Collection, is a true collection of rarities as it only consists of B-sides and assorted odds-and-ends. The addition of A-sides in Past Masters makes the use of the term "rarities" misleading. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

After reading the citation, I rewrote the disputed passage to read "...this collection of many of the band's biggest hits as well as rarities..." to reflect the true makeup of this compilation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice.--andreasegde (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dare I ask

when did musicdirect.com and musicbyday.com become reliable sources? Many of the music articles that I have edited for a few years seem to have deteriorated quite a lot in the time I was on wikibreak. Is no one watching? Radiopathy •talk• 00:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sie Liebt Dich

The article notes that "Sie Liebt Dich" on the original 1988 CD is "very narrow stereo." This is a myth that has been kicking about the Internet for ages. I don't know how it got started. "Sie Liebt Dich" on the 1988 "Past Masters" is mono, without question. As evidence, open the audio of this song in a program such as Adobe Audition. Combine the two channels of audio, with one of the channels 180 degrees out of phase (easily done with Adobe Audition's "Channel Mixer"). If this was a "very narrow stereo" mix, there would be a slight bit of audio left after doing this. But if it is mono, the result would be complete silence. My result when processing the audio this way is complete silence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.142.194 (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sales

Yes, it's looking at several years of sales combined. But how realistic is it that an album that never gets higher than 149 or 121 in the album chart shifts a million copies in the US?

Lovingboth (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)