Beatles Remasters Officially Coming 09-09-09

[rw2516]

Originally Posted by JoeR63

I think you better be prepared for ridiculous. It will depend on how deeply (and how soon) the sets are discounted. I believe I saw someone post an MSRP for the stereo box over at Steve Hoffman of $299.99 but who knows how official that is. Amazon has the individual releases up for preorder. Most of the single albums are $13.99 and I think they had the "White Album" for $20.99. You would be hard pressed to see $79 for the set. Older CDs or not, there will be huge demand for these CDs and sets and they know it. At $79 (for a box of 16 CDs and a DVD,) that would be in the ballpark of under $5 an album. I don't see anything near that at initial release. Maybe a few years down the road if the market is oversaturated with product (or there's a misprice.) I think we would be lucky to see $149. Just my two cents!

The Beatles themselves set the prices for their cds. Their policy has always been to maintain a higher than average MSRP. Because of this consumers don't rush out and buy all their cds at once. The idea is to maintain a consistant sales volume year after year after year. Because of this, and recruitment of new fans over time, sales remain steady for their cds even years after the intial release. There will be a big sales the first weeks and through the holiday season and then settle down to a steady yearly sales volume undiscounted at the initial retail price.

[The Bus]

I'm mentally preparing myself to plunk down $300 for both box sets.

[auto]

I'm buying the mono set for sure.

So, why should I buy the stereo set?

[slop101]

I'm guessing places like Best Buy and especially CostCo will have near 50% off retail price on these sets.

[panchor]

Originally Posted by auto

I'm buying the mono set for sure.

So, why should I buy the stereo set?

Is't the DVD only available on the stereo set?

[auto]

Originally Posted by panchor

Is't the DVD only available on the stereo set?

Maybe, but hopefully that's not the only reason people are springing for both.

[JoeR63]

Originally Posted by auto

Maybe, but hopefully that's not the only reason people are springing for both.

There's also the fact that the mono set does not include the entire catalogue, but only the albums that were mixed for mono. A lot of people are planning to buy the mono set and then the remaining individual stereo releases.

The discs in the stereo box and not the mono box are Yellow Submarine, Let It Be, and Abbey Road, and also there will be a "Mono Masters" disc as opposed to "Past Masters," which presumable will contain the "Past Masters" tracks that were mixed for mono. The mono box has nearly everything, but of course there are many completists who will want both. I want both, but probably not enough to buy both initially, unless there's a blowout sale price!!

[auto]

I guess I just don't get buying both when you can get YS, LiB and AB seperately. They are going to rape us on these.

[whaaat]

Originally Posted by auto

I guess I just don't get buying both when you can get YS, LiB and AB seperately. They are going to rape us on these.

Yes, but then you don't get any stereo from Please Please Me through The White Album. Beatles For Sale, for one, sounds much better in stereo than in mono. A Hard Day's night as well - nice soundstage (not the "ping-pong" stereo of PPM and WTB) and less compression.

[Hokeyboy]

Originally Posted by auto

I guess I just don't get buying both when you can get YS, LiB and AB seperately. They are going to rape us on these.

You can't rape the willing.

[brianluvdvd]

To get everyone prepared, go to your local Barnes & Noble and pick this up. I was there last night and they had this excellent book in the bargain stuff priced at $6.98.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Bea...9313737/?itm=4

The Beatles Complete Discography

I was reading thru it last night and it is well worth the 7 bucks.

[nothingfails]

Originally Posted by rw2516

The Beatles themselves set the prices for their cds. Their policy has always been to maintain a higher than average MSRP. Because of this consumers don't rush out and buy all their cds at once. The idea is to maintain a consistant sales volume year after year after year. Because of this, and recruitment of new fans over time, sales remain steady for their cds even years after the intial release. There will be a big sales the first weeks and through the holiday season and then settle down to a steady yearly sales volume undiscounted at the initial retail price.

I understand why some albums like Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper and several others stay at a high price point, but I think a few albums along the lines of With The Beatles and Beatles For Sale that don't sell quite as well should be dropped to a midline type of price. Those albums aren't seen as essential Beatle albums and I think they would get more people buying them for a few bucks cheaper. Much like how The Rolling Stones' catalog was all undiscounted, but eventually a few of the "weaker" titles such as Undercover and Black And Blue were dropped down to $10 instead of $16 and I think it helped sell more copies. Unless you're a completest Stones fan who needs to finish a few loose ends, who would pay $15 for Undercover when they could get Sticky Fingers or Exile On Main Street for the same price? But with a lower price, there are people who might bite on it.

[Suprmallet]

Woah woah wait a minute. Black and Blue is absolutely an essential Stones album.

[nothingfails]

Originally Posted by Suprmallet

Woah woah wait a minute. Black and Blue is absolutely an essential Stones album.

well, it's generally regarded as the weakest 70's album. "Some Girls" was considered a comeback for a reason, it made them relevant again while Black And Blue and It's Only Rock N' Roll were works of an aging band passed their pinnacle and the type of music that punk seeked to obliterate. Then Some Girls came out two years after B&B and the same people who trashed Black And Blue and considered it a sign that it's time to hang it up were eating their words with SG.

Of course, it's a masterpiece next to Emotional Rescue, Undecover, Dirty Work and Bridges To Babylon, but B&B generally is regarded as the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Stones albums up to that point.

[Suprmallet]

Originally Posted by nothingfails

well, it's generally regarded as the weakest 70's album. "Some Girls" was considered a comeback for a reason, it made them relevant again while Black And Blue and It's Only Rock N' Roll were works of an aging band passed their pinnacle and the type of music that punk seeked to obliterate. Then Some Girls came out two years after B&B and the same people who trashed Black And Blue and considered it a sign that it's time to hang it up were eating their words with SG.

Of course, it's a masterpiece next to Emotional Rescue, Undecover, Dirty Work and Bridges To Babylon, but B&B generally is regarded as the bottom of the barrel when it comes to Stones albums up to that point.

The way I always saw it was that Goat's Head Soup and It's Only Rock and Roll were the albums where people gave up on the Stones (although I think It's Only Rock and Roll is completely underrated, even aside from the title track there are some awesome cuts on the album). B&B was where they showed signs of life again, but because people were disillusioned by the previous two albums, it didn't get much attention, whereas Some Girls was lean, mean, and hit a huge hit single, so it's the one that got all the attention. But Black and Blue is a killer album. I mean, "Hand of Fate," "Hey Negrita," "Melody," "Crazy Mama," all of those are great practically forgotten Stones songs.

[nothingfails]

well regardless of B&B's status, do you agree with me that they should consider lowering the retail on at least the two of three "weakest" Beatles sellers, probably With The Beatles and Beatles For Sale. Nobody except completists will buy those albums for the same price they will buy Abbey Road, Sgt. Pepper or Rubber Soul for, but for a few bucks lower, more copies of those albums might sell. Just like what EMI did for the few Stones (1971 onward) albums that sold poorer in comparison to Sticky Fingers/Exile/Some Girls? EMI as well dropped the price on Tonight and Never Let Me Down compared to the rest of the Bowie albums they have the rights to because those two sold considerably poorer than the 1969-1983 albums.

[parker63]

If I remember right, when the first four CD's came out in 1987, people grabbed all four of them at once and were waiting in line, cash or credit card happily in hand. It didn't matter, it was The Beatles, on CD!, and they wanted everything. And people gladly paid for them. EMI, Beatles, whatever weren't worried about sales...they knew they would make a mint, and they did. Did some titles sell better than others? Probably, but I don't remember the pricing ever being lowered on the "less popular" albums. They were always priced the same, even years after the initial release.

Flash forward 22 years, and although we're in a drastically different economic climate, I think it's the same thought process. They aren't going to worry about discounting the price, at least for awhile, because it's The Beatles, and the CD's are definitely going to sell, at least at first. Let a little time pass, and sure, the less popular titles could see a price reduction, but it's not going to happen right away. If they could get people to pay for it before, why not do it again?

Personally I'm just wondering what the street prices are going to be on each of the box sets, because yes, I want both, and I know it's going to cost a chunk.

[Suprmallet]

Do I agree with the idea of lowering prices on certain titles? Sure. In fact, I'd love it if they lowered the prices on ALL the albums, save me some cash.

But in all seriousness, even the weakest Beatles albums are better than most band's best albums. How many bands can claim their weakest album has great songs like "No Reply," "I'm A Loser," "Eight Days A Week," "What You're Doing," etc?

Also, I don't think With The Beatles is a "weaker" album. Aside from "Till There Was You," pretty much every song on there is great. The only one I could reasonably see doing this for is Yellow Submarine, since it's only got four actual Beatles songs.

[Suprmallet]

Do I agree with the idea of lowering prices on certain titles? Sure. In fact, I'd love it if they lowered the prices on ALL the albums, save me some cash.

But in all seriousness, even the weakest Beatles albums are better than most band's best albums. How many bands can claim their weakest album has great songs like "No Reply," "I'm A Loser," "Eight Days A Week," "What You're Doing," etc?

Also, I don't think With The Beatles is a "weaker" album. Aside from "Till There Was You," pretty much every song on there is great. The only one I could reasonably see doing this for is Yellow Submarine, since it's only got four actual Beatles songs.

[nothingfails]

Originally Posted by parker63

If I remember right, when the first four CD's came out in 1987, people grabbed all four of them at once and were waiting in line, cash or credit card happily in hand. It didn't matter, it was The Beatles, on CD!, and they wanted everything. And people gladly paid for them. EMI, Beatles, whatever weren't worried about sales...they knew they would make a mint, and they did. Did some titles sell better than others? Probably, but I don't remember the pricing ever being lowered on the "less popular" albums. They were always priced the same, even years after the initial release.

Flash forward 22 years, and although we're in a drastically different economic climate, I think it's the same thought process. They aren't going to worry about discounting the price, at least for awhile, because it's The Beatles, and the CD's are definitely going to sell, at least at first. Let a little time pass, and sure, the less popular titles could see a price reduction, but it's not going to happen right away. If they could get people to pay for it before, why not do it again?

Personally I'm just wondering what the street prices are going to be on each of the box sets, because yes, I want both, and I know it's going to cost a chunk.

Well 1987 was 22 years ago, you have to remember that. I see Soundscan lists on another board I post at, and Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, White Album, Revolver and Rubber Soul still commonly make the top 200 catalog sales on a given week. There are usually at least 1500 people running to the store to buy those. But with all the adoration those albums still get, most of the earlier albums don't quite sell as many copies. I think it might be time that they decided that at least two or three of those albums should be dropped in price. How many people do you see buying Beatles For Sale (which I don't think is a terrible album mind you, it's just not one of the "classics") as a first Beatles purchase when they can take that same money and invest it on Rubber Soul or Abbey Road or Sgt. Pepper or another album that is more revered?

Plus in this failing economy and dying record industry, lower prices would make sense, of course with Paul McCartney's billion dollars, none of this has any relevance to him .

[Suprmallet]

You didn't hear the news? Paul McCartney is bankrupt!

If they do end up reducing prices on specific albums, it makes sense for them to do it after the holiday season 2009. In September the hardcore Beatles fans will buy up tons of these at the announced price. Then during Christmas people will pick up any remaining titles for their friends/relatives, or will just grab some titles at random. After the holiday season 2009 is when people will get selective.

[rw2516]

I don't get this "reduce price on lesser titles" mindset. People either want a cd or they don't. If I want a cd I'll pay the 10-13-15 dollars for it. I wouldn't pay $10 for a cd that I didn't even want if it was $13.

[Drexl]

Originally Posted by rw2516

I don't get this "reduce price on lesser titles" mindset. People either want a cd or they don't. If I want a cd I'll pay the 10-13-15 dollars for it. I wouldn't pay $10 for a cd that I didn't even want if it was $13.

I don't see that as hard to understand. I've bought movies on DVD for $10 or less that I wouldn't have paid $20 or more for. If there are albums people wouldn't mind having, but don't want to pay full price, it makes sense.

[Jack Straw]

Before I go and spend mega-Beatle-bucks for this double-dip, can anyone explain in what ways the CDs I own now are bad sounding? They sound good to these ears. And don't get me started on vinyl. If you like hearing pops and scratches interspersed throughout your music, more power to ya! There's an invention called the equalizer for those that feel that the CD does not deliver the frequencies you're looking for. This has the smell of yet another money grab. I hope I'm wrong and that there is actually clearly audible improvements in the sonics.

[Jack Straw]

Originally Posted by Suprmallet

I remember reading an interview with Paul McCartney where he talked about how in the earlier days, the band cared so little about the stereo mixes that one time Paul was at a press conference and wanted to highlight a specific bass part to a journalist, so he took him over to the right speaker...only to realize the bass was only coming out of the left!

In other words, if you don't get the original mono mixes, you're missing out.

You'd be missing out if you listened to the stereo mix with only one speaker. With two speakers, you're hearing the bass. What am I missing here?