Re: Revolver Remixed? I don't think so

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>This is something that I, as a record buyer, hate; the fact that every old
>record is remixed/remastered etc. And boxed sets are a pain, too...
>I love 30 Years...but I give the Beatles a nod over the Who in Anthology vs.
>30 Years, because every track on Anthology is previously unreleased.  With
>the exception of the Red/Blue albums, you can go buy every CD released by
>the Beatles and you'd get no repeats of the same tracks.  But with my Who
>collection, I have about 5 or 6 versions of some of their songs, because they
>have so many compilations that did not use previously unreleased tracks.
>Just my opinion as a record buyer on a budget with tastes for the "oldies".

Gary:

Keep in mind that we're talking about two different animals here...30 YEARS
was to be a collection of The Who's work from beginning to end (a "best of"
with extra unreleased cuts)...whereas the ANTHOLOGY I & II (and III for that
matter) were intended to present unreleased material only (which, as it
turns out, isn't quite true).
The great thing about the ANTHOLOGYs is that they often show a "work in
progress," which would also be interesting to hear from The Who. The bad
thing is that the programers choose an unfinished part of a released song
(Eleanore Rigby & Within You Without You, for two) and called it an
unreleased cut. I'm also not thrilled with the mixing of several unreleased
versions (Penny Lane & A Day In The Life) to "create" an unreleased
version...there is plenty of deserving material (I know; I've got some of
it) that could have been included instead.
As for you having several cuts that repeat on Who releases, you can thank
good ol' MCA for that...they've handled The Who's career about as poorly as
one can imagine. This would not be the case, had the boys been on Capitol.
It might, however, had they been on London (check The Stones catalog!).

           Cheers                          ML