I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

Heh, "All Those Years Ago" got play.

I'm talking about UK radio from the late '80s/early '90s onwards - I appreciate that it'd be a different story in the US.

Those differences would be cool to count.

I mean, it's the Beatles. You wouldn't think there'd be much leeway between what CR stations were playing, but who knows? Maybe the UK is jamming out to Blow Away while Americans swear by Dark Horse.

Well, the UK didn't really start getting "Classic Rock" oriented stations until very late in the day - perhaps late '90s/early '00s.

Pre-digital, generally you had BBC Radio One for "current" music, BBC Radio Two for older music, yer regional stations (which tended to be as mainstream/"current" as Radio One) and stuff like LW Radio Atlantic 252.

never heard any solo McCartney song recorded after 2001

fourfiveseconds?

Collaborations are a different thing entirely. I've managed somehow to successfully avoid that track on radio, but I'm sure it got a fair bit of play on mainstream stations here - it does have Rihanna and Kanye West's names on it, after all.

I’m surprised I haven’t heard fourfiveseconds on the radio, since the “hip-hop and hits!” station otherwise plays tons of Rihanna and Kanye.

Get the impression that MJ was so rich and spendthrift and impulsive it was more about accumulating/collecting things, spending money over making money.

can't find a source right now but vaguely recall reading that Michael actually got into the publishing business for sound financial reasons, namely that it was necessary that he invest his Thriller money in something and at the time publishing rights seemed a solid investment

Wasn't it Paul who told him that?

During this time, McCartney reportedly explained to Jackson about the lucrative nature of music publishing. For complex legal reasons, the Beatle had lost his stake in Northern Songs, the publishing company that he and John Lennon set up, in the late 1960s. Because he wasn’t profiting from his own songs’ publishing rights, McCartney told Jackson about how he had been purchasing other artists’ catalogues (such as Buddy Holly’s) as a business investment. McCartney explained to the future King of Pop that whoever owns the rights to a song’s lyrics and composition earns royalties every time that song plays on film, TV, the radio, in a commercial, or in a concert. According to McCartney, Jackson then jokingly told him "one day, I’ll own your songs."

http://mentalfloss.com/article/85007/how-michael-jackson-bought-publishing-rights-beatles-catalogue

So there's a fancy 'Imagine' box set on it's way.

http://www.superdeluxeedition.com/news/john-lennons-imagine-album-2018-reissue-campaign-explained/

Speaking of the era when they were considered 'old hat' as Turrican says above, this is a great piece from 2004

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2004/jan/16/thebeatles.popandrock

"We put the Beatles on the cover of Q in 1987 for the 20th anniversary of Sergeant Pepper, and it was seen as a real risk," remembers Mark Ellen, then editor of Q, now editor of Word. "They were just seen as an old group who had split up - and there were plenty of old groups who were still about."

I assume Mark Ellen is thinking primarily of Fleetwood Mac and Pink Floyd when talking about old groups still around in '87, the Stones were kinda still around but going through a bit of a rough patch at the time.

The way people perceived long-running acts was a lot different then. Nowadays, you've got Depeche Mode still selling out massive venues worldwide after almost 40 years together and nobody bats an eyelid.

Whereas back then, because everything seemed to be a lot faster (artists releasing an album a year being the norm etc.) and trends tended to turn over a lot faster, '60s acts felt they belonged to a different universe entirely in the '80s.

Well, I'm not sure that artists who started in the '80s don't still usually belong to different worlds than young, contemporary artists, but I agree that the context by which age seems to be framed nowadays has changed a lot. In a way, I think this reflects well on the older artists who have done their part to remain aesthetically interesting in the current world.

Like I was just thinking about the fact that Jonathan Richman has recently sort of become a singles artist now with his Bandcamp page. I think it's working nicely.

I may buy Egypt Station in a physical format because McCartney seems to have been interested in the construction of it as an album.

Well, a lot of '80s tropes are more fashionable now than they've been for a long time, so time has come around again for a lot of that stuff.

Also, pre-internet, there used to be quite distinct differences between what was on the UK and US chart. America was a lot more kinder and more receptive to the '80s material of '60s/early-to-mid '70s artists.

A great example of this would be the differences in all-star cast between 'Do They Know It's Christmas?' and 'We Are The World' ....

"We Are the World" may have been a popular record, but as an American born in 1968, I think young people here in the '80s had a very different perspective on how relatable artists who came up in the '60s (or even the '70s) were versus how young people today might view artists from the '80s or '90s. I think there's less of a generation gap now.

Well, a lot of '80s tropes are more fashionable now than they've been for a long time, so time has come around again for a lot of that stuff.

such as?

You wouldn't have been able to get away with a production like the one on The 1975's 'This Must Be My Dream' back in the '90s. It just wouldn't have happened. All those reverbs and big snare sounds.

'80s revival in indie really started as early as 1996 - https://www.discogs.com/Satisfact-The-Unwanted-Sounds-Of/master/188510

Yeah, Tim... I remember some newspapers here describing the Stones as "wrinkly rockers" circa Voodoo Lounge, by which point the Stones had been releasing records for roughly 31 years or something. U2 have been together for getting on roughly 40 years now and I don't see them being spoken about in terms of being "elderly rockers" or whatever.

In fact, when U2 were at roughly their 20 year mark, they had 'Beautiful Day' out and were as big as they'd ever been.

(x-post)

There were many ironic nods to '80s music trends in '90s music - Blur's 'Girls and Boys' is a good example - but it took a while before people got over that and began being sincere about it.

Satisfact were super sincere!

They may well have been, but we're not really talking about music in niche indie music terms here!

I see some elements of that kind of postmodern music in mainstream things from the '90s like Beck. Stereolab got signed to Elektra.

I don't recall any Stereolab that sounds like No Jacket Required or Songs from the Big Chair? They used synths, I'll give you that!

U2 have been together for getting on roughly 40 years now and I don't see them being spoken about in terms of being "elderly rockers" or whatever.

More's the pity.

A lot more old people are buying music now as well as playing it - it's harder to dismiss U2 as elderly rockers when you're 65 yourself.

Jagger & Richards were both quite wrinkly by the late '80s tbf. Even Watts looked "distinguished" compared to the bronzed features of current Larry Mullen Jr.

Well they'd had a hard life of it compared to the entirely uneventful existence of Larry Mullen Jr.

Charlie had spent 25 years just waiting around iirc

He (famously) didn’t even change his snare drum head for decades!

Pop’s recording/release was delayed at least in part due to the back surgery Mullen had to undergo due to 16+ years sitting uncomfortably/unnaturally hunched over a drum kit.

Meanwhile, Watts sat straight up and continues to play through his 70s, without ever having needed surgery.

Re. Stereolab, was talking more about postmodernism in general but I did think they maybe had some '80s pop influences in there.

White Album Box Set?: https://beatlefansomethingnew.wordpress.com/2018/09/20/exclusive-report-white-album-50th-anniversary-reissue-details/

but the legendary 27-minute version of “Helter Skelter” will NOT be included.

why do they do this kind of thing

gotta have something left over for the 75th anniversary edition, right?

No mono version either?

"new remix" - bleah

yeah I'm not particularly interested in a new remix. the old mix is idiosyncratic enough

We’re told that the new remix of the album by Giles Martin has “incredible clarity and more bass and drums present.”

No mono version either?

― Plinka Trinka Banga Tink (Eliza D.), Friday, September 21, 2018 12:26 PM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Even though I prefer the stereo mix (particularly on "Revolution 9" -- the mono of this is just a fold-down), it's weird/stupid/annoying that they're including a completely unnecessary remix instead of the mono.

fuck "clarity"!!!

why do they do this kind of thing

― Οὖτις, Friday, September 21, 2018 11:23 AM (five hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

At this point, it's like the express purpose of these reissues is to exclude the one most-sought-after unreleased track.

Can't wait for the Let It Be set that omits the Yoko/John/Paul/Ringo feedback freakout.

i never actually checked out the stereo remix of sgt peppers ... was it terrible?

I thought the sgt pepper remix was great. they used the mono as a reference then placed everything around it in a more contemporary style. the compressed drums especially stand out, ringo rages on good morning good morning. way better than the OG stereo mix, and better for headphones than the mono mix imo. looking forward to hearing back in the ussr done in that fashion.