…is fucking extortionate. 30 year old albums are retailing in the UK for more than most new releases.
That is all.
New music = questionable sale = lower price
Beatles music = (nearly)guaranteed sale = higher price
I give your rant a 2.
I give it a 5 - it’s long been a bugbear of mine too. And despite being a fan I’m not paying full whack to replace the old vinyl copies. I acquire them as and when I find them at a sub £9 price.
A more simple answer would be not to buy them. Can’t you just listen to the radio for a couple of weeks and tape them all for nothing? It’s not like they aren’t played ad infinitum on the ‘classic’ stations.
Me too (well sub £10) until the album shows up somewhere reduced I stick with the vinyl. Same with Steely Dan, Zeppelin &c.
As to the OP. It’s no surprise theycan still charge £16.99 for Rubber Soul/Revolver/Sgt Pepper/Abbey Road but Beatles for Sale? WTF?
I haven’t bought any.
Eh, not all of them. Some of the more obscure tracks, B-sides and aren’t always played.
When was the last time you heard Glass Onion or Doctor Robert on the radio?
Oh, just let it be.
Only about a dozen, maybe twenty Beatles songs routinely get played on the radio.
I agree the prices are ridiculous, not just for the Beatles but for CDs in general.
I’ve been pissed off at the same thing. Although I could afford it now that I have a job, I refuse to buy them new because if I did it would justify the high prices.
I’ve been downloading them instead, and will pick them up if I see them used in good condition.
No idea. I wouldn’t know what Glass Onion sounded like if it did.
+MDI, have you tried Fopp or places like that? Back catalogue stuffs nearly always a fiver or so, and theres a fair few of them dotted about.
Failing that, how much do Play.com or CDwow do them for? I’ve picked up catalogue stuff from them too for fuck all in the past, although none of it Beatles. With good reason too.
Just waiting for the inevitable upgrade, myself. I don’t know if it’ll be 24/96, or SACD, or DVD-A, but mark my words: if I buy the albums on CD right now, I will be screwed over within the next couple years. Having seen friends pay for the catalogs of the Rolling Stones, Steely Dan and Elvis Costello two and sometimes three times, I have about zero interest in doing it with the Beatles.
I’m not sure I agree - the technologies you mention have been around for some time now, and have failed to take over because they don’t offer a significant advantage over CDs themselves. I, certainly, am entirely unable to distinguish between an SACD recording and one of my CDs, so it’s difficult to see what I gain by shelling out for new equipment. I realise the occasional audiophile will insist that he can tell the two apart, and he may well be right, but this isn’t the sort of thing mass markets are made of. IMO, the format of the future is already taking over, and is mp3 and its equivalents. Fortuitously, there’s no “re-buy” problem with mp3, since ripping (for legal, personal use) is trivial. Unless you’re a hi-fi nut, I’d go buy the albums. 
Poor guy probably never quite got over that whole 8-track/quadrophonic disaster of the early seventies…
24/96 remastering is a CD technology, so no need to get new equipment for that one. I could hear the difference in The Band’s catalog, which was one group I made the double-purchase-of-the-entire-catalog mistake with. (The other was the Clash, but the differences weren’t quite as obvious to my ear.) I suspect you’re right about the albums not sounding all that different, at least up until Revolver, which is when the benefits would probably be most noticeable.
I’m not in any great rush to buy the CDs, though…I work at a radio station which has all of them, and I hear a LOT of the stuff on the air frequently enough that it’s slowly killing my desire to possess any of them on CD. I may just have to stick with the Hi-MD dubs of my vinyl for the time being, methinks.
Demo, pretty much.
And he’s probably still steamed about that 8-track vs. cassette business of the same era.
I mean, c’mon, guys! Choose a format and stick with it! I’m still playing mix tapes I made back in the '70’s! 
And here I am still listening to Ricky Nelson and Little Richard on 78s…
Yep, the rants based on Fopp prices. The cheapest Beatles CD is Rubber Soul at £10.
I noticed this many years ago. Occassionally, Beatles albums get into the mid-price, ‘3 for x’ type offers. My guess at the marketing logic is that anybody who’s going to impulse-purchase at a mid-price label will do the same in 6 or 24 months time. However, the people who for whatever reason need to buy a new copy now will do so no matter what the price. (I once served a guy who was doing the entire restock, on insurance, for a cruise ship’s stolen CD collection. And think of the number of home burglaries each year where a copy of Revolver goes, and has to be replaced, on insurance.)