CDs 2 & 3:
33 additional recordings from the studio sessions, most previously unreleased and mixed for the first time from the four-track session tapes, sequenced in chronological order of their recording dates.
A new stereo mix of “Penny Lane” and the 2015 stereo mix of “Strawberry Fields Forever”.
CD 4:
Direct transfers of the album’s original mono mix and the “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Penny Lane” singles.
Capitol Records’ U.S. promotional mono single mix of “Penny Lane”.
Previously unreleased early mono mixes of “She’s Leaving Home,” “A Day In The Life,” and “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” (a mix thought to have been erased from a tape in 1967, but discovered during archive research for the anniversary edition).
Discs 5 & 6 (Blu-ray and DVD):
New 5.1 surround audio mixes of the album and “Penny Lane” by Giles Martin and Sam Okell, plus their 2015 5.1 surround mix of “Strawberry Fields Forever”.
High resolution audio versions of the new stereo mixes of the album and “Penny Lane” and of the 2015 stereo mix of “Strawberry Fields Forever”.
Video features: 4K restored original promotional films for “Strawberry Fields Forever,” “Penny Lane,” and “A Day In The Life;” plus The Making of Sgt. Pepper, a restored, previously unreleased documentary film broadcast in 1992, featuring insightful interviews with McCartney, Harrison, and Starr, and in-studio footage introduced by George Martin.
I just got mine in the mail today and JUST finished unboxing it (and, it's probably the most difficult opening of an album I've EVER done!! First, it took FOREVER to get the damn shrink wrap to slit open along the normal opening, and I was using an Xacto knife!! And then, I WAS trying to keep the shrink on the actual album inside intact but, it just would NOT come off no matter HOW hard I tried sliding it off and just tired of screwing around with it after about 10:00 and just slit it across the bottom, too, to get it to come off!!) and there's no AV Avenger thing in it. Is that hiding somewhere or just not included?
Giles Martin isn't done yet with Sgt Pepper. Article from February edition of Home Cinema added here about the new Sgt Pepper Album On Dolby Atmos. Unfortunately not commercially available but that may only be a matter of time or when McCartney needs to top up his piggy bank again :-))
The way the Parlophone label has been used in recent years is confounding. It has been traded as an adjunct to EMI and is no longer a part of EMI per se as it traditionally was. So it was owned by Universal when they bought EMI in 2012 but conditions were placed on that acquisition that required Universal to sell off all the Parlophone catalogue except for the Beatles. So now the label is owned by both Universal (The Beatles catalogue) and Warner Music group (the rest). So Universal have the rights to EMI, Parlophone and Apple.
The thirteen digit cat# is the usual format of a modern Parlophone cat# and this appears as a secondary cat# on the linked 2016 David Bowie release. The cat# on this release matches that format but does that make it a Parlophone release? Warners have also leased or licensed out the label to smaller boutique labels such as Music On Vinyl for certain releases and here we see a case of where the Parlophone label is used as a facsimile. But can that be the case here? I'd say no as Universal has the rights to use the Parlophone on its Beatles releases and for whatever reason has chosen to do so in this case.
This looks more like a case of Universal not paying attention to the finer details and mismatching labels, cat#s and distribution companies causing us difficulties determining one from the other. It doesn't matter to Universal they own them all. Even though I prefer Parlophone as the label just because that is what it looks like I can see where the Apple label supporters are coming from. What to do here though has me completely beat and you can see from the links posted above that I have used both methods of entry - Parlophone label as label and Parlophone label as a facsimile in the past.
To confuse things further the label code LC01846 is for Universal Music. So that's no use either in this case.
I just went onto The Beatles Online UK and they have it listed as Apple / EMI. Also this album listed on here as Parlophone is listed there as Apple / EMI as well
Mostly, the Apple label is used for new things like "1", "Live at the Holly wood Bowl", "Anthology" etc, while the original label is retained for re-issues - eg, "Rubber Soul" on Parlophone, "Abbey Road" on Apple. None of them are release by the Apple label, just on the Apple label.
I would expect a re-issue of "Pepper", as here, to be on Parlophone - and it does indeed have Parlophone branding on the discs. I don't see why this is anything other than a Parlophone release, the same as all the other editions of "Pepper".
The label is the actual label - the big round paper thing stuck to the disc. OK, nowadays they are printed on directly, but the principle is unchanged. The label is what appears on the disc - not something to be deduced from the small print on the packaging.
And to muddy even further, I did a search for the barcode and all these sites have it listed as Capitol Import CDs Amazon Alibris Record Store Day HMV have it listed as UMC
Just to muddy the waters further, I've just been looking through the CD and VInyl entries for these 2017 releases. The CDs have been entered under Apple in the main, but also under Parlophone. The LPs are just a complete mix, with one instance of Apple/Parlophone. Whatever the decision here, it will impact those entries.
(Although, I have made a case for including Parlphone, I do note that the Apple logo appears on the spine of these CD/vinyl entries.)
Sure, The Beatles were signed to Parlophone originally, but that label is now part of Warner Music, and The Beatles recorded assets and contracts are now in the hands of Universal, assigned to the new entity Calderstone Productions Limited. The appearance of the original LPs is replicated by the Parlophone logo on the discs, original catalogue numbers, speed designations, even obsolete original company names and address (E.M.I. Records, The Gramophone Company Limited of Hayes) on the packaging, but that's all it is - replication, not current label branding or numbering.
The argument that Apple are the label that released it is faulty. The Beatles were never under contract to Apple, they were under contract to Parlophone throughout. Their 'Apple' releases, such as "Hey jude", were issued by Parlophone, but with printed Apple labels by permission. Note they retained Parlophone catalogue numbers. Apple did not release any Beatles albums.
That being so, how can this Universal edition possibly be released by the Apple label? CDs can be released 'on' the Apple label, such as the red and blue albums (issued 'by' EMI, 'on' the Apple label), but this one surely wasn't. The Apple connection is pretty tenuous, whereas Parlophone is printed loud and clear.
Issued 'by' Universal Music in agreement with Apple Corps, 'on' the Parlophone label.
You still can't get away from the fact that if you walked into a shop to buy this there are absolutely no references to Parlophone on the outer box. I think the facsimile Parlophone labels are there just to give a sense of history, why else would they have 33⅓ RPM on a CD.
I agree with PhilMH - Quote "I think the label should remain Apple as the label that actually released the disc, and the Parlophone replica labels to be part of the artwork."
I'm with you TopPopper it still looks like a Parlophone label to me too. The question is, is it a facsimile or a label. It's a bit daft having an Apple release without the Apple label and then confusing things further by putting it out on a Parlophone label instead. Lots of Beatles CDs have both Parlophone and Apple logos on them and on the packaging. However, this is the first time I've come across one where the label is not what is on the label. Blimey!?
I very much think this is Parlophone. Someone said Apple are the company that released it. I don't agree - it was released by Universal, with some agreement in place. But in any case, it's not important which company it is. Companies have multiple labels, and here, Parlophone is quite obviously in use. If not, we should change all original Beatles albums to EMI, including those displaying Apple labels?
And the lesson for today is "Scan the detailed info on the outer cover for inclusion" ;-). The individual CD sleeves have the same info box on the bottom left rear of the sleeve virtually verbatim
"By the same token, the original LP catalogue numbers PCS 7027 and PMC 7027 should be removed from the catalogue number field as they are not numbers applicable to this CD & DVD release, but again part of the replica artwork."
I agree - all happy for me to remove the PCS and PMC references?
I think the label should remain Apple as the label that actually released the disc, and the Parlophone replica labels to be part of the artwork. By the same token, the original LP catalogue numbers PCS 7027 and PMC 7027 should be removed from the catalogue number field as they are not numbers applicable to this CD & DVD release, but again part of the replica artwork. No shop ordering this package from Universal would be using those numbers for that purpose.
I've dug out the box set from under the stairs and did a more detailed scan of the only info detailed on the box. Images 1576863 & 1576864 and for some reason they didn't tag to the end of the other images. Maybe a mod could move them.
On the box it has the Apple logo alongside the Universal logo and no Parlophone logo. Once inside the box it's all Parlophone. Do you go by what's on the box or the disc labels?.
I would have thought this should be Parlophone, perhaps with other secondary labels.
If this remains as Apple only, with the absence of supporting logos, it's potentially setting an awkward precedent and opening up the prospect of further complication.
Notwithstanding the need for accuracy, there has to be a corresponding desire to achieve simplicity for the general user.
No, the label code only indicates which label or company is responsible for royalty collection in Germany, not the actual branded label. Just looking at a couple of random examples in my own collection, the label code on a UK CD on the Westbound label, distributed by Ace, is 05982, the same as the Ace label itself.
Looking at the label scans the Labelcode is LC 01846 - Universal. So probably the label would need changed to Universal to match the Labelcode. The box does contain an Apple and a Universal logo.
On The back of the box (Image 1350588) it has the Apple / Universal logos. I would need to dig out the box set again and have another look. Discogs have it listed with cat#'s
Parlophone – PCS 7027, Apple Records – 0602557455328, Universal Music Group International – 0602557455328
Listed as on the Apple label but no logos or labels in sight? There are however four discs that are clearly on the Parlophone label. I think that regardless of what it says on the text around the label that mentions Apple that the labels here are Parlophone. The Sleeve Back scans here also list each CD as Parlophone / EMI. Discogs lists this as a Parlophone/Apple/Universal release. Why have we seemed to have shifted these modern Beatles releases of Sgt. Peppers to the Apple label when they are actually made on the Parlophone label? Is there a reason?