but judging by the near delirous eyes rolled back in their heads sweaty palmed "hit me again mistress" anticipatory ecstasy displayed round these parts I think most are willing and eager slaves busily sweating over a new set of billy book cases to store their barely listened to expensivsly purchased "treasures".

which seems about right to me, given that it's a genuine uplift in quality from the last time the catalogue was released 22 years ago.

No different from any other artist really - from the box set, to the re-mix only available on the 12" single, to the two new songs on the Greatest Hits set. Much more fan-friendly and less exploitative than say Elvis Costello's annual repackaging.

If you want the box, buy the box. If you don't, then don't.

that all that Apple have done is put em in a nice box and stuck a price tag on them. The (I'm guessing) couple of years of painstaking work sweating over teh tapes to get them sounding THAT good and to please everyone from your casual purchaser to your rabid audiophile pays for itself does it?

If these albums hadn't been out before and this was a new box set of 17\14 CDs then would the prices be fair? I would say they are pretty much on the money price wise.

If you're saying we shouldn't have to pay again for improved versions of what we already have then try here

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/remakeremodelrebuy

These CDs were last reissued 22 years ago. The Beatles CD cash cow is hardly complaining of sore nipples. An extra squirt of Anthology here and there bet she's glad of a damn good milking after all this time

The Costello cow has ice on her udders 24\7. And more fool me for buying every single pint!

Totally agree. Judging by the Amazon reviews of the box sets there's a lot of disgruntled punters out there. And whatever happened to old fashioned Apple idealism? Consumed by corporate pragmatism?

* peace, love and cash.

With apologies to the second side of 'With The Beatles' can I please reiterate 'Not A Second Time'.
Since 1964 my hearing is not quite as good as it was in those bygone days, mainly due to attending numerous gigs in the search of the holy grail of sound reproduction.
So if I lash out to EMI again I will hear things I never heard before - in a clarity that beholds belief!
Me thinks that old Danny Kaye song about 'The Kings New Suit' applies in this instance.
My original vinyl was/is all mono because my little 'Curry's Westminster' player was the cheap working class version of the Dansette. Strange therefore that in order to hear the product as it was intended you have to shell out the extra for a mono version.
If you want to hear the Beatles as never before, pack your bags and fly Continental Airlines to Vegas. Go see 'LOVE' in a purpose built auditorium with a sound system designed for a clarity domestic systems will never realise.

the first two albums on CD as a matter of principle - when the first generation of Beatles CDs hit the shops this average price was placed at arund £16.99 - for abums that had been steady sellers since 1963.Even now the sale price is '£9.99'

I've no problem recovering costs - what irks me is, remastering being played as a 'Joker' and a means to justify reselling the back catalogue and lining pockets.

Quality-wise I don't want the moptops airbrushed for modern ears any more than I want a lenticular rendering of the Mona Lisa, a pop-up works of Shakespare or George Lucas to re-tweak Star Wars (d'oh!) But that's just me and is it's a democratic process I'll be non-voting with my hard-earned.

I listen to the Fabs all the time, anyway...

I reckon, in all seriousness, that Rockband is a great idea, new, inventive, worthy of my cash... I can't afford remasters & Rockband so that's where my cash is going.

"Lennon must surely be spinning (at 33rpm) in his grave." Really? Cause Lennon hated making money? Since when?

I've seen a couple writers on various Web sites make this naive comment as if Lennon was some sort of Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Yep, that's why he lived in a massive set of apartments in one of the most expensive cities in the world. As Elton John once wrote in a teasing card to Lennon: "Imagine six apartments, it isn't hard to do. One is full of fur coats, the other's full of shoes."

This righteous anger over the cost of the box sets -- a voluntary purchase, not like, say, taxes --- just seems silly. I paid the discounted rate on Amazon for the stereo set and feel like I more than got my money's worth. I didn't have all the Beatles CDs and now I do. They sound great, and the liner notes/photos included with the booklet in each CD are incredible. But don't buy it if you think it's too much. It's that simple.

Apple are not a charity. They have released new products that most people who've bought them seem delighted with (myself included) even at what might seem a steep price. If people can't afford them/don't want them - that's ok. If people who've bought them rarely listen to them surely that's ok too ?

sales of these are pretty much guaranteed, and also guaranteed to make a mint for all involved.

But I'm not going to be investing in these albums that I already own (and I like the dodgy stereo separation because that's how I first heard them!). Which means that at least two fans of the Beatles catalogue won't be shelling out. Multiply that across the world, because we're not alone in this, and you can see that EMI are going to be down some profit. Lowering the price somewhat might actually make themselves more money.

I've got no problem with a business doing what a business is supposed to do, but, as with the way most record companies sit on a huge amount of deleted back catalogue, they're missing a trick here.

it's not like they cost a fortune.

I've just bought Rubber Soul, SPLHCB and Revolver from amazon. I ordered themlast month for 9.98 apiece. The were posted on Tuesday.

I got an email this morning from Amazon saying the price had been dropped to 7.98 for Sgt Pepper and down to 9.68 for the other two. I didn't buy the CD's until now because I was waiting for remasters. I'm not complaining, it's not like my arm's being twisted up my back to buy them, is it?

Just to clarify I was primarily talking about the box set (x2) as set-piece of way ripping off the die-hard collectors rather than individual albums prices. Which, eventually I'll probably end stumping up for or adding to a birthday or Christmas list for key releases.

However for now, I'd rather go back to the Apple Source and track the lo-fi works in progress of the Unsurpassed Masters and Purple Chick releases

I'm not inclined to climb aboard on this one, I think I'll see how the land lies in the HMV January sale.

The point about Box Sets is interesting though.
I never play them.
In fact I rarely play bonus tracks.
And with regards to rock 'n' roll, I'm only really interested in those records that were released in the UK in the 50's.
Increasingly I think 'less is more'.
I'm certainly thinking about getting the CD's down to a manageable 100. More than enough really, it's probably 50 times more music than the average teenager had in the 50's anyway!