Thursday, 1 September 2016

Hollywood Bowl digipacks

Several copies of the new Hollywood Bowl CD digipacks.
Here are early copies of the new "Live at the Hollywood Bowl" CDs, what do you think?

30 comments:

Gabor Peterdi said...

Still like the original cover much better.

They should have put out a deluxe set with

- the remastered audio,
- 5.1 audio (even if only the screaming would come out from the back speakers)
- the 'Some Fun Tonight' books
- the 3 US tour programmes
- and the SHEA Blu-Ray

I hope the movie will come out with SHEA on BluRay. Then I won't grumble.
I just wish they asked the fans sometime....

RAJ said...

The cover art is terrible but the audio is what we will buy it for, and from what I've heard, it should be awesome.

James19 said...

Where did you find those? Lol

Matheus said...

I hate the Digipack format. It's not durable. I prefer the classic old CDs packagings.

joey anthony said...

i don't like all these small things today.i'm going to buy the vinyl because it's big.i miss the big laser discs and the big albums.

Debjorgo said...

I love digipack releases. To me, they are much better than jewel boxes. They are too bulky, they break or get a real dingy, scratched up look to them.

The best ones still have the spindle that the CD snaps in and out off.

VideoShack said...

A live album by The Beatles should feature a picture of the band performing live.

Brian Burhans said...

FYI, this is being released in Japan in the SHM-CD format. I've pre-ordered my copy from http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/. And, yes, the original cover art is far superior to this new iteration. What were the suits thinking? Why don't they ever ask the fans? We would have told them this new cover is garbage.

Beatlesblogger said...

I agree with the comment above: "Still like the original cover much better."
And, if they must have a new cover, this one too: "A live album by The Beatles should feature a picture of the band performing live."

To be honest, this cover is very ordinary. Why do we have the green lettering advertising the forthcoming Ron Howard film placed smack bang in the middle? I'm looking forward to seeing that film as much as the next fan, but having it so prominently mentioned front and centre on this album is a mistake.

When I first saw your post I thought the digipacks might be a pile of those free promotional CDs that are sent out to reviewers and radio stations. To me the cover looks a bit tacky and cheap for what is a legitimate, stand-alone Beatle product.

db said...

The cover looks like an advert, (especially with the film tie-in) rather than artwork to sit alongside 'Revolver' etc etc.

Joe Dee said...

Why is the fact that these are digipaks even an issue? Every Beatle release since '09 has been digipaks. Get used to it!

George Armstrong said...

Worst Beatles album cover ever!

Joe Dee said...

Worse than Reel Music or Rock n Roll?

Gabor Peterdi said...

As a secong generation fan from the late 70s Rock N Roll will always have a soft place in my heart. I know John hated it, but my parents having just that one album at the time was everything to me. And as an 8 year old I always like the idea of the hands on it... and also the cocktail, the car and etc. in the inner sleeve. Reel Music is weak, but that had the nice insert in it. This one is just a poster ad for the movie. Nothing feels right about it. I mean why cant someone ask Klaus? It would have been nice for his 50th anniversary of Revolver. But even just a montage of polaroids, flags, buttons, bandages and all would have looked better in my opinion.

Joe Dee said...

I think there wasn't garish green text, and it simply said "The Beatles -live at the Hollywood Bowl" they could have gotten away with using that photo instead of a live shot

Michael Ventimiglia said...

Live at the BBC was a nice cover and it didn't show the beatles performing. This cover is awful though. It should never have had the tie in to the film. That is terrible.
But it isn't the first time the beatles or a solo beatles made an amazing album with a bad cover.

Michael Ventimiglia said...

Live at the BBC was a nice cover and it didn't show the beatles performing. This cover is awful though. It should never have had the tie in to the film. That is terrible.
But it isn't the first time the beatles or a solo beatles made an amazing album with a bad cover.

George Armstrong said...

Those Beatles compilation albums from the late 1970s/early 1980s were issued without the Beatles approval, so we couldn't really expect any better. However, this new Hollywood Bowl release has been approved by Paul, Ringo, Yoko & Olivia. Is that the best they could come up with?

JoJo said...

The cover art is awesome. It shows "THE BEATLES ON TOUR". That's what the album release and movie is all about.The Beatles,they are a business now and will do what it takes to preserving the name.

Most of the live audio on their tours is terrible, so we are lucky to get this album at all. Probably Washington & Budokan are the only 2 worth hearing. Shea has it's problems.

I can't believe the amount of fans just whinging & complaining. If you all have the bootlegs,listen to that and get over it. For me I can't wait to see and hear what's coming soon.

Should be grateful they release anything.. Other artists release more but it's only 1 person, this is 4 of the greatest musicians that changed the world.

Debjorgo said...

I don't have any problem with the photo and look of the of the album. Isn't it the same as the poster for the movie? This is more a soundtrack for the movie than a new Beatle's release.

I could had done without the ad for the movie on the cover but it may serve to sell the disc. We devout fans don't need it but....

Brian Burhans said...

The advertising for the film could have been in the form of a sticker on the shrink-wrap, leaving the actual album art if still boring & unimaginative, at least not offensive. Obviously, most of us will still buy the CD/LP/download but what a lost opportunity on the part of Apple to present this to the world in an artful & interesting way. You know, like the Beatles.

Blue Meanie said...

I'd like to get a 50 anniversary edition of Revolver,
as The Who done it with Quadrophenia and other albums.
Another lost opportunity IMHO. Very sad.

Fan On The Run said...

I think that the concept for the cover is "Hollywood" - Sun and Sunglasses.

Debjorgo said...

"Hollywood - Sun and Sunglasses"? So the movie was made as the tie-in to the album? The movie is about the touring years, not just the Hollywood Bowl. It uses the same picture.

I'm not complaining though. I'm happy to have the new tracks, great album cover or not.

Unknown said...

I think they wouldn't have released this without the movie coming out so I think they're looking at it as a tie-in with the movie. Like if you buy the dvd and the cd it's like a set that goes together.

Debjorgo said...

Just checked the ranking on amazon.com. No. 2 in Music, No. 2 in Pop, No. 2 in Rock.

Somebody knows what they are doing.

RHWinter said...

"Blue Meanie said...
I'd like to get a 50 anniversary edition of Revolver,
as The Who done it with Quadrophenia and other albums.
Another lost opportunity IMHO. Very sad."

Yes, it seems that "The Beatles" is much more a brand than "The Who" and other bands who accept their finitness and do their history properly. "The Beatles" (-estate) however to me seem to strive for eternal presence, youth and ""the commerce".
(Don't take these words to serious, you probably understand.. Probably all I wanted to say is, "I'd like to get a 50 anniversary edition of Revolver"!)

RHWinter said...

oops, half of my comment self-deleted, which makes it Sound quite senseless- alas!

Debjorgo said...

They could have did a 50th anniversary release for every album. That would have been alright with me.

James Percival said...

My copy arrived at 10.00 this morning (UK) via HMV. First impressions, still a lot of screaming, thundering bass and drums but the performances sound great (and sonically probably a big improvement on the old vinyl version). At some point tomorrow I will do a comparison.
Great to have You can't do that (one of my favourites from 64).