Capitol (American) vs. British (Parlophone)

[Derek]

First off, i vote PARLOPHONE all the way. The American market butchered up the early albums merly for "capitol" (pun intended) gain. (hinch the name) The U.K. knew how distribute records. Even before the Beatles, they did a better job. Don't want to get away from the Beatles, but let me use Elvis for example. Remember "50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong: Gold Records "Volume 2"? While, in the
U.S., Volume one had 14 songs, but Volume 2 had only 10...but the U.K. version...BOTH albums had 14 songs. U.K. always did it right, even with our American music. It didn't take until the 70's or 80s for the U.S. to finaly dislodge their heads out of thier ass to get it right.
Living in Mexico, i'm wondering about other countries, did they do it the right way or the "American" way? I was looking at Mexican version of old Beatles records, and it looks like they did it the "American" way. (Although, i did see a listing for "Beatles For Sale", a title that was only in the U.K., so now i'm wondering.) Is there a website where it shows all the countries Beatles' albums and how they distributed thier music? In my opinion, if they didn't do it the U.K. way, it's wrong.

[mervap]

Here's a link that might help:

http://www.aboutthebeatles.com/discography_lp.php

[2 of 3]

Funny enough...us Canadians got 3 albums nobody else did..well...the UK did..we just go them with different titles and in the wrong order..and in Mono..and...dang..I am so confused now.