OSSTF Bill 115 Legal Challenge?

 My Teacher + Union Acronym Guide is Here!

The following March 19 2014 letter explains why OSSTF has agreed to the government Attorney General's request that the June 2014 Bill 115 court hearing be adjourned. We earlier examined ETFO's member letter on their decision to also agree, with an open forum teacher free speech discussion on the pros and cons of the issues at stake Here!

The OSSTF letter emphasizes that the hearing will possibly re adjourn sometime in April 2015, about a year from now. The actual date is unknown, but it certainly doesn't seem like it will be any earlier then that. The union is prepared to step back upon advice of their lawyers to let other similar cases take precedence. There is also a referral to UNIFOR now wishing to intervene in the case.

The Bill 115 Constitutional Court Challenge was evoked by the OSSTF, ETFO, CUPE + OPSEU teacher and educational worker unions to frame their contract dispute with the Ontario Ministry of Education [MOE] during the tumultuous course of their 2013 to 2014 contract negotiations. In both the member and public eye, these were portrayed as a struggle for democratic rights rather than as just a self serving fight against the Bill 115 anti strike legislation. Under government pressure the public service sector unions then later agreed to accept controversial contract concessions or the "stripping" of key contract terms effecting their salary and benefit gains over the years through the collective bargaining process. The resulting contracts will expire on August 31 of this year. 

OSSTF like the ETFO members ratified their contract Memo's of Understanding [MOU's] last spring. CUPE and OPSEU had done so earlier. However it was not without a fair bit of dissatisfaction as was often expressed by the all affiliate reader comments on this site. Further exacerbating the situation was the OECTA Catholic teacher union's earlier contract agreement which became known as the MOU "roadmap". It was unilaterally ratified by the provincial executive without a member vote. OECTA then also decided not to get involved in the Bill 115 charter challenge. A lot of all affiliate member angst and feelings of discord and betrayal were expressed here on both counts. 

The following missive is included for your further teacher free speech "open forum" erudition, comment and discussion purposes as well educated, thinking union members. It was written as follows:

Two weeks ago, the judge assigned to the OSSTF/FEESO Bill 115 Charter challenge, Justice Himmel, held a meeting or case management conference of all the lawyers representing the unions (OSSTF, ETFO, CUPE, OPSEU) involved in the case and the Attorney General lawyers representing the government. Last week, Justice Himmel issued a decision on the basis of the meeting.

During the case management conference, the Attorney-General requested an adjournment (postponement) of the June 2014 hearing dates set aside by the Ontario Court to hear the Bill 115 Charter challenge. The Attorney General's postponement request stemmed from two issues:

1. Three cases similar in nature to OSSTF/FEESO’s Bill 115 case are currently being argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General presented the argument that the law is currently changing on the meaning of the protections for collective bargaining and strike action under s. 2(d) of the Charter. The current cases before the Supreme Court will shape and form the law and will be very instructive to the Judge hearing OSSTF/FEESO’s Bill 115 challenge. They argued that on a practical basis, the Court dates in June 2014 will be wasted because all parties will have to return following the Supreme Court's decision to address the updated law;

2. Another union wishes to intervene in the Bill 115 Challenge. UNIFOR believes that it has a direct interest in the Charter Challenge because some of its members were affected by Bill 115. It has requested to join the proceeding and file materials, and wants some time to be able to do so.

We sought legal advice on the request to postpone the Bill 115 Charter Challenge. While not pleased with a postponement, the Provincial Executive accepted the advice recognizing that the Justice Himmel was likely to grant it because it made sense from a legal perspective. Justice Himmel granted the adjournment thus cancelling the hearing date initially scheduled for June 2014. While we were advised by Justice Himmel last week that the matter would be adjourned until March 2015, the actual date was contested due to the unavailability of some of the parties. As a result, we are still waiting for confirmation of the actual hearing date. We anticipate that it will
likely take place sometime during April 2015. Once the final date is confirmed, we will advise you.

Legal Advice

Legal Counsel was of the view that the postponement request would be granted by the Court. Counsel advised us that the postponement made sense because they are also awaiting the Supreme Court's decisions in the other cases. They wish to prepare their materials based on the legal framework established by the Supreme Court with respect to s. 2(d) and the law is not clear right now. All of the other union lawyers came to the same conclusion.

We do not know when the Supreme Court of Canada will release its ruling on the cases raising the s. 2(d) issues. These rulings sometimes take up to eight or nine months depending on the complexity of the issues. These cases are complex because they are defining under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms what protections unions and their members have to participate in free and fair collective bargaining and strike action without intrusive and oppressive government intervention.  Bringing a Charter case before the court is a challenging undertaking. OSSTF/ FEESO, in working with its other union partners, is committed to bringing the strongest case forward possible. While this delay is disappointing, we believe it will better assist us in defending the rights of our members.

[ OSSTF General Secretary Pierre Côté ]

COMMENTS: 

A Visit to Queens Park!

My Teacher + Union Acronym Guide is Here!

Yesterday was cold, wet and gray. It was also the last day of winter. Very fitting. A slight warming snap has resulted in patches of hard black ice among the big puddles at the corner of College St. and University Avenue. The trees, brushes, sidewalks and roadways to Toronto's Queens Park [QP] legislature are gritty with the winter debris. 

I caught a ride downtown with Janet on her way to work to visit the legislature for the first visit since I retired from teaching and my union executive last July. Arriving early I grabbed a coffee at the crowded Tim Horton's on the corner, and checked my email, with an eye on the clock. I headed over to the legislature for Question Period at 10:30, and the Bill 122 Standing Committee at 12 noon, both resuming this week after March Break.

My purpose was pretty straight forward. I like to check things out for myself in person to catch the flavour of the moment. Helps me put what I hear and read in a more accurate perspective. I think so. Not scientific, I know, but I will be back later, to get a better sense over time. Anyway this is what I saw and heard. 

I got an invite so I could sit on the floor in the members gallery, rather than up in the rafters on the nose bleed observation deck, so to speak. It was packed with visitors, mostly from community housing and the banking co-ops. I was squeezed into the opposition side, which as always was an unusual, rather awkward mix of staid Tory supporters and NDP activists. Folks look uneasily at each other out of the corner of the eye not quite sure what to say. 

We were introduced to the house, as is the custom, at the beginning of question period, myself as a retired teacher. I was surprised Premier Wynne still recognized me. There was some polite applause, as for the other guests, mine from the OLP and NDP seats. A single clap, once, from a PC member. Ha. 

Hudak began with a fierce if not rather incredulous denunciation of the Liberals lack of a spring budget, while he touted his "million jobs promise", which he asked the premier to adopt. Much guffaws and laughs ensued from both the OLP and NDP benches with one Dipper [NDP'er] calling it the "Austin Powers Plan" which amused half the members gallery to no end, the others not. A guard walked over to tell us that no clapping is allowed. He would return later to wake up the older women sitting beside me and remind her that no snoozing is permitted either, after she had dozed off for a bit, a rather embarrassing + unnecessary gesture I should think. 

She could well be excused for falling asleep simply due to the lack of any real discussion or debate on the floor. NDP Party leader Andrea Horwath was drilling the Liberals on Go Transit. Necessary no doubt for commuters but low key enough that she, like Tim, was soon off and about traversing the floor, heading in and out of the assembly. Both separately visited the members gallery to introduce and greet everybody to surprisingly polite indifference. The dark bags under Timbo's eyes as they darted fugitively around at us were particularly noticable. Basically it seemed like the floor and the galleries were still shaking off the March break political slumber as the house slowly turned its mind again to the business ahead.

The level of discussion and debate was regrettably base and mundane, more so just catcalling and much insults, a loud cacophony such that I usually had to lean forward to hear. The Speaker frequently stood to quiet everybody down with a stern rather toothless reprimand to pay attention or else, sort of like being in school these days. The MPP's would fall silent for a moment until he sat back down, then carry on business or the lack thereof as usual. A real mad chatter's tea party. It is too bad this is what now passes for the business of government in Ontario: blandishments, toadying, posturing, shallow + rather dubious outrage, the rubber stamping of decisions that have all ready obviously been formulated or are being formulated elsewhere with everybody just following the script. Think of our teacher union AGM's as of late and you will get the picture. 

As the legislature recessed for lunch I made my way down to Room 1 on the main floor, west wing to observe the Standing Committee on Bill 122, the School Board Collective Bargaining Act, 2014. I took my time to check out the paintings, artwork, displays and archaic architecture inside our Ontario legislature building. I was told by a security guard that I couldn't listen in on a news scrum because I didn't have a media badge. Also that I couldn't dawdle and look around unless I was on a tour. I was polite but just carried on my merry way. Let's face it, I'm an ornery old white haired retired school teacher, for all intent purposes of little possible threat to law and order here in the seat of government, among the sea of suits and figures of great import strutting about like they got a pickle up their butt. Absurd!

It is regrettable that the Ontario legislature has become so uptight and anal. I can recall it getting like this during the Harris Years, but being much more relaxed over the past ten years or so. After all, it is our citizens assembly. I suppose security is paramount, but one has to wonder, who is this show all for? Maybe not just the average constituents anymore? 

I saw Andrea Horwath standing in the second floor upper foyer with one of her aids, so ambled over to greet her. She was polite, much more unassuming than most of the others I took time to talk to. She noted that the NDP are working on some amendments to Bill 122 and realized how important this was to teachers. I wished her luck if there's a spring election though I kind of hope there isn't one, more on this later.

I sat among the media seats in the committee room. Half of the members were present, the rest conspicuous by their absence. I saw a fair number of labour union types and reporters listening in taking copious notes. Some I recognized, others not but one usually pretty much always runs into the same crowd at these sort of affairs, be it at the Ontario Labour Relation Board, QP or so on. 

The Conservative member rambled on about how disappointed he was that so little time was being spent reviewing Bill 122 clause by clause. By golly now, March break is over and they've hardly got started. He was adamant that the Bill had to be amended to make sure extracurriculars were included in the Bill, so that they wouldn't be interrupted again by teacher "collective bargaining". He then stuffed his face with a sandwich while his Tory partner carried on the lament and wanted to know if the OLRB hearings on teacher extracurriculars had been examined. [ETFO at he OLRB? See Related Readings below] When the chair decided to call a vote on the clause he requested a committee break, 40 minutes into the first meeting in a couple of weeks. As the committee dispersed into the corridors I approached the NDP's Peter Tabun to ask if he would be speaking today. He was affable, confirmed that he had a few amendments he wanted to make. Didn't know when. The committee was supposed to have met during March break. He claimed he came each day, but since the Conservative members were absent, the committee couldn't proceed. So much for their outrage. 

Well my colleagues, I figured I'd had enough for one day. Headed upstairs to the offices to get my coat and bag, say good bye, then headed downtown for lunch, some window shopping and to meet Janet after work, my day's business done. 

Take from my report what you will, I think it is safe to say QP is off to a slow, languid start for the spring session with little if any strong hint of anything much in the air as of yet.

Here's some of my thoughts on a possible spring election, the big issue if there are any at present clearly hanging in the musty QP air. If today was any indicator, and I would be rather wary after just one visit, the house seemed very lethargic. It's just going through the motions awaiting the Liberal spring budget. As we know it will then basically be up to the NDP to roll the dice by supporting it or not. I would suppose they will ask for a number of concessions, which Premier Wynne would be well advised to heed. Here's how I see it:

Check my Teacher News + Views blogs from January through March of this year, even further back. The polling has suggested that none of the parties is headed for a clear majority. I don't think I'd like to see anyone win one either. This is my prejudice, but over the years no "winner take all" provincial government be it OLP, NDP or PC has served us well. 

We have suffered from OLP MOU's and Bill 115, the misnamed PC "Common Sense Revoluton", and even the NDP Social Contract and Rae Days.  In a majority government situation there are few checks and balances to restrain the worst excesses of any powers that be. 

Minority coalition governments are NOT uncommon in a parliamentary democracy, and perhaps even better serve to make sure they remain just that; democratic and accountable to all of the body politic. But an election right now? On balance: The OLP badly need a party housecleaning. The NDP might even lose some seats by the latest counts despite Horwath's admirable efforts. Hudak is just a plain evil and mean spirited man. Should he even form a minority government, the most likely scenario right now it would seem, he takes over the QP agenda and we are headed for a very rough ride ahead indeed.

I've inquired a fair bit, and although nobody will publicly say so, the OLP and the NDP would form a coalition government to deny him this possibility. I liked the OLP NDP coalition government in the late 1980's. It had a sense of checks and balances, and brought out the best in both parties. The NDP now needs to consolidate its gains and demonstrate its potential to govern. Wynne could well use an opportunity to shake up the party, lose the right leaning deadbeats and any others with a sense of entitlement, to firmly take the reins in her own rite. Would Hudak survive another defeat? I think not. Still, a coalition government denying the PC's a minority win could provide a lot of fodder for the mean machine and not turn out to be a very popular move indeed.

Of course, in the roll of the election dice any outcome is possible, even an upset. Quite frankly I don't see any of the parties well prepared for an unexpected majority win except for Hudak's PC loyalists, and we know what that means. Better the three parties work with what they now have at Queens Park, nay work to make it work, until the current term of government runs its course. Then lets see what they can do. Anything else right now would be a reckless political gamble during such a period of political, and economic uncertainty. Better to hold off on a spring election. If by next year we still face a minority coalition government, then so be it. We shouldn't expect a majority government scenario to be in our best interests as teachers, or as just plain citizenry anyway. 

I'll probably return to QP before long to take another reading as the political climate, and indeed the weather heats up in the spring daze ahead. Hope this is of some help.

RELATED READS:

A Teacher's Study Guide to Bill 122 is @ This link!

ETFO's OLRB Extracurricular hearing is @ Here and Here and Here and Here and There!

COMMENTS

ETFO Letter: Bill 115 Charter Challenge Adjournment

ETFO members are receiving the following letter. It advises them of a disappointing adjournment of the Ontario court's June meeting to hear the ETFO legal challenge, pending receipt of some forthcoming legal decisions as described below. It looks like it will result in at least a few months delay, if not more, for the union's Canadian Charter of Rights + Freedom's challenge.

Our local teacher + union readers will be familiar with Bill 115 from August 2012. The Ontario Liberal government called an emergency legislature seating during the summer holidays to quickly pass the bill into law. It gave the government far ranging powers to over ride Ontario Labour law, in regards to the Collective Bargaining Act. It is hoped the challenge will prevent such draconian acts being exercised again. Here's the letter: 

Last week, the judge assigned to the ETFO Bill 115 Charter challenge, Justice Himmel, held a meeting of all the lawyers representing the unions involved in the case, and the Attorney General lawyers representing the government.

During that meeting which is called a case management conference, the Attorney-General requested an adjournment (postponement) of the June hearing dates set aside by the Ontario Court to hear the Bill 115 Charter challenge. The Attorney General's postponement request stemmed from two issues:

1.       Three cases similar in nature to ETFO's Bill 115 case are currently being argued before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General presented the argument that the law is currently changing on the meaning of the protections for collective bargaining and strike action under s. 2(d) of the Charter. The cases that are before the Supreme Court now will shape and form the law and will be very instructive to the Judge hearing ETFO's Bill 115 challenge. On a practical basis, the Court dates in June will be wasted because all parties will have to return following the Supreme Court's decision to address the updated law;

 2.  Another union wishes to intervene in the Bill 115 Challenge. UNIFOR believes that it has a direct interest in the Charter Challenge because some of its members were affected by Bill 115.   It has requested to join the proceeding and file materials, and wants some time to be able to do so.

We sought legal advice on the request to postpone the Bill 115 Charter Challenge. Our provincial Executive Committee unanimously supported the advice of Counsel. ETFO did not agree with this postponement but accepted the ruling of the Court.

Legal Advice

Counsel Howard Goldblatt and Ethan Postkanzer were of the view that the postponement request would be granted by the Court. Counsel advised us that the postponement made sense because they are also awaiting the Supreme Court's decisions in the other cases. They wish to prepare their materials based on the legal framework established by the  Supreme Court with respect to s. 2(d) and the law is not clear right now. All of the other union lawyers came to the same conclusion.

If the case were to proceed as planned in June, legal counsel would need to revise all of their materials prepared on ETFO's behalf to take into account any decision released by the Supreme Court. Their legal argument, planned to take place over five days in court in June, would be wasted as the law is uncertain.

We do not know when the Supreme Court of Canada will release its ruling on the cases raising the s. 2(d) issues. These rulings sometimes take up to eight or nine months depending on the complexity of the issues. These cases are complex as they are defining under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms what protections unions and their members have to participate in free and fair collective bargaining and strike action without intrusive and oppressive government intervention.

Bringing a Charter case before the court is a challenging undertaking. ETFO is committed to bringing the strongest case forward that we can. While this delay is disappointing, we believe it will better assist us in defending the rights of our members.

Note: Highlights mine solely for ease of reading.

COMMENTS: 

      The Bill 115 Constitutional case was a key element to help frame ETFO + OSSTF's "democratic fight" for "all workers rights" during the MOU crisis. Now, it sounds like there could easily be a delay of up to a year by the time the other cases are ruled upon + the lawyers reformulate their response. 

      Teachers are becoming more and more dependent upon the advice of lawyers, on complicated legal matters with great implications for our teaching and union life. It seems we need to take their word about what to do. I'm not comfortable with that when I consider the issues at OECTA over other legal matters regularly discussed in this teacher free speech forum. But what, if anything can we do?

      How can most of us even question the lawyers advice with any certainty? Ultimately it seems you will need to trust you provincial executives. Hmmmm. Maybe you feel confident in that. Maybe not. Regardless, it seems there is little we can do while the chasm between everyday teachers and the experts on high continues to grow.     

      Implications? Watch: It will be interesting to see who gets their ass in a knot about us even discussing this here. That's not good for democracy and free speech nor one's self efficacy in the teacher unions as far as I'm concerned! It is however frequently becoming the case throughout the teacher union movement! Some folks get mighty uncomfortable whenever we freely discuss these issues among ourselves!

     The Bill 115 Constitutional challenge will be a precedent setting case one way or another for all unions across Canada should it get to the supreme court + succeed. One hopes the provincial governments will be more hesitant to over ride our labour rights with such a cavalier attitude as they did in Ontario during 2012-13 while ostensibly forcing the MOU concessions upon us by hook and by crook. 

     There were some original estimates then that the case could easily take up to 5 years. That much now seems entirely possible, I'd even bet certain. In the meantime we are vulnerable to further attacks. One also wonders if many rank and file teachers will even recall or care much about Bill 115 and the MOU in another year or two? Time is definitely not on our side and therein lies the danger! I suppose you can cross your fingers and hope your trust is well placed dear readers. However, in my humble opinion, the times they are a changing and most unfortunately not for the best!

COMMENTS:

Music Review: 2014 Capitol US Beatle's Album Box Set!

[Sorry folks! This has taken far too long to publish but perhaps benefits from some better now available on line info links. There might be a few final revisions/ corrections, and of course I will add lots of art work int he days ahead.]

This article from Variety magazine, an American entertainment industry magazine provides a good starting point for understanding the true significance of the new CD Capitol US Beatle Album box set. As it explains, the Universal Group Music [UMG] company bought the Beatle catalogue in 2012 for $1.9 billion. They have a marketing plan for developing a new generation of Beatle fans for well into the 21st Century.

2 new albums were released in late 2013; the second Beatles at the BBC cd + a special ITunes Beatles Bootleg download. They will be releasing the mono EMI Parlophone albums on vinyl later this year. Many other Beatle releases will follow in the years ahead.

The new Beatles US Albums box set has been specifically released as the grand centrepiece, or main kick off for their sales campaign, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Beatlemania in the United States. You can learn more about UMG's marketing strategy @ Variety Article

The box set is UMG's kick off for its 21st Century Beatles marketing plan.

The new Beatles Capitol US Album box set includes the first 11 Capitol USA albums from 1964-1966 in both mono and stereo. The CD discs are packaged in a drawer box. Each CD cover has been accurately replicated as a mini-lp or album. There is a new sound mix on the albums. 5 new previously unreleased Capitol US titles are included, on CD, for the first time; Hard Days Night [Soundtrack], The Beatles Story, Yesterday + Today, Revolver and Hey Jude. There's a 64 page booklet too. I'll spare you all the details. You can see the new box set for yourself @ Promo

The Beatles company, Apple Corp, is also of course involved in the UMG plans. Here is the ad on the Beatle's official website for the new box set. It has some nifty interactive features that can help you live/ relive the heady early days of Beatlemania during their first February 1964 US visit. That includes the Beatles famous Feb 6 1964 television appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. You can also see the 50th Anniversary trailer video for the new box set here too @ Beatles Website

This Popmarket.com advertisement let's you enlarge and see the original album cover artwork for each of the 11 Capitol USA albums. Canadian buyers are kindly warned to be careful purchasing the box set from this US based marketing site. With shipping, taxes and duties it will cost you substantially more than the advertised price. The list price in Canada, for example on Amazon.ca, is actually less than in the US. Free shipping is included. Most Canadian music and entertainment stores now also have it on sale too. I even saw it at Cost.co the other day for $129. It is a pretty cool looking set. You can check out the new mini lp album covers here for free @ Cover Art Work

Free downloads of the new albums are also widely available online at many torrent sites. These are illegal. They rob the company of profits from selling you the same Beatles music over and over again since 1964 in different media formats [vinyl, tape, cds, Itune files etc.] thereby driving the value of the catalogue up to and now beyond it's $1.9 billion value. I'm told that only bad people would download these albums for free! We are not bad people. Nope.

However, if you would like to see how these terrible crooks [the bad people I mean, not the "Capitol"-ist company] pull off their scams, you can search for torrent sites like this one online. Please note that they are forced to change web addresses + titles a lot so they don't get caught. The address might have even changed by the time you might go here. If you were to that is. Whew! We can only hang our heads and bemoan the duplicity. How can you tell I'm a retired teacher eh? Oh well. One site is or was @ For bad people only!

The original EMI Parlophone Beatles catalogue consisted of 13 albums but many more combinations and later releases were also made in many countries around the world.

You should note that not all Beatle albums are created equal. Between 1963 and 1970 the Beatles original UK EMI Parlophone record label had released 13 albums by the group. These were first released on CD in the late 1980's. There were many criticisms of these CD transfers of the albums over the years, which was addressed when EMI remastered and rereleased the Beatles original UK album catalogue on CD again in 2009. They were made commercially available in 2 box sets, one stereo and another in mono. The individual stereo albums were also later released on vinyl too

A problem remained: for nostalgic reasons many North American Beatle fans missed and wanted copies of the Beatles Capitol USA albums that had been released here between 1964 and 1970. Different album titles, track listings and sound mixes of the original Beatles catalogue had been created for the teenage market in the US and Canada during the 1960's. By adding various singles, and EP tracks onto shorter albums, Capitol US managed to release 20 Beatle records for the North American market, compared to EMI Parlophone's 13. These were the Beatle albums most early North American fans grew up with and remembered best.

When the Beatles albums were first released on CD during the late 1980's the catalogue had been standardized so that only the original EMI Parlophone albums were available for sale. To meet the market demand, and stop the growing number of counterfeit unofficial pirate copies of the now deleted Capitol US albums, EMI had also released two 4 cd box sets of these albums in 2004 and 2008.

2004 Capitol Albums Box Set #1

So then, the modern Beatles fan might well now face a perplexing dilemma. Do you buy the new Capitol US box set or not? Indeed, most all of the song tracks on the 2009 mono and stereo box set tracks and individual CDs are in fact the same, except for the different configurations. A slight echo effect has been added to many of the Capitol US tracks so they somewhat resemble, although are not the same as the sound mixes created for the original Capitol US albums. However a few alternate mixes of some of the 2009 songs have also been included, for about 31 of the 180 songs in the new box set.  For a comparison see @ Differences?

EMI/ Parlophone 2009 Stereo Remaster Box Set

Here is a critical review of the new box set which helps explain the new sound mixes you will hear on the new Capitol US box set albums. It explains how Capitol US A+R [Artist + Recording] manager Dave Dexter Jr remixed the songs creating new mono, stereo and even duophonic versions for the US teenage market. Also note that the titles of and song tracks on each US album are usually not the same as those for the original albums produced by George Martin with the Beatles in the UK. You can find out more @ From the 2009 Remasters!

Music technician Steve Hoffman's website features track by track information on the song sources used, explaining which are unique, and which are in true mono + stereo @ Capitol Comparisons

Happy Nat's Beatle Rarities site provides an album by album box set comparison too @ More

A list of the Beatle songs Dave "Dexterized" in the 1960's can be found @ Dexterized

US Capitol Record's Dave "Dexterization" Dexter

Guitar Aficionado compares the differences between the original UK mixes produced by George Martin, the Beatles official producer, with those of Capitol Record's Dave Dexter @  Dexterization 2 

The Revolver Needledrop site features 15 second clips so you can hear the differences @ Audio Comparison 

For today's purposes let's also look at another review. It stresses that the new Capitol US album boxset can be seen as representing a bittersweet compromise. It attempts to touch up and fix or "airbrush" over the past indignities done to the Beatles original EMI/Parlophone UK recordings when US "producer" Dave Dexter first touched up and changed the original Beatle master recordings to create the US albums during the 1960's. In the writers estimation the new box set is but a continuation of this original dishonourable Capitol USA tradition @ Fix It Job

Dave's mono + hot fake stereo US Beatle mixes were very popular with young fans in the 60's, especially the 45 rpm singles!

As an aside, Dave Dexter rejected the Beatles 3 times before he agreed to sign them to the label. He didn't like John Lennons harmonica on the early songs and thought the bigger British group would be Freddie + the Dreamers with their UK hit dance hit "Do The Freddie" @ Do the Freddie?!

Let's hear from Dave himself on why he didn't like the Beatles. Please note there are songs between his comments and that Dave was an orchestral jazz fan himself @ Dave ruminates

The long banned Capitol US "Yesterday + Today" album cover art lampooned the "chop jobs" Dave Dexter performed on many of the Beatle albums to create more records, a source of consternation for John Lennon in particular, which Dave did not forget!.

When Lennon was killed Dave Dexter wrote a nasty, vitriolic letter about him. He was still mad in 1980 that Lennon didn't like how he "dexterized" their records @ Mad Dave 

He was still mad because he didn't like Ringos drumming either @ Ringo

In this forum Steve Hoffman defends Daves mixes @ In Daves Defence

By the late 1960's stereo albums started to become more popular and fans + collectors wanted the "best sound" possible.

Final Note: In 2009 a limited edition MP3 Collection of the Bealtes EMI Parlophone catalogue was released in a green metal Apple with the albums, artwork + videos on a USB stick. Perhaps this will be the wave of the future, as most music in sold as music downloads nowadays. More @ Amazon

Enough you say? Okay then: So do you buy the set or not? My recommendation? 

You have four CD box set choices you could make. Here are some quickie advantages and disadvantages of each:

1987 Capitol CDs [Standardized UK EMI versions]: Cheap and easy to find [$10 or less] in the used stores. They do not include the US album arrangements. The sound mixes are only available in mono or stereo. Aficionados often argue the cd transfers are fairly primitive by today's standards and the early titles were often poorly done. On the other hand, they were fine for most listeners for the the better part of the last 25 years or so.

2004 +2006 Capitol box sets: These only include the first 8 US Capitol albums through 1965. Each disc contains both the mono and stereo versions of the albums. The original US mixes were used when still available, but some had to be recreated when the original master tapes were not available. Each disc comes in a mini lp sleeve copy of the original record jacket. However, they are very small. Its hard to remove and return the discs into the jackets when they are played, resulting in scratches and scuffs. These box sets are harder to find but once again are not uncommon in the used music stores for relatively cheap [$25 to $30]. A Japanese set has also been released in larger jackets which avoids the problem of scuffing and scratching while being easier to look at and read. Many aficionados argue that the quality of most Japanese discs are vastly superior to their counterparts from elsewhere around the world because of the high standards of quality control, in the sound mastering and manufacturing process. You can buy them on line at Ebay but are very pricey [$250 per box set + up].

The 20017 CD Mono Box Set came closest to faithfully producing the original UK EMI Parlophone record albums, most of which were recorded in mono.

2009 Mono + Stereo albums: These are pretty much the same as the US Capitol song masters, though not on the same album titles. They include all the Beatle records up to and including the White Album, Yellow Submarine, Let It Be and Abbey Road. The mono mixes are quite unique and many would argue superior mixes based upon the technology during the 1960's when they were recorded. The box sets can often be found on sale now, [$125-200 each] but beware of cheap counterfeits. The individual cds are often readily available on sale in many of the big music stores nowadays for cheaper [$10-12] than the US Capitol album discs [$16-18]

The New Capitol US boxset: It is available for relatively cheap. I saw them at Costco recently for $129. The larger mini sleeves are tres cool, and the pretty fancy box itself is manufactured in Japan according to their superior standards. The box set includes the unavailable album titles described above. The Hard Days Night Soundtrack, Yesterday + Today and the Hey Jude albums, although not authentic UK EMI Beatle releases were pretty cool anyways and nice to have again. A lot of fans are also partial to the chop and cut Beatles Second Album, despite the desecration, because it is one very rocking disc. Again, if you grew up with these titles they will have nostalgic value too. However, the song tracks are pretty much the same as those on the 2009 sets with some minor or fake reconstructions of the different song variations. Also note the set only includes the Beatle albums up until 1966. The unique US Sargent Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour albums mixes are inexplicably not included, and of course you won't get a copy of the White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Rd or Let It Be albums. You will need to buy these separately.

Abbey Road was the first Beatles album to be only released in stereo.

My choice: As a hardcore Beatle aficionado I need to have all of the above and enjoy each in their own way. For anybody seeking a complete set at a reasonable price I'd recommend the 2009 boxes, or just buy the CD albums from these sets that you like separately for cheap. Also pick up the individual special Capitol US titles I've listed above and you will have a nice collection.

My favourites though, would definitely be the Doctor Ebbett's needle drop recordings of the complete Beatle catalogue [US, US, Canada, Mexico, Germany, etc. etc. etc.]. Since these are not official, nor are they being made anymore nor readily available you might as well not bother with these, unless you are a really really hardcore Beatle fan. A "needle drop" is an exact copy of the original album tracks with the variations and all from the original vinyl sources. Perhaps I will write more about these in a future article though or you can Google them on line.

The Beatles USB stick: the wave of the future?


COMMENTS?