You what?

According to Louis Barfe,

"The Beatles back catalogue on EMI currently represents appalling value for money - each full-price CD contains one LP where two would fit."

Which is a never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-width argument, if ever I heard one.

While I think it's tremendous fun that 50+ year old recordings are going out of copyright, I think it's utterly ridiculous to criticise CDs for not being long enough. It's almost torture to listen to Shania Twain's "Up," for example. Not because it's actually bad, it's okay, really, but it goes on for-ever.

The beauty of the Beatles' early stuff is that the records had 14 tracks and yet still only lasted just over the half hour. Fantastic, I say. I've said it before: any record over 40 minutes is overstaying its welcome.

I acknowledge that EMI has been milking the cash cow of the Beatles for long enough, but I'm happier to see a premium charged for Beatles music rather than the price-trashing that goes on over at Sony/Columbia with their crown jewels (e.g. Bob Dylan back catalogue, £4.99, or free if you buy a bag of jelly beans).