According to this web page I found, despite breaking up in 1969/1970, Beatles albums continued to be released fairly regularly in the years since. I've already reviewed two of them, Live at the BBC and Anthology 1. Any new Beatles album has a good chance of reaching the top ten of the charts. Indeed I'll review Anthology 3 in November of this year, and if I'm still doing this in four years, 1 in December of 2030.

This review of Anthology 2 (sitting at #1 on the charts) is basically the same as my earlier ones. This is an album of outtakes, rarities, and live performances that clocks in at over two hours. This is not the way to be introduced to the Beatles. But if you're already familiar with their body of work (and if you're not, how? why? what? where? who? how?), an occasional listen to this is a good idea.

The most remarkable thing about this week's #1 album is that it featured the first new Beatles song in 25 years, Free as a Bird. The rest of the album are outtakes, live versions, and short spoken interview quotes by people in and associated with the band.

Like the last Beatles album I reviewed this is not for casual listening and clocks in at over two hours long. You would not want this to be your introduction to The Beatles. In fact, I would urge anyone to listen to the entirety of their catalog before listening to any of the Anthology albums. It's important to have the context of what these songs ultimately sounded like when The Beatles perfected them.

This is not an album that needs to be listened to often and repeatedly. There's a reason why The Beatles worked as hard as they did to perfect their songs, and the polished versions are the what you'll want to hear again and again. In the end, because it's the freakin' Beatles, it is worth checking out when you're in the right mood and have the time.

The top-selling un-reviewed album this week is not Live at the BBC by The Beatles, it's The Hits by Garth Brooks. The reason I am not reviewing Garth Brooks is that he has chosen to prevent his entire catalog from being on any music streaming service except Amazon Music, and I don't have access to Amazon Music.

According to that article linked above, his stance seems mostly reasonable: most/all streaming services probably underpay artists for the music they serve to customers. The whole world of music for $15-20 a month is an incredible deal and as a consumer it's amazing. What's not reasonable is his choice of Amazon. Amazon is a notoriously bad company to work for as an employee (every word is a link to a different article about unsavory Amazon business practices). The article says that Brooks chose Amazon because they're also a retailer. I guess that as long as a consumer can choose to buy a physical album from a retailer it's okay if the same retailer streams his music? But that physical album would be shipped by underpaid, overworked, and exploited employees largely for the benefit of one of the richest people on earth. Are underpaid warehouse and delivery drivers better than underpaid artists? Brooks' choice of Amazon seems to ignore all the bad things about Amazon and suggests that it really is only about money: the money Amazon gives to Brooks.

My household used to pay for Amazon Prime, but we cancelled it and don't miss it. I admit to occasionally still buying things from Amazon, but only when I absolutely cannot find it anywhere else. I try to buy things online from specific retailers: bicycle stuff from bicycle retailers, electronics from electronics retailers, etc. I do see my own hypocrisy: I listen to music at very low cost (that pays low royalties) but also am trying to not support very low cost shopping (that pays low wages). I think the bottom line is I have basically zero market power; my choices are imperceptible to these affected groups. I don't matter. However, a big star like Garth Brooks has power, and he's chosen to use his power in what appears to be a mostly self-serving way with morals at least as flexible as mine.

I could pirate the album, but I don't care enough about Garth Brooks to do that. It's not available at my local library, either. Instead I'll drop down to #7 and listen to some Beatles, an outcome I don't dislike.

This album is mostly covers performed by the Beatles for various BBC radio programs. On the one hand, I generally disfavor covers unless they do something the original didn't. In this case, what's been added is that these covers are performed by the freakin' Beatles. The Beatles got their start (including going back to The Quarrymen days) playing covers in clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg, Germany. By the time of these BBC recordings they were surely more polished than those early days, but I'd like to think that these songs have some of the quality and energy of the Beatles before they got world famous.

You should definitely check out this album. The only asterisk is that it's over two hours long with 56 songs and a few spoken tracks. Perhaps take smaller bites of the album with breaks so you may listen without becoming overwhelmed.