Beatles MONO

[wes]

I just recieved news from Red Trumpet that EMI will be releasing some beatles. Mono Please Please Me and Hard Days Night on vinyl. The other releases like help and Rubber soul will not (DAMN!) It'll be interesting to see if these are any good. I'm not going to hold my breath though. :o
-Wes

[Matt]

Probably using the German solid-state consoles at EMI, even though they were recorded with tubes (though Martin, oddly enough, remembers it being on the solid-state consoles). Doubtful how much better it'll sound.

[Uncle Al]

Are these going to be using the same digital masters as the current CD's? If so , I wouldn't expect anything revolutionary from them - after all the current CD issues of the first 4 Beatle albums are ONLY available in mono. If they would give us something that is NOT readily available, it would be the first 4 (PPM, WTB, HHDN and BFS) in STEREO, and the rest of the catalog, up to and including the "white" album, in mono.

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Uncle Al ]

[lukpac]

Funny...the news I had heard said that the first 4 would be reissued on LP in stereo.

Now, if we could only get them issued on *CD* in stereo - using the original mixes!

[wes]

Yeah, well Mono for PPM and HDN, and everything else in stereo I believe. I'm hoping they use the original analog mixes, unequalized, etc.etc. If they don't use the original masters than I'll skip all of em..
:mad:

Till then I'll wait for consumer reports. :cool:
-Wes

[lukpac]

Well, mono for PPM and AHDN wouldn't make sense. PPM and WTB, yeah, but not AHDN.

Somebody mentioned that these are probably either old stock or new pressings from old stampers...

[wes]

Hmmm... I'll have to check with Red Trumpet again....I think Mono is the way to go w/ most Beatles albums. Especially Rubber Soul, SGt.Peps, and the white album. I guess the only album that sucked in MONO, was "Beatles For Sale".

-Wes

[lukpac]

Boy, I couldn't disagree more! Really the only mono Beatles stuff I have any interest in are tracks like Help (alt vocal tracks), and obviously, the mono-only stuff. Heck, the mono Pepper doesn't even interest me that much...

[Matt]

I know it's been discussed before, but if we really wanted to redo the Beatles catalog, could we just take the time to talk to every person that needs to be talked to, put up the gobs of money that's asked, and just do it?

It's not that they're not open to the idea, right? Or do the parties in question just not want the tapes licensed out to anybody?

[ September 14, 2001: Message edited by: Camarillo ]

[Matt]

Oh, and if I can put my two cents into the whole mono issue, I think we can all agree on the democratic approach on putting it all out, mono and stereo, just because both have their merits. But personally, if I had to choose my mono albums, I definitely have to agree with Luke about Sgt. Pepper. I almost feel bad for not preferring it; the album they spent so much time on at every stage, with the immaculate production and with the mono mix being the one they really supervised (and John's endorsed in interviews: "You haven't heard Sgt. Pepper until you've heard it in mono"), but quite frankly some of it sounds so crude compared to the stereo, particularly certain edits. The rooster to guitar edit is better on the stereo, I actually like the moment of pause before going into "Day In the Life" rather than cutting it right on the last beat...the one thing I really appreciate more on the mono is the speed of "She's Leaving Home." I wonder if the stereo version just accidentally slowed it down (if it's not too blasphemous, maybe they should correct the speed the way they do on old 78 rpm records; it's not remixing, just fixing the pitch).

Same with the title track on Help! I've got the original 45 at home, but something about the way the cymbals completely disappear right when those descending guitar notes begin on "Please, please help me...," it just sounds like a crude cut made in the mix.

I actually don't mind the mono on the first four albums, even "Beatles For Sale," because the twin-track thing does bother me (they were twin-track right? I have a feeling I may be mistaken). I love A Hard Day's Night in mono, probably because the first album I ever bought was that album in mono so it's got a special place in my collection; it's one of my favorites, period. I don't think the stereo's bad, but there are moments like the final 12-string notes of the title track that I just prefer listening to through both speakers rather than just one.

This may sound stupid, but even though the mono's sound more crude and lo-fi, there's a charm to that "bad" quality that I like. Just as there's a charm listening through that enveloping, murky atmosphere of a Phil Spector record, or hearing through that muck on "Mountain's High," that rawness to the Beatles mono records actually appeals to me. I can't imagine listening to "She Loves You" in stereo; yeah, partially because I CAN'T (nice way to maintain your archives, EMI), but I just love that punchy mono mix with the drums driving behind John and Paul's vocals.

Anyone share the same sentiments, or am I alone on this one?

[lukpac]

Quoth Camarillo Same with the title track on Help! I've got the original 45 at home, but something about the way the cymbals completely disappear right when those descending guitar notes begin on "Please, please help me...," it just sounds like a crude cut made in the mix.
Funny, that's actually something I find kind of cool about the mono mix...

I actually don't mind the mono on the first four albums, even "Beatles For Sale," because the twin-track thing does bother me (they were twin-track right? I have a feeling I may be mistaken).
Yeah, you are. The first two are twin-track, but AHDN and BFS were both 4-track recordings, and have very nice stereo balances.

I can't imagine listening to "She Loves You" in stereo; yeah, partially because I CAN'T (nice way to maintain your archives, EMI), but I just love that punchy mono mix with the drums driving behind John and Paul's vocals.
Funny...lately when I've listened to that song I realize how much I'd like to hear a stereo mix. If for no other reason than to hear more of that Abbey Road "sound" - check out that dying echo on the end of the song. I think a lot of that gets buried in the mono mix, whereas you can hear it a lot better, on say, the stereo mix of From Me To You.

[lukpac]

Quoth Camarillo It's not that they're not open to the idea, right? Or do the parties in question just not want the tapes licensed out to anybody?
Well, it's just that everything has to go through Apple, and getting that bunch of people to agree on anything is like pulling teeth. The McCartney DCC discs came out because MPL has sole control over that stuff...

[Grant]

Frankly, the only Beatles mono I am interested in anymore is The White Album.

Luke, I have Sgt Pepper in mono on CD and I consider it to be the definitive version. Have you even heard it?

[feinstein]

From what I understand, these Red Trumpet releases of the first four Beatles albums in stereo are simply stock that was leftover from the mid-1980's (pre-digital mastering) pressings of these albums. There are NO stereo remasterings of the Beatles stuff from what I understand. So, there's really nothing "revolutionary" about these albums.

Fred

[lukpac]

Quoth Grant Luke, I have Sgt Pepper in mono on CD and I consider it to be the definitive version. Have you even heard it?
Yep. I've got a dub from a pretty good sounding vinyl. It just doesn't do anything for me. I actually don't care for the added effects in Lucy, and the segues between Sgt. Pepper/With A Little Help and Good Morning/Sgt. Pepper kind of suck in the mono, IMO.

I don't especially care for the mono Revolution, either...

[Uncle Al]

There is really no one Beatle album that I prefer all the way through in mono, but there are several individual tracks that I DO like better. Truth be told - I prefer the stereo mixes of almost everything up to and including Rubber Soul. That said I prefer the mono mixes of:

We Can Work it Out
Day Tripper - No specific reason here, I just don't like the stereo mixes. I have heard alternate stereo mixes made by GM on bootlegs, and I prefer these over all the commercially available versions.

Taxman, I'm Only Sleeping, Got to get you into my Life, Tomorrow Never Knows - Taxman rocks harder, The ADT effect is reduced on Sleeping and Tomorrow making the tracks sound "tighter" to me. The horns have been punched up on Life.

Paperback Writer - mono rocks harder, stereo mix way to wide (I really don't want to be able to identify the contents each track on the multi. I feel I can here).

Pepper is such a mixed bag - leave it by saying that I generally prefer the stereo, except for enjoying the Good Morning/Reprise segue in mono (against what appears to be popular opinion). I temper that by noting my only exposure to Pepper was the mono version from 67 to 70. When i first heard the stereo, that segue seemed to be hard edited. Also Good Morning fades to early in stereo.

Mystery Tour - Prefer the stereo, except for All You Need is Love. Sorta. But don't press me - I may cave in.

Revolution - more drums, more bass. This was, after all, the Beatles doing hard rock. Stereo mix makes it sound a little softer.

The White album - again, almost all the stereo. I have a fondness for the rocking numbers in mono for the same reasons as Revolution. And, the infamous Helter Sketlter version here is such a drastically different edit I don't really consider them the same version. I have them both and enjoy them both.

[ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: Uncle Al ]

[Sckott]

The Beatles MONO mixes are very special, sometimes very different, but they're argueably definitive. Both mixes deserve listening on their own. I enjoy them both. ;)

[Matt]

Yeah, Revolver is definitely one I would like to try in mono. Haven't heard it, though. I guess the big reason would be for Eleanor Rigby. I hate stereo mix for it; it feels a bit awkward to have Paul's voice move from side to middle like that, and it sounds crudely done (might just be the tape misalignment that's doing it, though; don't have a good vinyl copy to compare). As much as Yellow Submarine Songtrack manages to suck AND blow at the same time, I actually like the idea they had behind remixing Eleanor Rigby, surrounding Paul with the strings in the arrangement they had. Tapes were running a bit off, though, and Mew squeezed the warmth and life out of it, but otherwise, a better conceived mix.

[luke j. chung]

It should be noted that the Beatles, George Martin and the Abby Road engineers spent up to three times as much studio time working on the mono mixes of all their albums up to and including the White Album. For literally every album they made before 1969, they did separate dedicated mono mixes derived from the original multitracks, beginning with A Hard Day's Night, which was the first one recorded using four-track machines and consoles. If you have read extensively the many interviews the Beatles gave over the years, they and George Martin unanimously favored the mono mixes of their pre-1969 recordings over the stereo ones. That said, however, it would be nice to be able to get high resolution digital remasters of both mixes as well as multichannel remixes from Apple and EMI of these albums on backward compatible SACD's and/or DVD-Audio reissues.
The Apple bureaucracy in London is the main stumbling block to this happening anytime in the near future. Remember, it took 5 years of behind-the-scenes wrangling between the Beatles and EMI to finally release their catalog on CD in 1987, so I wouldn't hold my
breath. As a 33-year veteran of the audio format wars, I'm fortunate to have the original UK Parlophone pressings, both mono and stereo mixes, of these albums as well as the Mobile Fidelity remasters done in the early '80s by Stan Ricker. I have a Thorens TD-160 MK 2 turntable fitted with a Shure V15 Type 4HE cartridge to listen to, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what these
recordings should sound like. ;)

[lukpac]

Quoth the *other* Luke It should be noted that the Beatles, George Martin and the Abby Road engineers spent up to three times as much studio time working on the mono mixes of all their albums up to and including the White Album.
Of course, it's not *quite* that simple. Yeah, they spent all that time on the mono mixes, but since the stereos were always done after the monos, there wasn't a need to spend all that time on them - they already had the basic idea down. I'm not saying they weren't more careful with the monos (in most cases, anyway - to me Pepper still sounds tighter in stereo), but it's not as if they didn't do any work for the stereos. All that hard work they did on the mono mixes was behind them, and as such, they didn't have to do it all over again for the stereos...

[luke j. chung]

To Luke "P": You make good points about the stereo vs. mono mixes, but it also needs to be said that the Beatles found it alot tougher because of the prevailing technology of the '60's to produce a mono mix that they were happy with. Stereo wasn't as common in the UK, especially amongst the teenagers and twentysomethings back then. Most rock albums and singles were being produced and marketed for AM radio and less sophisticated (read: CHEAP!)gear. George Martin said that UK home
playback technology was anywhere from 5 to 10
years behind that of the US back then. Just wanted to point this out.

[lukpac]

I know that mono was the main format in the UK, and it was what Martin and company mixed for primarily. I just don't want people thinking that if they spent 3x the time on the mono mix that 3x the effort went into the mono mix - a lot of that effort from the mono mix went in to the stereo mix, which was done later...

Also, as a side note, it's interesting to note that Germany pretty much went all stereo (with LP releases anyway - not sure about singles) in 1965. Whereas the UK was behind the times a bit, Germany seemed to be ahead of the curve....

[Unknown]

Originally posted by luke j chung:
Most rock albums and singles were being produced and marketed for AM radio and less sophisticated (read: CHEAP!)gear. George Martin said that UK home playback technology was anywhere from 5 to 10 years behind that of the US back then. Just wanted to point this out.

I really don't know about UK vs. US hifi equipment of the day, but what I've always heard is that the US mastering was catered to crappy playback systems (boosted mids, rolled off treble and bass) and not the other way around. Of course, that's part of the reason the UK pressings are more desireable.

[Grant]

US vinyl was mastered to sound it's best on cheap record players and AM radio back in the 60's and early 70's. That was also the main reason for mixing to mono.

The problem with a lot of stereo LP's from that time was that they were done as an afterthought. Not in all cases, though. Hell, some 45s were pressed in stereo.

In the case of the Beatles on Capitol, EMI would send Capitol mono tapes and Capitol would rechannel them because there was apparrently a bigger demand for stereo here.

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

[Unknown]

Call me a heretic, but I like the echo/reverb/chopped order U.S. Capitol versions the best. They're what I grew up with.