George Martin quotes re: stereo vs. mono

Its easy to say listen to both mono and stereo and decide what you like on an album by album basis. But not everyone has the funds to get both boxes. Until the monos are available individually I think the vast majority will be listening to and enjoying the stereos.

 

You can't buy the early remasters in mono separately; you have to buy the entire mono box.

 

You mean the sessions book, not the chronicle, yes?

 

Correct.

Correct.

 

I like the sound of Daytripper with vocals in one speaker and instuments the other...

 

So, anybody want to explain to me why the albums weren't remixed in PROPER stereo? As it's obvious that the original stereo mixes sucked and were done haphazardly, why couldn't they have pulled the multi-tracks and mixed them right?

 

I love them both...I mean I have my choices for certain albums in Mono, (and not always the earlier ones), but also enjoy the stereo for every album as well. I like the first 4 in stereo, even PPM and WTB.

I look at this this way, these are studio recordings and not live, and the wide stereo has a clarity that the mono's can't touch, and they have much more dynamics to them.

 

does it really matter?

that's your opinion if you think those steroe mixes suck. I'd take those over the 1987 martin remixes. Heck, give the Dexterized stuff over Martin's remixes.

How do we know that those early albums weren't remixed during the Love project? The multi's were the Giles and George's disposal.

 

I'm not ideological about this at all, and I don't think about what I'm theoretically supposed to like better.

I can like one, the other or both without worrying about it.

 

But, they are new to people who weren't alive in the 60s, or who only had stereo LPs.

 

Well, remember, they weren't concerned much with the stereo mixes until the mid-60s. Mono is what mattered.

 

(1) Early on it was decided that this would be a remastering project, and not a remix project -- though remixes are reported to have been done for the whole catalog and it's been suggested they will be coming out somewhere down the line.

(2) For some of the recordings, there is not a whole lot that can be done to remix them. If you have only two tracks, one primarily with vocals and the other primarily with instruments, then that's what you've got. Although I gather that they are able with contemporary technology to do things that couldn't have been done years ago, and it may be interesting to hear.

 

I like twin-track! Come and get me!

 

Personally, I LOVE the hard panning and have never understood why it bothers people.

Stereo mixing got boring and predictable in the 70's IMO.

 

I don't see how you can, or should, fault others for having a preference.

The only real mistake would be forming an opinion without taking the time to hear both.

So... should we just kiss Lewisohn's feet, or do we have to kiss every one of the "students"' feet also?

 

It really depends on the release and sometimes the individual songs. For example "Money" rocks in stereo with John's vocal centered.

The mono doesn't have half the kick.

 

For me the mono versions are far superior at least with PPM/WTB/SPLHCB.I'll take the rest in stereo.Joe

 

Yet a lot of people here prefer BEATLES FOR SALE in stereo to the mono mix. So what does speed tell you?

Also, for all of Sir George's praise of mono, he seemed surprised that fans wanted the mono out on CD. Wondering why anyone would want to hear them now.

 

I have learned to not trust most of what what Martin says.

 

I'm new to most of these Beatles albums (not the songs) and I agree completely. The first two are practically unlistenable on headphones in stereo and Sgt. Peppers is actually a really excellent album in mono (lives up to the 60s hype).

 

You're assuming there was a definition of 'proper stereo' printed somewhere in 1962-63.
In 1964 mono was king! Engineers had been recording in mono for 50 years. Stereo was the new technology on the the scene. And it may have turned out to be merely a passing fad. Martin, the engineers, even the Beatles themselves didn't 'think' in stereo terms. They didn't use the twin track machine to record properly in stereo. It was used strictly as a dual mono machine. That's how they set it up to run. And that's how it was used. Martin deliberately did not utilize it as a way to record in stereo.

 

Martin can have his preference. I like the mono quite a bit but prefer Beatles for Sale in stereo.

 

This stereo vs. mono thing has caught me on the hop; I went with the pre-release vibe that the mono box was the audiophile way to go, and bought that (with a smattering of stereos, to fill the gaps.) While I definitely prefer Rubber Soul in mono, and find the "white album" and Pepper fascinating that way, I wish I'd gotten the stereo box too - while I think the EMI boffins did well with the mono mixes, they performed magic with the stereo stuff.