-
The Beatles In Mono
Treated myself to The Beatles in mono cd box set and in some cases can hear a difference in the albums particularly in Sgt Pepper possibly as I know that album better than some of the others .Has anyone noticed any diffrence with the other albums or am I imagining things
-
This discussion was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by
Sara Pattern.
-
This discussion was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by
-
6 Replies
-
I always enjoy stereo better than mono, but if a song was originally recorded in the studio in mono, then I prefer the original released mono recording over any post production stereo remix. I read somewhere all the Beatles albums were recorded in mono, except Abbey Road which was recorded in stereo and for that album stereo is central to the album’s creative vision. I bought the Beatles Rubber Soul (UK version) vinyl used at a used record store, and the clerk checked some number engraved in the vinyl online for me and confirmed it is an original production cut from the mid 60s in mono, and it sounds great with all the crackles and pops weathered over the decades, feels like going back in time to 1966.
I recall I had some Beach Boys compilation albums remixed in stereo, and I preferred the original mono sound, as the stereo remixes of those 60s mono tracks just didn’t sound right. On head phones the artificial separation of instruments and vocals between the right and left track felt funny and unnatural. Their later albums in the 70s recorded in the studio in stereo were great, and wouldn’t listen to it in any other way.
-
It’s a strange one as normally i wouldn’t bother with mono releases but the Beatles one was an exception that I’ve enjoyed listening to but it isn’t a significant difference that you would say it’s the definite release but as an enjoyable alternative especially as some of the cd’s had stereo mixes on the albums as well but as technology has moved on so much would we ever experience the music that perhaps most people experienced perhaps through tinny transistor radio speakers back in the 60’s or would we really want to
-
Sara, good point. I certainly don’t want to limit my enjoyment of music with inferior sound quality. Would much rather listen to music through a hifi system over a tinny sounding transistor radio speakers, even if that’s how people first heard the song over AM mono radio stations. Most of my Beatles music first listen experience were through my brothers Beatles Blue and Red compilation albums, that I think were all stereo mixes, and they were great. I had some perhaps low quality/cost KTEL kind of Beach Boys compilation albums that perhaps they did a sloppy job in the stereo remix. I do like the idea of owning the original versions of iconic albums in mono if they were originally released in mono, for that original experience factor. It looks like in some cases, there is a difference in the feel between a mono and stereo version.
-
-
This is one of my favorite Beatles topics!
Up through the White Album, mono was the version John, Paul, George, and Ringo were present for the mixing of and blessed off on. The stereo mixes were done after the fact, without The Beatles’ present, and often relatively quickly and with much less care and attention. The original UK mono mixes could arguable be considered the “definitive” versions.
Some of the differences are extremely minor, and you really have to listen closely–for example, Lennon’s phrasing of the line “changed my mind” is clearly annunciated in the mono version of “Help!” while he runs it together as “changedmymind” in the stereo mix (different vocal takes were used). Many of the songs have different run times and are faded out at different points. Some have different (or absent) double-tracking, echoes, and effects.
Some of the differences are more noticeable, like Paul’s voice cracking on the word “vain” in the stereo mix of “If I Fell,” while the mono mix corrected it.
Some of the differences are very clear, such as “She’s Leaving Home,” where the mono version is sped up an entire step to F, while the stereo is slower and in E.
There are also differences between some U.S. and U.K. mixes, as well as differences between the original 60s versions, the 1987 CDs, the 2009 remasters, and the post-2009 releases.
On top of that, there are often differences even within the original 60s vinyl mixes. For example, the first 1966 pressing of Revolver has a mix of “Tomorrow Never Knows,” with somewhat differently spliced tape loops.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Dan Steciak.
-
Thanks for that .Now I can have another relisten
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by
-
So much music on the airwaves from the 60’s (and before) was all mono recording and mono playback. FM wasn’t heard of in my world until well into the 70’s, and later into the 80’s we had a contemporary station that broadcast in AM stereo for a while. The station still exists, but they are a totally different format now, all talk shows and phone-in broadcasts. But they still have a really cool gal as a music director…go figure.
My listening in my pre-teen years was that particular station on a cheap little hand held transistor radio, and all the 60’s Beatles, Stones, Steppenwolf etc songs were played on that feeble little gizmo, unless I was alone in the house and had full control of the big Zenith console in the living room. Then came the 70’s and a driver’s permit and the requisite under-dash 8-track machine…yaaaaassss!
But the old recordings copied into the looped tape format sounded just wild blasting through the rear deck shelf speakers of Dad’s Olds. We didn’t care if it was re-dubbed, re-mastered or original recording format as long as it was ear-bleeding LOUD. Now it’s digital versus analog, and I think maybe (just maybe) some of that old tech magic has fallen away or gotten lost. Something about it was just too good to give up. I would be curious to have some of my old 60’s 45 singles to listen to again, I think it would be rather “enlightening”. But then again, I wouldn’t have anything to play them on either…
Log in to reply.
