A Splendid Time is Guaranteed for All: The Beatles Remastered
August 31st, 2009 | 2:33 pm est |
The Beatles always stood apart from their peers, a self-evident statement that sadly extended to the treatment of their catalog in the digital age. Where all their peers from the Byrds to the Who have had their catalogs remastered and reissued in deluxe editions, sometimes several times, the Beatles remained stuck in the early days of digital, their 14 albums plus Past Masters singles collection remaining untouched since 1987, despite the occasional upgrade and tweak on the 1993 Red & Blue Album reissues or the remix of the Yellow Submarine songtrack in 1999. Those 1987 releases were hardly without controversy, either: many fans were upset that the first four albums were presented in mono, not stereo, while others complained about the quality of the mono mastering; some were upset that Sgt. Pepper and The Beatles weren’t in mono, there were grumblings about George Martin’s new stereo mixes for Help! and Rubber Soul, then there were criticisms about harsh, brittle sound and shoddy packaging, where Magical Mystery Tour was stripped of its lengthy book and cover art was butchered.
Anniversaries came and went, but no remasters arrived until the release of the video game The Beatles Rockband pushed a long-overdue revamping of the band’s entire catalog into the stores on 9-9-09. This reissue campaign corrects almost all the problems of the original ’87 CDs: the sound and artwork are improved, all the original mono and stereo mixes finally see the light of day. Naturally, it’s possible to quibble about some details of the presentation, particularly the decision to split the reissue into two separate box sets, one covering the Stereo mixes and one the Mono mixes, with only the stereo mixes available as individual discs (it’s possible still to complain that the albums do not add era-specific singles or outtakes, but such expansions were never really in the cards), but what both boxes constitute is by far the best Beatles. Crucially, it’s also inarguably the best-sounding Beatles music ever released, robust and rich even on the earliest rock & roll. None of the albums have been remixed – although Help! and Rubber Soul retain Martin’s 87 mixes, the original stereo mixes are bonuses on the Mono set – so this doesn’t shock the way the Yellow Submarine songtrack did with its reimagined stereo mixes. Nevertheless, these remasters surely do surprise with their clarity and depth, with each album feeling bigger and fuller than the previous CD incarnation, but not artificially so. It’s not that these are pumped up on digital steroids, it’s that the veil has been lifted, so everything seems full and fresh. Appropriately, there’s more to savor from Help! onward, as the Beatles’ productions grew ambitious, but Please Please Me, With the Beatles and A Hard Day’s Night all have a strong punch, while Beatles for Sale is warmer than the previous disc.
As a package, the Stereo box is slightly unwieldy – it’s a large, vertical set with two stacks of discs in slick cardboard sleeves piled on top of each other. No extra book is included with the set, but each disc has its own booklet with dry, straightforward liner notes detailing the recording process instead of analyzing the music. If anything about the set could be called disappointing, it’s the mini-documentaries attached to each disc as a Quicktime file and collected on a DVD bonus for the box. “Mini-documentary” may even be stretching what these are: they’re 3-5 infomercials about the albums, not much more informative than the notes themselves. Nevertheless, these do offer annotation, something sorely lacking from the first CDs, and they do replicate the original notes – in the case of Magical Mystery Tour, including the entire storybook; in the case of Pepper, all the 20th anniversary annotation is added – finally bringing the Beatles to the same standard for reissues that every other major (and most minor bands) have had for years now. And the story, at least for the Stereo Box, is not the packaging. It’s the glorious sound that makes this such a treat.
The Stereo Set may be the official canon but what Beatlemaniacs have really craved is the Mono Box. This limited-edition box is laden with new-to-CD mixes, including the true rarities of the previously unreleased genuine mono mixes of the four new songs from Yellow Submarine and its packaging is gorgeous, filled with mini-LP replicas with stiff cardboard sleeves of every album from Please Please Me to The Beatles, complete with replicated gatefolds and packaging inserts, all protected in resealable plastic sleeves. As pure physical product, this is satisfies any collector itch, but this also is arguably the better-sounding of the two sets, providing ample evidence that the band did spend more time on mono mixes during much of their career. For generations of listeners raised on stereo mixes, there are plenty of surprises here, whether it’s a faster “She’s Leaving Home” and “Don’t Pass Me By,” or numerous little differences that pop up on Pepper, The White Album and Revolver, all adding up to dramatically different experiences. Sometimes, the density of mono just has more force – “Lady Madonna” rolls like a freight train, “I’m Down” hits to the gut – sometimes the colors just seem more vibrant; in either case, there’s enough emotional difference to make this worthwhile for the dedicated, and depending on taste, it may even be preferable. But there’s no question of one thing: of the two sets, as a package, the mono is a thing to behold. And there’s also no question that anybody waiting 22 years to hear a better version of the Beatles will not be disappointed (although they may well still wonder why it took so long for the Fabs to be treated the way they deserve to be treated).
Sadly, my 65 year old ears will not appreciate the nuances discussed in the article, so spending a large sum of money on these new versions will not make sense. But if these bring the Beatles music to a new generation,then I am all in favor.
Gary, maybe I’m that new generation!
Here’s a question for the Allmusic folks (and anyone else who sees this). I don’t own a single Beatles album, but with the remasters I’d like to get all of them legally at the most…ahem…reasonable price, and I am old-fashioned enough to prefer to have a physical copy. I’m 39 years old and I’m not an audiophile (plus I do most of my music listening via mediocre headphones and my iPod), so I have no major reason to favor either mono or stereo, nostalgic or otherwise. Also, I’m not that concerned about box set cosmetics, as long as the content is similar. Realistically, I’ll look through the physical product once or twice and it’ll sit on a shelf.
So…if I were to get one of these box sets, which should I go for? Stereo or mono? The stereo set was cheaper on Amazon, but I can’t remember by how much. If the Beatles “want” me to go with stereo (as the comment about the stereo set being “official canon” implies), I think I’m fine with that. Any thoughts?
Have they found the magic bullet to enhance or replace the mushy muffled bass tracks so common on otherwise very good sixtys and seventys recordings.
The definitive Beatle mixes has always been the mono mixes. Listen to both, if you can. Even in MP3 format, or from the original (extremely expensive) Parlophone disks, there is a palpable difference. You may not be an audiophile, but even Beatlephiles have preferences based on the impact of the songs, not just on the sound. And the mono mixes have almost unanimously been acclaimed. I for the longest time thought that the Beatle discography was badly recorded, but listening to early issues (for the same mixes) of their albums, or better ones (a Toshiba Pro Use of Abbey Road, for example) will show that it was the media, not the originals that were at fault.
Mr. Erlewine, thanks for your report about the remastered Beatles. I’m excited about the reissue of the Beatles’ catalog, as it’s been a long time coming.
I am a little disappointed that if one wants any of the mono versions, one must purchase the ENTIRE mono box set. As someone who does not have unlimited finances, this presents a major obstacle for me. Would it have been THAT unfeasible to issue the stereo and mono versions of each album individually? (I’ve got a great CD of Buffalo Springfield’s first album that contains both mono and stereo versions–but I understand, we’re talking about the Beatles here, not Buffalo Springfield).
Sooo where can I download this? I already have the original CDs and some of the records. Not interested in collecting more plastic. And since I see Apple and Apple’s iTunes still refuse to cooperate, looks like I’ll be waiting for the pirates.
This is going to be awesome. Maybe McCartney and everyone were waiting for the technology to reach an advanced-enough point to go ahead and upgrade the canon. I might spring for the mono set. I’m so familiar with the 1987 stereo mixes that I can wait on the new stereo box. The used vinyl I’ve accrued over the years is in my mind the best sound so far. But I think the 2009 re-releases may even surpass the vinyl. At 31, I’ve been listening to The Beatles literally since before I was able to even remember it (on the account of my parents). So I’m thrilled!
Dr. Incognito:
In light of what you have written, you really should get yourself the stereo box set. The mono
set not only does not have all the albums, but is much more expensive and already difficult
to find. By all accounts thus far, both stereo and mono sets are amazing. Enjoy!
Gus - Apple has scheduled its Fall event for 9/9/09, which means it’s fairly likely that it will announce that the Beatles catalog will be available on iTunes.
Thank you for this piece. I’ll be listening with particular interest to Revolver, White Album and Abbey Road. It seems to be that The Beatles live at the Hollywood Bowl has been consigned to the dustbin of history with not even an initial CD release if I am correct? What a shame: the obvious technological limits of the time acknowledged, it’s a simply an incredibly atmospheric, exciting, euphoric recording. McCartney’s on record saying he doesn’t like it, not sure what the others thought. They were there. they knew how difficult those shows were to play (with no monitors and a puny PA); and that inevitably (and fairly) coloured their memory and impressions. But the job that George Martin did in 1977 to clean up these tapes so that people like me who never attended a Beatles show could get even the faintest inkling of what those shows sounded and felt like was great. A shame this has been omitted. A real shame, particularly as it was their only official live album. (Let it Be rooftop tracks don’t count, that was a gig on a roof, not a paying concert for the public!).
I sure hope they’ve stayed away from smoking the masters in compression, noise reduction and EQ tweaking!
If they did a proper, tasteful, remaster, I will certainly buy it, especially some of the monos!
The original first pressings of the Albums still sounds fantastic, and are in my mind the bees nees.
The early toshiba black triangle issue of Abbey Road sounds good too.
These cheapskates could have put the mono and stereo albums in the same box set. Most of these albums are 35 minutes long, so they could have fit the mono and stereo version of each album on one CD. How many times do we have to buy these albums? Lots of contemporary fans have the vinyls, the 1987 CDs, and are now faced with the dilemma of having to buy either the stereo or mono remasters. Or both, if they can’t resist…
Gus, I’m pretty sure iTunes would love to be selling these and it’s probably whoever’s in control of the Beatles publishing these days to blame.
I agree with Chuck. They could have put them out as double disc versions stereo/mono even. Really seems like fanspolitation tactics.
Thanks for the suggestions! I’d totally forgotten that the mono box doesn’t have all the albums, so if I want all of them, I’d have to buy the mono box and add the other albums separately. Add that to the difference in cost between the stereo and mono boxes and the decision has probably been made for me.
I agree with Mark and am hopeful that in a couple of years we can buy the mono CDs individually. Just checking on the web, it appears that the mono set will be pretty hard to come by unless you’ve already pre-ordered. Some of the remastered tracks from the promo sampler have been posted as streams all over, and they sound AMAZING even through little computer speakers. So even the people who only listen in their earbuds are going to hear a difference. Find “I’ve Got A Feeling” and you’ll be blown away in the first 30 seconds. I’m glad we haven’t had multiple re-issues and that extra time and effort has been put into this project. I’ll gladly pay my money for the stereo set and hope one of my friends has gotten the mono set. Hope that the itunes launch comes later so it can be another big event. The greatest band ever deserves it.
I sill am trying to figure out why anyone would want to listen to any music let alone The Beatles in mono rather than stereo - anybody?
Mono sounds better coming out of the 3-inch dashboard speaker of your ‘59 T-Bird convertable.
ZoomDoom, I’ve often read that the Beatles themselves spent a lot more time on the mono mixes of their music, and had little interest in the stereo mixes–leaving those to George Martin and the other engineers. Maybe it had to do with the fact that it was the sixties, when stereo was not nearly as common as it is today. The Beatles may have known that their music was going to be played primarily on transistor radios and mono record players, so they wanted to make sure the mixes were good (I’m just speculating, of course). Apparently, the mono mixes reveal details and dynamics that are lost in the stereo mixes, which is why so many Beatle nuts (like myself) are interested in hearing the mono versions (particularly albums like Revolver and Sgt. Pepper).
By the way, I’m really not that much of an audiphile, so if I’m off-base with my last comment above, all the audiophiles can let me know! :)
I can assure people that Beatles mono mixes by and large, blow their stereo counterparts out of the water! Tracks like I Want To Hold Your Hand, I’m Down and Revolution truly pack a punch, sounding very powerful in mono. In stereo, those recordings sound like “ice cream,” to quote John Lennon. As McCartney states in a new Mojo magazine interview, The Beatles thought in mono when creating their work.
For those of you wondering what to buy I do suggest either both stereo and mono so you can be the coolest guy in the street this autumn, but if you would like to spend your money more clever; buy the 1987 cabinette of 16 cd’s, that will probably be available rather cheap at the used stores.
For what it’s worth, the mono box set is a limited edition (40,000 in the US) and you may have already lost the chance to buy it. Amazon has apparently sold out its supply
Was very into the idea of the mono set until I checked out the cost: £199! I mean, McArtney, Starr and EMI/Apple are hardly strapped for a bob or two, so how in good conscience can they possibly justify that sort of price tag, I’d like to know. Also, who really wants the pre-Help stuff again? You have to get to Rubber Soul before the Fabs produced a consistently brilliant disc. Surely releasing both sets as individual CDs would have encouraged more sales?
No wonder the record industry is dying a slow and painful death through piracy. I’m sure within days of them hitting the shops, Beatles Mono torrents will be flooding the web and it will serve them right.
And on a final note, not to sound contrary, but the mono mix I would love to hear would be of The Rolling Stones’ Sticky Fingers. It appears for all of two seconds in Gimme Shelter and sounds truly inspired.
Does anyone know if the stereo mix on the early albums is just a split, with vocals on one side, and the music on the other? It seems that is the case on the 1987 versions, and it was why I purchased the Capitol box sets - I wanted the mono mixes.
It is annoying to listen to the stereo versions of early albums w/headphones because of the split tracks.
Can anyone weigh in on these, below, vs. the 2009 editions? Not exactly thrilled with having to buy these great albums a fourth time: the original vinyl lp’s > 1987 cd’s > these 2004 editions > oh no, not again 2009’s. Btw, i still own the 87’s as well as these 2004’s…..so i’m thinking enough already! :)
The Beatles: The Capitol Albums, Vol. 1
Capitol 66874to77, 2004, 4cd box
The first 4 **u.s.** lp’s in stereo/then mono, on 4 discs.
Meet the Beatles!, The Beatles’ Second Album, Something New, Beatles ‘65
The Beatles: The Capitol Albums, Vol. 2
Capitol 57498to501, 2006, 4cd box
The second 4 **u.s.** lp’s in stereo/then mono, on 4 discs.
The Early Beatles, Beatles VI, Help!, and Rubber Soul.
Why mess with the real thing- is it not unlike trying to touch up the Mona Lisa.
Mono or stereo. Albums can’t be bought individually. I’m only listening through a crystal set. I can’t afford the expense of, I’ve already bought these albums before…. whine, whine, whine
People, this is the Beatles we’re talking about here. The best thing that’s ever happened to modern music. Get the mono AND the stereo box sets. Increase the mortgage, get two jobs, sell the kids for scientific experiments if necessary, but splurge. I for one will relive every original purchase now in the best fidelity ever with the amp cranked to 11, and yes these 57 year old ears are not what they used to be, but so what? Hey, in a world that’s going slowly down the plughole let’s enjoy something fantastic.
Just received an e-mail from Amazon which includes the following:
“The manufacturer has informed us that they will be producing additional mono box sets due to high demand. While the box set remains a limited-production item, it will not be capped at 10,000 copies for the U.S. market, as originally reported.”
Go mono.
I hope this post is helpful. I will buy both the stereo and mono remasters. I have the two Capitol packages mentioned previously. I have the LOVE and YSS remixes. In fact I have just about everything. I may change my mind about what I am about to say after listening to the mono remasters but I seriously doubt it. I am getting the mono remasters only because some of the songs are different.
Yes we hear that the Beatles were not around during the original stereo mixes. Yes we have quotes form the Beatles themselves that they supposedly preferred mono (Lennon said you have not really heard PEPPER until you have heard it in mono). My opinion is that the Beatles came rather quickly to realize and love recording technology as it improved. I can get you very positive quotes from the Beatles themselves as to how they feel about stereo and even multichannel surround sound. Actually I don’t put faith in a lot of the quotes from the Beatles themselves in general, they were inconsistent about a lot of things. Even Lennon criticized some of his own musical gems.
How many people reading this post realized that the song A HARD DAYS NIGHT has bongos? I don’t think Ringo played those in the studio intending for these to never be heard. And yet it wasn’t until I heard a true stereo version of the song back in the early 90s that I realized there were bongos being played in the song. The mono versions are HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE because instruments are being BURIED in the mixes and cannot be heard.
“Why mess with a real thing – it’s not unlike trying to touch up the Mona Lisa” - well I don’t think you can use that analogy when it comes to the recording industry. Once the musicians finish the final take of a song in the studio, it gets touched many times before you and I even hear the finished CD. In the 60s, the same song on a vinyl LP sounded differently than the same song on a 45, which sounded even differently than the same song on the radio, etc, etc. Changes and version differences are inevitable. The same songs sound different due to different players, mediums, formats, etc.
Sooner or later (probably later) we will get the Beatles music released that will please everyone (at least 95 percent of us). In my opinion, you have not heard their music unless you hear it in remixed 5.1 surround. Getting the Yellow Sub 5.1 DVD was a true eye opener for me. The audio blew me away. I felt I was in the studio with the lads themselves.
If you like mono, if you like hearing your music thru one speaker, that option has been and will be available to you for many years.
There is good news for all Beatles audiophiles. When I first heard that they had started remixing the catalog for 5.1 I figured we would not get too much quality/separation on the first album or two – because those songs are on only two tracks. The fact that they have the song Twist and Shout on the RockBand game (where Giles Martin and other engineers successfully developed separate multi tracks of audio, bass, drums and guitar for the game) gives realization to the possibility of a good 5.1 remix on the early albums.
Dr. Incognito -
First - at 39 you’re old enough to have acquired a decent stereo system. Trying to appreciate music on an IPOD is like trying to appreciate a hamburger by watching somebody else eat one.
Second - music appreciation, like fine wine, is not something to be consumed voraciously but savored with both your personal mood and the amount of time spent with the music affecting the outcome. Anything worth having is worth investing in. Someday you’ll throw that IPOD out but the music you’ve taken the time to immerse yourself in and come to love will be with you for a lifetime.
Lastly - Given that you are on a limited budget better to save your money and invest in a decent component system (figure 2 to 1 on cost of speakers to everything else). The boxed set isn’t going anywhere. Buy a couple of cd’s with your favorite Beatles songs and take them to Best Buy or any local bricks and mortar with a listening room and get some sense of the gulf between earbuds and Klipsch
As far as September 3rd is concerned, he can take a running jump. I am as big a Fab Fan as the next man - I have as many bootlegs as I can live with and my copy of Revolution in the Head is falling to pieces. But in the end this isn’t about the music. We all know the content is great, some of the best ever recorded, but the fact is we’ve heard it already. EMI are merely trying to gouge us to hear songs that we know intimately, purely on the promise that they sound a little different. £50 or £60, that’s fair enough, but £199 bucks is extortionate - that’s roughly $270 for those on the other side of the pond - and is aimed squarely at super-annuated baby boomers who are spending their kids’ inheritance buying hyper high-end hi-fi equipment that allows them to re-buy all the records they bought circa-67 then sit there listening to all those nuisances they missed the first time. It’s a record marketing man’s dream.
Anyone under the age of 40 should tell EMI to get stuffed and go and invest in a creatively active, extant band. At this rate the record label is going to be guilty of necrophilia.
Dear Dr. Incognito
Why not just buy the older CD versions, which will be cheaper as retail shops mark them down to make space for the remasters?
Mel and Sloan - I find both your posts interesting (and at cross purposes). While I do think that boxing the mono and not releasing the albums individually as with the stereo mixes is a pretty crass customer slight, and while I am utterly tempted to give in and reserve a mono box, in all honesty, I think I’m going to pick up my faves in stereo on Wed., and get a mono torrent whenever it pops up. I’m not paying nearly $300 to duplicate forty-five year-old albums for marginal benefits. And if Capitol/EMI/whoever decide I can’t purchase mono albums individually, then I’ll download them collectively.
I am fortunate enough to have heard and possess the entire, and I do mean entire, Beatles canon; be it mono or stereo, remastered, cut, clipped, and mixed like a good drink. I have all the original vinyl: the 45’s, the LP’s, the EP’s. I have the CD’s of each album and own everything released in digital format, including some that I have never seen anywhere other than my own collection; shit, I even have the Hollywood Bowl recording. This may seem excessive, but I have been blessed to have relatives that hold onto everything and come from a particularly Beatles loving family so aquiring these masterpieces was relatively inexpensive for me. My point is that the underlying theme of this messageboard, blog, whatthefuckever is that the artists we are all referring to happen to be the manifestation of the pivot AND fulcrum of popular music. So, listen to ‘em in your T-Bird, listen to ‘em on your iPhuck, listen to ‘em in a perfectly constructed acoustic listening room with fucking 5.1 surround; what the fuck ever, buy the new shit or not, just LISTEN. This band changed music in so many ways that most of you probably don’t even realize and yes, Ive heard the bongos on A Hard Days Night-you can hear that by fucking with the bass, mids, and treble on any minimalistic system. Im only 23 and I even have a copy of the Beatles’ failed Decca audition. My blathering point, mates, is that no matter what medium, mix, or mode, The Beatles should be enjoyed, appreciated, revered.
Stereo gives the true picture of what was actually being recorded. When listeneing to the remastered recordings of the Beatles albums on high quality equipment, you actually feel like you’re in the studio listening to the original recordings for the first time. You can’t feel that true sound with mono if you’re stuck with sub standard audio equipment circa 1963. I won’t settle for anything less than the best when listening to The Beatles!
I will have to concur with ZoomDoom and wonder why anyone would actually PREFER a mono mix over a stereo mix, aside from certain rare exceptions. Yes, Please Please Me has the vocals on the right and the instruments on the left…but to me it still sounds much more alive and energetic! I have heard mono devotees say that mono mixes provide more “detail.” How could mono reveal more “detail” than stereo? It’s all muffled! Maybe I’m crazy but it seems like the very definition of mono is “less detail.” Sure, if you’re Brian Wilson and you can only hear out of one ear, then you’d prefer mono, but personally I have two ears for the time being and I intend on using them. Phil Spector was also a big fan of mono; need I say more?
One last note: It’s amazing how just listening to The Beatles original recordings on high quality digital MP3 format in their best recording years how not only does the quality of their music progress but the sound quality does as well - most evident if you strap on a pair of Bose headphones and go for a ride. I have never been able to come to a decison on their best album: Rubber Soul, Revolver, SGT Peppers, White Album, or Abbey Road? I really enjoy listeting to Abbey Road the most, but still very hard to decide on my fav.
So much talk about stereo vs mono, earbuds vs high end stereo, and what is the best Beatles recording. I have a few basic questions that I’m not sure have been addressed:
1) What about the DVD set? I heard it was the best sounding and highest quality on Amazon – everyone has an opinion. Could be due to cost???
2) What is the one song I should select to hear the difference between the stereo and mono versions?
3) Who on this chat line has actually heard them?
Thanks
Mingus
Why not wait to see what Itunes releases, if anything. Then you can listen to the differences before buying. Some of the albums will sound better in mono some stereo. Preview and buy accordingly. This is what I’m waiting for because I don’t want or need all of the other box set crap that will just sit around.
Great advice Baldassar, thanks!
As a longtime Beatles fan and major collector of the Beatles on vinyl, I applaud the decision to release 2 simultaneous box sets. I’m really looking forward to delving into both! I found the above All Music review to be excellent and very informative. Unlike the Who, the Stones, the Doors and Led Zeppelin- the Beatles (Capitol/EMI) have not dipped into our pockets for remastered versions of these discs over and over again (with the only exceptions being the Yellow Submarine “songtrack” and Let It Be “Naked”). I’m more than happy to fork over the dough on 9-9-09 and then stay out of the record store for 3 months! These discs were last released in 1987. With no remasters for 22 years, and a total boxed set cost of approximately $ 410.00 CAN to grab both, that works out to $ 18.63 per year since these discs were last issued. A mere pittance in our present age of 15th, 20th and 30th anniversary everythings. Sgt. Pepper, the White Album, Abbey Road, Revolver and Rubber Soul are among the greatest albums ever released in the history of rock and roll. I’ll be the guy buying both boxed sets on Wednesday with a big smile on my face! Roll up for the mystery tour! :D
I’m surprised this review didn’t include any details about who supervised the production? Who produced? Engineered? Where was it done? Just curious. I saw on QVC yesterday their offering of one of the boxed sets, but no details there either. - mike
Thank you for commenting on sound quality. At last. But this leaves me confused: are we now going to read comments on sound quality in allmusic reviews?
It has been missing so long, the reviews are only half as useful as they could be.
I’ve been listening to purple chick remasters in anticipation of buying this set, and it’s been waaay better than the ‘87 mixes. This will be like hearing it for the first time. FINALLY.
For those who want to strap on some headphones, try AKG 701s. You probably can’t get them at Best Buy, but the effort is worth it. If you can get headphones at an outlet store, they are most likely junk. As for iPods being worthless, try one through Shanling iPod dock, you might change your mind. There is a lot of audiophile gear being made to work with iPods.
As for the remasters, after doing some review, I suppose I will have to get the mono set as well. Would prefer not to spend the money, but it is The Beatles we are talking about here…
The Background: 24 years old, been listening to old vinyl copies for years, and have listened to bootlegged mp3 files since college. Spent a good amount of time with 1 during high school. Never really had much time for the Anthology stuff.
The Comment: More than anything else, I have to say that I’m looking at this from the same perspective that I currently have on my “complete studio recordings” Led Zeppelin box set. Is it going to match the sound of my vinyl copies? Probably not, aside from a few pops and scratches. But it WILL allow me to have their entire catalogue, in a nice convenient way for me to put it in my car whenever I so choose. That alone is worth purchasing the Stereo box. Especially for those of us who only have burned copies of their sister’s Blue/Red album CDs. Old Brown Shoe completely remastered in stereo… lets do it!
Can someone clarify the following in Mr. Erlewine’s commentary:
“…including the true rarities of the previously unreleased genuine mono mixes of the four new songs from Yellow Submarine…”
Are there indeed four new songs on YS, and if so, are they included only on the remixed mono release, not the stereo ?
Thanks !
@wseattle: the four “new” songs on YS are its all too much, hey bulldog, all together now and only a northern song. By “new” he meant at the time the record was released, those were the only 4 beatles songs that had not yet been released elsewhere (the song “yellow sub” had already appeared on the rveolver album).
Chuck-
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated !
Mono means that you hear the same thing in both speakers. Stereo means that certain instruments will be heard more on the left speaker and others more on the right. In some songs, even the voice will be heard more on one speaker than the other.
If you have the old CDs, look at the actual CD: it says either mono or stereo in the box on the right. Listen to “Help!”, which is in stereo, and then listen to “Beatles For Sale”, which is mono. Listen with headphones, and notice how annoying it is to hear “You’ve got to hide your love away” with the instruments split between the left and right. Lennon’s voice is more to the right, and the guitar chords are all on the left. “Yesterday” is also annoying, with the guitar all on the right and the strings on the left.
I’m going with the mono box. The Beatles and George Martin did not have the luxury of stereo when they recorded these albums. Today, groups like Oasis and Coldplay know they have the option of making stereo songs, and so they purposely record bits of music to put on different sides of your head. This doesn’t work so well with the Beatles imo, but listen to the old albums and decide for yourself.
Thank you ’sloan’ for expressing my sentiments for me. And ‘tonebone’–too many people have screwed up their lives by “increasing the mortgage” just to get stuff. Yes, the catalog is a “musical treasure” but even the most objective observer can sense the greed being piled on. As for the sound, anything would be an improvement over those awful 1987 editions. Mr. Erlewine’s “harsh, brittle sound” only scratches the surface of what an annoying listening experience those transfers provided. And it figures the readily available stereo box doesn’t have the bells and whistles packaging the mono box does. $270? Not from this account. And you think someone could write some decent liner notes? Ones that don’t merely tell you the same hackneyed backstory or gush on and on like some drunk Beatles cheerleader ala Martin Lewis? I for one wouldn’t mind more info on the music and less on the mania.
Seriously, anyone who wants mono recordings in this day and age is an idiot, or has the world’s worst stereo. I don’t get the demand for it. God forbid the sound be separated into two channels!
Tim wrote:
Seriously, anyone who wants mono recordings in this day and age is an idiot, or has the world’s worst stereo. I don’t get the demand for it. God forbid the sound be separated into two channels!
~~~~~~~~~
Tim, you just proved that old saying “better to shut your mouth than open it and remove any doubt about your ignorance”
Seriously, go and listen to both versions of Sgt. Pepper. You’ll wonder no more!
I, for one, will buy the stereo box set and DL the mono CD’s as they become available, for free. I am curious to listen and compare the new CD’s with the Dr. Ebbetts remastered efforts. I have acquired all of the Dr. Ebbetts Beatle remastered CDs over the years and have enjoyed them all, while getting them online. That said, I have all of the LPs from my younger days, some of the cassettes and until recently, still some of the 8 tracks in the attic. The 1987 CD’s were an improvement, IMHO, over most of the available stuff at the time, but, most of the boots I have gotten were much better, including the first four releases entitled “Original Stereo Recording” on the OMR 97001 Label.
Correct me if this is untrue, but what MONO really means is that, though you may hear different things in each speaker, a sound cannot move seamlessly from one speaker to another. For example, the sound of a jet plane taking off cannot (in MONO) begin in the left speaker and seamlessly move to the right.
SGT PEPPER claims to be “a monaural recording” but you hear certain things (animal noises, drum tracks) only in one speaker or the other.
I read what seemed to be a good article recently about the Beatles which said that there was so much going on in the sessions that different songs on the same album were being recorded in different ways. Some were recorded in MONO, some in STEREO, and of these many were later mixed down (or up)/transferred into the opposite format, so that any intentions of the original recordings were lost in the shuffle.
Basically, none of the Beatles albums made it to the shelves “intact” (so to speak.) They have never been, and never will be released “as intended.”
NYou may have your preference in the albums as MONO or STEREO, and each has their own virtues. But neither can make any claim to be the pure, or true, versions.
It was John Lennon who said “you haven’t heard Sgt. Pepper until you’ve heard it in mono.” Shall we give John the benefit of the doubt, and listen with our own ears, Tim? For more on the importance of mono, and the different effect it has on the listener, please read the above AllMusic.com article in its entirety.
People who think I’m crazy for preferring mono should explain why they prefer stereo. Someone above wrote “mono means less”, but it’s the exact opposite. Mono means you hear the ENTIRE song on both speakers. Stereo means that certain instruments have been DELETED from the right channel and others have been deleted from the left channel (and there is no criteria behind which sounds go left and which go right). If someone can explain the point of doing this, I’m all ears. And no, it does not make me feel like the Beatles are in the room with me. When a group is playing in front of you, you hear all the sound coming from in front of you, and that’s what a mono CD sounds like.
If you like hearing the voice and drums on the right, and the guitar and bass on the left, then go ahead and buy the stereo CDs. For a more complete sound (and less post-production tinkering), go with mono.
Anyone over the age of 40 should absolutely buy the mono CDs. As you grow older, one of your ears will eventually start working worse than the other. So when you’re 64 and listening to a stereo version of “When I’m 64″, you’ll be missing lots of the sounds that are coming into your bad ear. With mono, you’ll have the full song on both speakers (and headphones) and you won’t miss any instruments.
You might notice how stereophiles never have a real argument behind why they like stereo. They usually dish out phrases like “in this day and age” or “mono is a thing of the past”, as if the word ‘new’ were a synonym of ‘good’. If new things are so much better than old things, then why not listen to Britney Spears instead of the Beatles?
Also, M. has a point when he says that in some records you hear jet planes and animal noises which begin in the left speaker and move to the right. This would be fine with me as long as you’re not doing it with the actual instruments. You can add in all the sound effects you want as far as I’m concerned, but the actual music should be in both speakers. The stereo versions basically split the song in two, so I’d rather just have the mono CDs. I’ll miss a couple of sound effects but the music will sound richer and more complete: a good trade imo.
Again, listen to the 1987 “Help!” CD (which is in stereo) and then listen to the “Beatles For Sale” CD (which is mono) and hear the difference for yourself. Tracks 3 and 13 on “Help” are particularly “stereo”, so if you like those, then you will probably prefer the stereo box.
Geoff Emerick (Beatles engineer) said that the band was very involved with the mono mixes but not at all with the stereo mixes. The stereo mixes were basically “thrown together” without a whole lot of thought, while the mono mixes were worked on until they were “perfect.”
If you want a preview of what differences to expect between stereo and mono, check out this page (and it’s ’sequel’ linked therein): http://goodrob13.com/2009/04/26/the-beatles-mono-vs-stereo-remastered-cds-coming-sept-2009/
There is a lot of great debate posted here concerning the stereo vs. mono versions. If any of you wish to get the true story on how and why the early stuff was recorded as it was - read Geoff Emerick’s “Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles.” The technology of the day seriously limited how the music got from the studio to tape and then onto the vinyl. The Beatles were so far ahead of the curve in what they wanted to put on tape but were unable to do properly due to the limits of “4 track” recording. The process required a lot of bouncing of tracks etc. As with anything that gets “bounced” or re-recorded onto the same acetate - there was a degradation of quality with each transfer. Not to mention the quality of the equipment that was available in the studio. I’m really excited that the music of the Beatles is still a hot topic for debate.
Eating my above words and then some, I just bought the mono box at Best Buy. It is beautiful. I’m only 28, so I have no context for mono in my music listening history; however, when I put in Please Please Me and pulled out of the parking lot, it hit with more force than ever before.
The stereo versions of at least the first four albums have always been a disappointment sonically. A rock band was not made to be split down the middle and shoved left and right. Later on, obviously as stereo grew more common, the mixes are a little more subtle. But I never realized how essential mono was to the early Beatles until this morning.
Now I’ve covered all the early discs I never had, and the sound is better than ever. What looked like a fan-plundering operation may actually prove to be worth it. And I think I got the only mono box available at this Best Buy. I was the envy of all the 58 year-olds. Youth Wins Again!
I bought the mono box, and I got Abbey Road, Yellow Sub and Let It Be separately (in stereo). It is truely exceptional, like hearing it for the first time. The “Help!” CD also contains the stereo versions, and when I compared “You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away” to its stereo version, I was so glad I had chosen the mono box.
Stereophiles don’t know what they’re missing. They are only hearing half of the song, since the other half has been deleted from one speaker or the other. There is such energy in the mono versions that they sound like a new band. You haven’t heard Revolver until you’ve heard the mono mix.
As for Let It Be, Abbey Road and Yellow Sub, they are stereo mixes but they were done carefully by people who love mono.
I live in Europe so I found the mono box easily. But it’s probably harder to find in the USA, where people actually listen to good music. I’m sure some American Beatles fans probably “advised” people to buy the stereo box and then went out to buy one of the few mono boxes available.
I am 53 years old, saw the Beatles first appearance on Ed Sullivan, and own scores (literally) of Beatles recordings on vinyl, cd, cassette, and even 8-track! I pre-ordered BOTH sets (mono & stereo) because I know and appreciate the difference between the two. I can’t wait until they arrive and I can listen to them ad nauseum.
Another artist that needs desperately to have his catalog remastered is Prince. Even with the passing of the 25th anniversary of Purple Rain, nothing was released, though there are extensive known live performances and unedited versions of just about every song from the album that would fit great on a deluxe edition release.
Anyway, glad to see the Beatles Collection remastered and released. Need to get it as soon as possible, though I’m not sure which to get, the mono set or the stereo set.
“These cheapskates could have put the mono and stereo albums in the same box set. Most of these albums are 35 minutes long, so they could have fit the mono and stereo version of each album on one CD. How many times do we have to buy these albums? Lots of contemporary fans have the vinyls, the 1987 CDs, and are now faced with the dilemma of having to buy either the stereo or mono remasters. Or both, if they can’t resist…”
I have to agree with Chuck here. I like to add that while there are completists out there, there will be others wh aren’t interesrted in the complete output. I for one can do without the first couple of albums (basically the sound of a boysband with instruments) and Sgt Pepper (overrated). I would part with my money for copies of Revolver and White Album.
But…a couple of years ago we had the Capitol box and Let It Be Naked at full price. Come on EMI, you already made your profit!
How does the Mono box compare w/ the recordings issued on the Capitol box sets a few years back?
I have the complete beatles discography (like every fan), but on my ipod (i’m 16). I don’t know if i should buy this box set, cause i already have the original mono mixes and everybody is saying that the stereo erases part of the instruments. So, should i but it or keep my originals?
I hate when people criticizes ipods, you know they’re terrific! I know the sound isn’t the same as a stereo, but i can take my 125 GB of music everywhere i go! Imagine if i record my 26.000 songs in CD-R, oh my god what a mess. I think that i just love music, it doesn’t matter if i’m listening on a stereo or a earphone. Actually i prefer the earphones, it’s something more personal, i bought a really good one, i can liestening to everything, i think that hear music on your ipod with CHEAP earphones is not as good as listening to music with a GREAT one! I love my ipod, mu earphone, and i guess i’m going to keep my mono mixes. People judge a lot ipod, i guess if i had only 1000 songs i would actually want a stereo, but when you have 26.000 i think an ipod is the better choice.
Music is music, it doesn’t matter if i’m listening to a stereo, or an ipod and If it’s good music (like the Beatles) i guess that the message, the song, should be the most important, not how you listen.
Argh! Capitol couldn’t have picked a worse recession to finally offer me these pricey box set choices. All or nothing for the mono? Which is too bad, because I’d love to hear them.
I’m 35 and I’m the oldest Beatles fan around! Just kidding, I’m sure there are people here in their 60’s who thought they just might never get a chance to hear the CDs with better sound. We all win. New generations getting into the Beatles is a global pop-culture tradition. And outside of Pink Floyd and (hopefully) the Velvet Underground, how many other musicians can claim that?
If I’m not mistaken, Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog and thus his estate will benefit from the sale of the mono and stereo,not Paul or Ringo or Yoko
Thanks Snelly, for enlightening us all regarding the Beatles early output (nothing more than a boyband with instruments) and that Sgt. Pepper is overrated. Any more insights to share on say, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones or the Who, based on your understanding of the significance of the Backstreet Boys and N’Sync?! I have purchased the stereo box and am enjoying the heck out of it (brilliant sound, stunning work on the DVD) and look forward to my ordered copy of the Mono Box arriving soon! A pleasant time is guaranteed for all! :)
Missed out the boxsets - so the decision which way to go was made for me - bought each individually!
After ‘22 years’ I would agree an upgrade was in order.. hehe
I’m thinking getting the separates is not a bad way to go - maybe the best way as I saved a few bucks.
Now for the good part - started off with the singles (past masters) - Long Tall Sally sounded the most different - the rest (thru ballad of ….) just sound as I would hope.
Of course hearing the first four in stereo will be interesting - but I have to replace the batteries in my keybd right now - later
Willie: Yes, Michael Jackson’s estate does control the publishing rights to the Beatles back catalog. However, the individual surviving Beatles and/or their estates still collect royalties from the sale and airplay of Beatles music. Publishing rights are more concerned with the licensing of Beatles music for use in video games, films and advertisements on radio and TV. For example, the controversial decision to use the Beatles song Revolution in a Nike TV commercial back in the 80’s can be credited to the late Mr. Jackson. The TV spot was quickly pulled due to the negative public backlash. Buying the Beatles publishing rights from under the nose of Paul McCartney, after Paul had given Michael Jackson the tip that music publishing was a good investment, made many wonder how Michael’s conscience allowed him to sleep at night.
First of all, me beeing only 38 years old and not really beeing one of the real Beatle days, I am very happy to see these Beatle albums are beeing rereleased for a newer and younger audience. Allthough the price of the box AGAIN is too high (when oh when will they lower cd prices, if they ever want to stop piracy) I am seriously considering bying this box. But still there is a bad taste of money making in my mouth. Maybe wait for the prices to go down. To many Gene Simmons types in this world.
All this froth about a white-boy knockoff of the great black girly groups of the time. Just as Elvis mediated the sexy rush of black r&b, so the Flab Four played nowt more than scouse slapper Tamla tunes. They were a mummy’s band for three or four albums, then hopeless, LSD-raddled hippies plugging moronic ditties into Macca’s dad’s dance-hall dross chords, and you’re all still fooled. Tin-pan alley netted the lot of you, then Yoko netted the only one with half a brain and he got shot before he could give any more of YOUR money to Marxists and urban terrorists. Mono, stereo, enhanced or knocked out with scratches on an old Dansette, they couldn’t hold a candle to the Soul and Tamla they imitated.
What is the deal with Charles Louis D’Ince, if you hate The Beatles this is not the place to let us know about it, we are reading this because we enjoy their music, and somehow that music is relevant and bring memories to us…my advice (even if you don’t want it)is simple, take your hate somewhere else…
its funny to realize that i was born when the first beatles cds came out,paid a rediculous price for all of them and now they come out in the age of mp3s,i’d buy the vinyl remasters if they released them, did they?anyone?
Audio professional standard DCC gold cd’s,(now Audio Fidelity) Remaster by Steve Hoffman uses “Original Master Tapes” not EQ’d, compressed tapes, but original MONO masters. Listen and compare The Beach Boys, Pet Sounds AFZ031. As with the man with the gun (Phil Spector) stated years ago it’s “BACK TO MONO”.
It’s “Tubes over Transitors”, it’s “Mono over Stereo”, it’s take your hand off the EQ’d button and a straight Analog transfer of studio monitor sound to the Digital CD format.
God gave you only two ears, 5.1 surround sound is NOT the answer your looking for.
Myself being an audiophile could’t pass up the chance to hear just one of the re-masters. I bought two, Abbey Road and The White Album. All I can say is incredible. I now have a project ahead of me to collect all of the Beatles proper or submit to intervention. I think that I will take the former.
My only question is with the Stones and Dylan offering recordings in the format that will play on both Blu-Ray and older players, why did they not go that route with the Beatles recordings?
Since a CD can hold 80 minutes of music, why not simply put the mono AND the stereo mixes on the same disc? It’s because of corporate greed. I realize this scenario would only work for the single titles, and that perhaps the Quicktime files might not fit on them. But if you want to add value and get me to buy the CDs again, than do it right and re-mix the masters for 5.1 surround sound and add videos, photos, lyrics to a bonus DVD. Better yet, why not use Blu-ray.
On the first listen, I couldn’t tell a huge difference (I bought Rubber Soul and Sgt. Pepper’s, my two faves). But I went song to song and listened, and there’s a huge quality improvement. Now I, too, need them all, but I really long for the mono versions… I wish they were sold separately.
Charles Louis D’Ince is a complete and utter moron. The Beatles ALWAYS paid respect to artists that influenced them, black, white or otherwise. That said, I love Motown & Stax, etc, as did The Beatles, but they forged ahead and created their own styles (I don’t hear much 60s R&b in For No One or A Day In The Life to name but two).
As for the Charles’ comment about Lennon funding terrorists, you’ve proven yourself to be no better than the Sunday tabloids, with no regard for facts. Go spew your racist hatred somewhere else. The Beatles and readers of this site are above it.
I thought it would have been more fitting to release the sets on September 10th…
A couple responses to the above. 1. Charles Louis Dunce, more like it. 2. If you are thinking of buying only one box, the stereo box is the one to go with. That way you have the complete studio recordings in stereo, the preferred fidelity of the world since 1967. The mono box is for completists, of which I am one, so that way you have the complete studio recordings in both versions, since there are noticable, albeit small, differences. Beatles fans are completists. If you do not know this, it’s time to bone up. 3. This is not a cash grab. Waiting 22 years between remastered versions of CDs is not a cash grab. If you do not realize this, you clearly haven’t been paying attention to the record industry re-issue boom of the last 10 years. 4. Rescuing rock & roll from it’s death in 1958, the whole idea of men wearing long hair, a British invasion of excellent music sweeping the world, bands beginning to form overnight and making wildly creative and adventurous music, the idea of the peace activist, the hippie movement, garage and psychedelic rock, power pop, first printed lyrics on an album cover, rock lyrics as poetry, the most-covered songs of all time, the first concept album, the concept of the rock album as a work of art, the idea that an album should be full of great songs and that each album should be different than the last, girls screaming in concert as loud as a jet engine, the idea that a rock band could be as funny as the Marx Brother, and the idea that a rock band could be ambassadors for music to non-music loving people of the world, making rock and roll the most popular music genre in the world, creating 2 **** films, and reinventing popular music as we know it are just a few of the contributions made by 4 friends from a working class town who called themselves the Beatles.
While it is no doubt true that these mono and stereo sets are truly works of art, I find that the marketing strategies used by the producers and/or distributors do a huge disfavour for music lovers everywhere. Because the mono set is only available as a limited edition, and the individual discs are released only in stereo mixes, the result is such that anyone with limited financial resources will be forced to settle for something other than their first choice. If I had my way, I would request that the discs be made available individually in their original release format (mono or stereo, whatever the case may be) and that they be made sufficiently affordable so that piracy could be reduced to a minimum. My argument is that if entire albums (CDs) can be purchased for US$8-10, and individual tracks for US$0.50 - US$0.75, why would anyone bother going through the hassle of downloading? (Most downloaded tracks contain spurious noises and I would much rather pay $0.50 if I can have a clean track to burn to my CD. Furthermore, the marketing company could end up making more profit if the loss in profit per unit is offset through increased sales volume.
hi,
Iam beatles fan club member of www.evergreenbeatles.com. Do visit this website.
The stereo versions are superior sonically to the mono versions. Enough with this arcane debate! Stereo has been the preferred choice of the world since the late 1960’s! Check it our for yourself here: http://goodrob13.com/2009/04/26/the-beatles-mono-vs-stereo-remastered-cds-coming-sept-2009/
If you are only going to buy one box, buy the stereo box and get the complete discography in glorious stereo. The mono box is for completists. If you are not a completist, that’s fine, just stay out of the big dog’s camp. :D
I checked Daryl’s link and it basically convinced me even further of the superiority of the mono versions. All of the clips on the webpage are great examples of how cheasy the stereo mixes are. And no, I couldn’t care less about how the rooster screams at me at the start of “Good Morning Good Morning”. The article tells you that the mono mixes were done first, but that it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Well, actually it is. I’ll be the first person to say that the stereo mixes of Let It Be and Abbey Road are good, but making a stereo mix of an album intended to be released in mono is not as simple as Daryl thinks. In some songs, the engineers put the voice only on one side (left or right), meaning that you will have an annoying time listening to them with headphones. This does not happen with today’s music, but in the old days, stereo meant that you just chopped the song in two, putting bass and drums on the left and guitar and voice on the right (just to make an example, but it could be even worse). The last two Beatles albums were mixed directly in stereo, and they did not exaggerate like they did with all the previous stereo mixes. The voice is in both speakers, and so are the drums and bass. The only real separation is usually with two guitars tracks, on on each side. That is not annoying to me.
With all the albums from 1963 to 1968, the stereo mixes basically take the mono mix and just delete each instrument from one of the 2 speakers. How can that be a good thing? How does that make you feel like you’re “in the studio”? It’s insane. Take it from John Lennon and Geoff Emerick: dish out an extra 40 dollars and listen to the fullness of the mono versions. Stereo-lovers put forth no real arguments, just generic statements like “it’s sonically better” or “it’s the future of music”. Listen to your old CDs of “Beatles For Sale” (mono) and “Help” (stereo) and let your ears decide.
i, for one, am excited for their remastered tracks. I didn’t have the privilege of listening to their original tracks back in the day, but I’ve heard of many great things about them from my grandfather. I can’t wait to have my own copy.
Wow. Where to begin? As a former Recording Engineer (back in the days of analog) i have to say that you’re all trying to compare apples to oranges with the whole Mono-vs-Stereo thing. I won’t even get into the whole marketing debate. But basically, after comparing the two on Daryl’s link, i would have to agree more with Chuck although not completely.
In most cases the Mono versions just sound better because that is the way they were conceived to be heard and the artists themselves were very involved in the final mixing and overall sound. This by itself doesn’t guarantee a better sound since sometimes ego gets the better of people and things can get ugly. Fortunately, this does not seem to have been the case in anything i’ve heard from the Beatles with perhaps the sole exception of Lennon’s overuse of echo and other effects because he didn’t like the sound of his own voice. I did.
But anyway, among the consistencies i found between the two were better balanced vocals, much better bass and drum presence, and overall more clarity in the Mono versions. They are also pretty consistent in the quality of the mix making it evident that much time and effort went into making each of them sound as good as possible. Unfortuantely, the same cannot be said of the Stereo mixes. The equalizing is all over the map with some songs getting the vocals “sweetened” (eq’d high) and the echo piled on in heaps. In most cases, the bass and drums are buried in the muck they made and are barely distinguishable, but not always. I guess it could have depended on who was present during the mixing and how level-headed (level-eared?) they were. But perhaps i can shed a bit more light on why there are such differences.
In the case of the older, originally Mono recordings stereo separation was especially tricky because they did have to resort to crude channel separation giving you the annoying “vocal in one ear-echo of the vocal in the other ear” along with instruments on either one channel or the other. Pretty annoying since the purpose of Stereo sound was to make recordings sound more “natural” and NOT completely artificial as these do.
In the case of the more recent albums from S.P.L.H.C.B. and on, Stereo was much more manageable and instruments or vocals COULD be placed (with a lot of work and forethought)almost anywhere along the spectrum of Hard Left to Hard Right. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to have happened until the last two albums which were intended to be Stereo from their inception. It seems to me that the stereo versions of albums previous to these were all mixed by “engineers-with-new-toys” who just had to go full tilt into exploiting the inherent technical abilities available to them. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the artistry and balance went right out the window. How many times have we seen that before in almost every medium? No wonder all the Beatles had such disparaging remarks to say about the Stereo mixes.
So in conclusion i would say that, if you are into the music and want to hear it as close to what the original artists heard in the control room during mixdown, get the Mono versions.
If you are a “techie”, or have no artistic sensibilities (ie no ear), or are perhaps overly analytical and the breaking up of a unified work of art into separate incongruous and unnatural “parts” doesn’t bother you, then by all means get the Stereo versions.
I make these comment of course, based on the samples on Daryl’s website which must be from the earlier existing versions of Beatle music. However, if for these newly remastered versions they went back to the origianl tapes and remixed everything at Abbey Road into a new digital Stereo, then these observations could be a moot point. It is quite possible from Sgt. Pepper’s onward to remix a well balanced and well-toned Stereo version that is much better than the original Mono versions. So until i’ve heard the actual NEW stereo versions, i will reserve my comments on them.
I was never a big Beatle fan and don’t think i have more than an old CD of Abbey Road. But now that the remasters are out, i will probably look into acquiring a lot of them eventually, especially the Mono versions if the Stereo versions were unchanged.
I noticed when Capitol/EMI Released the Beatles Capitol Box Set Volumes 1 & 2 Each Album was re-mastered with both stereo and Mono mixes. They all sound Superb as well the box sets were well priced. BUt the new re-mastered UK releases should include the mono mixes. Im a little disappointed on the prices for these CD’s up here in Canada are a bit pricey here from store to store and if distributed from EMI Music Canada compared to Capitol EMI in the US
Does anyone have anything to say about or insight on a possible re-re-re-re-reissue of all of these remastered recordings on Blu Ray (or “lossless” / FLAC digital files)? I’m assuming that conventional CD technology will get eclipsed in the not-too-distant future (in 3-10 years?). I’m also assuming that these remasters will get reissued on Blu Ray (in 3-10 years?), and then we will all be here together in the same boat: of having to buy a Blu Ray player and another handful or box set (or an audiophile file server and lossless files) of these dear recordings. So, why not enjoy those 1987 CDs a bit longer?
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like an opportune time to reissue all of these recordings on conventional CD before audio format wars hit the radar of the general public and people start holding out on buying one format for the promise of a newer, “better” one. Hold out on the public for as long as possible.
@ Roscoe: I doubt CDs will be eclipsed in the next 50 years. The sound quaity is amazing and your ears can only handle so much sound quality. Even if they come out with a blue ray disc set, I’ll still keep the mono box I bought because it sounds excellent.
@ Rick: thank you for the enlightening information. I think if you hear the new stereo remasters, you’ll agree with me that they have improved nothing over the 1987 releases. They still have the voice in only one speaker (with a faint echo in the other), and the instruments are also in one speaker only (usually). Revolver and Help are the most annoying stereo mixes I’ve ever heard. The Beatles 1963-1968 stereo mixes are very primitive and people don’t realise that. In 1987, they improved nothing, and to this day these stereo albums are appalling. If you hear an Oasis album, the instruments are all in both speakers, except for the two guitars which sometimes split the speakers. That is good, sensible stereo mixing imo. As you know, the last two Beatles albums were mixed in stereo from the start, and I think they were done in a modern, headphone-friendly way. The mono box plus Abbey Road and Let It Be is the best Beatles collection imo.
Mono rules!
I’m going for Chuck’s idea to get the mono box and then add the stereo versions of AR and LIB. Stereo has been a great thing for a long time now, but for most of the ’60s, stereo sounds like diluted, unnatural music to me.
I remember when Johnny Winter produced Muddy Waters’ “Hard Again” in 1977 and said he wanted to get as close to mono as possible because the power of those old mono records “hits you in the face.”
Weren’t the Beatles often trying to match the excitement of the Little Richard and Elvis records they loved, even as late as “Oh!
Darling”? Their early masterpieces such as the brooding “No Reply,” the funky “The Word” or Ringo’s relentless groove on “Any Time At All” (to name but three) achieved that power in their sparkling mono versions, whereas the stereo mixes are crippled by their own technology.
Chuck seems to feel that listening to stereo separation is “annoying”. I guess he’s entitled to his opinion.
The Beatles got away from recording in mono around 1968/69, as did the rest of the industry. Mono recordings continued to be issued alongside stereo versions in the 60’s, mainly because AM radio stations wanted to play the mono versions. As a radio producer since 1982, I know a little about this. AM stations broadcast in mono, and while FM stereo stations were on the rise in the 60’s, their formats were usually classical, jazz or easy listening. Anyone who’s ever listened to an AM station play a Sunday morning oldies show will have noticed that when an AM station plays a Beatles song, the stereo seperation caused half the song to go missing! Guitar solos and choruses disappear, or are heard only as an echo of the original, which is over in the other channel. This is because alot of AM radio engineers cheated, and created a mono feed that basically took the right channel from any input (including the turntables) and broadcast it as one mono signal. What AM stations always wanted to play was the mono version, so that loss of the left channel in stereo recordings didn’t happen. Promo copies of records issued to AM radio stations were always in mono, or in the case of singles, mono on one side and stereo on the other (Led Zep’s Stairway to Heaven was issed in this way, and is a much sought after promo-only collectable).
The Beatles, arriving as they did at the dawn of stereo, had the bulk of their recordings issued during the dark ages of that technology. Thus, you get wacky separation where it’s Paul’s vocal completely in the right, John’s completely in the left, or Paul’s bass completely in the right and George’s guitar completely in the left, with that aforementioned “kid with a new toy” approach. Once it was discovered that these recordings were a disaster on the air on mono AM stations where engineers jerry-rigged stereo equipment incorrectly, a more moderate approach was taken to stereo mixing, where we got a way from the “all or nothing” separation mentality, into something were it was more of a 75-25 or 60-40 split between the channels. It’s really not until Queen comes along with Bohemian Rhapsody that we get another recording with those “galileo figaroos” coming at us from hard-pan seperate channels again. That’s why Homer Simpson is sitting in a beanbag chair with headphones on recalling that “he stayed up listening to Queen…..when he was 17.” So these mono versions arrive at a time when there’s nothing on the AM band except talk radio and country. Oh well, maybe they’ll play Ringo’s “Act Naturally”. We could have really used those mono mixes back in ‘87!
I love the Beatles as much as anyone here, but Chuck and Rick are two prime examples of disgusting musical snobbery. I’m only twenty, I’m a student, I don’t come from a rich family; how am I going to afford a huge boxset of mono recordings?
Yet Chuck and Rick attempt to convince everyone who isn’t listening to the mono mixes that they’re just stupid tossers who have no clue about how to appreciate music.
Rick said;
If you are a “techie”, or have no artistic sensibilities (ie no ear), or are perhaps overly analytical and the breaking up of a unified work of art into separate incongruous and unnatural “parts” doesn’t bother you, then by all means get the Stereo versions.
Are you serious??! You can f**k right off, man. I have ‘no artistic sensibilities’ because I can’t afford to spunk in excess of €200 on a few CDs? I have ‘no ear’? I suppose you do, eh? I can’t believe the smug superiority complex of some people. It’s sickening.
@ ConfusedIrishGuy:
Whether you call it “musical snobbery” or “sound advice”, what’s wrong with it? I’m trying to advise people who are thinking about buying the Beatles remasters (and most of us are just as low on cash as you are - 240 euros is within reach of anyone, no matter how “poor”). Stop drinking Guinness for a week and you’ll have the money, crybaby.
Rick is 100% correct when he says “techies” will prefer the stereo CDs. The drastic separation you hear on those mixes can appeal only to technology junkies.
If you’re going to spend the money, you should steer clear from the primitive 1963-1968 stereo mixes. Stereo music wasn’t done right until 1969.
Time was! And at the end…of the CD age, here we go. I own both the boxes, a mandatory buy not just for Beatles fans, but for all music lovers. Sure, the Mono Box is the real thing. The stereo mixes were a post production businness, never involving the Fab Four in their making. Just a black spot: after the amazing “Love” rework of some tracks, I would have appreciated also a 5.1 version, at least of the last four albums, a kind of maybe unfaithful rendition, but surely funny and entertaining. What about releases on SACD and DVD-Audio? Why not Bluray? Ok, maybe we, audiophiles, just have to wait other 20 years..
I just hope I can still dig up a mono box by March of next year when I get my tax refund (unless it’s needed for something else). “Petty cash” is a dream. Those EMI bastards could have put both versions on one CD and made them available as individual albums.
Well, being part of a new generation of Beatles fans (I’m 18) it’s fantastic to get top quality Beatles CDs. I’m enjoying all the ones I’ve bought so far. Excellent.
Comparing the mono to stereo mix is silly. Somebody needs to do double-blind comparison of the mono mix and the stereo version mixed down to mono for playback. If the difference isn’t enough to prefer one over the other, obviously you get the stereo one and mix it down if you want to hear it in mono. Best of both worlds.
@Chuck
“Stop drinking Guinness for a week and you’ll have the money, crybaby.”
That actually made me laugh out loud in the library, so thanks… I think.
But considering Guinness is €4, I’d have to be drinking around 50 pints a week … FINE. I’ll stop for one week then. Jeez. Better be worth it.
I’m thinking about not drinking Guinness for a week as well, so I can have both the stereo AND mono boxes! Guinness costs 5 euros a pint in Italy. People here drink it as if they were sipping a glass of 1787 Chateau Lafite.