Remastered Beatles - stereo, mono or both?

[flippyshark]

So, I want to buy pretty much all of the newly remastered Beatles albums. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_ujOegHzo) Very unscientifically speaking, the samples heard in the linked promo video sound clearer than the same songs on my 80s era CDs via my computer, both playing through my computer's speakers.

Anyway, I'm especially interested in the mono mixes, and would probably be content to get the mono box (and then add the not-included Yellow Submarine, Let It Be and Abbey Road discs individually) BUT, the mono box is quite a lot more expensive (229.99) than the more complete stereo mix box set (179.99), even though it contains less material. OH, why do they do this?

Anyhow, if anyone has heard the mono remixes yet, and can report as to whether or not they are accurate and compelling, I'd appreciate it. (glances toward mousepod.) I've got very old worn vinyl of most of this stuff, and only about half of it on previous cd releases - I'd just buy both boxes if I lived in Fantasyland. As it is, I'm going to have to save up for these. But I'd be lying if I didn't say I was very psyched.

[mousepod]

I've heard 'em all. They sound very very good.

That said, I'm not going to repurchase the entire Beatles catalog for the umpteenth time. Especially on CD.

Assuming the vinyl reissues actually happen (in November?), I'll be buying them. As for the digital versions... I'll be happy for CD rips. The packaging is not important to me at this point.

But since you started the thread...

Chuck Klosterman Repeats The Beatles (http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles,32560/)

[Snowflake]

Anyway, I'm especially interested in the mono mixes, and would probably be content to get the mono box (and then add the not-included Yellow Submarine, Let It Be and Abbey Road discs individually) BUT, the mono box is quite a lot more expensive (229.99) than the more complete stereo mix box set (179.99), even though it contains less material. OH, why do they do this?


Easy, for the money! ;)

I have none of this stuff on disc, in any form, any longer (save a couple of discs from the always generous MP)

It goes on the list, how I do sometimes miss my Tower Record days with promotional copies....of course, this one would be hotly contested over.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Forgive the newbie question. What advantage does the mono have over the stereo? At first glance, wouldn't stereo be better?

[flippyshark]

But since you started the thread...

Chuck Klosterman Repeats The Beatles (http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles,32560/)

Very amusing

[Ghoulish Delight]

Forgive the newbie question. What advantage does the mono have over the stereo? At first glance, wouldn't stereo be better?
Mono is more "authentic", it's how the albums were originally released.

[mousepod]

Mono is more "authentic", it's how the albums were originally released.

It's not any more authentic than the stereo.

What's cool is that the Beatles albums were mixed differently for mono and stereo when they were first released, so they were absolutely unique versions.

Once mono finally died, the only releases were in stereo.

One oddball release (not in the mono box) is the Brazilian mono lp of Abbey Road. It's authentic in that it was commercially available in mono on release date, but not particularly interesting to most fans because it's just a folded-down version of the stereo mix.

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Mono is more "authentic", it's how the albums were originally released.

Do you know if the "masters" were stereo or mono? was "stereoization" done after the fact?

[mousepod]

The early releases were legitimately mixed in stereo, not the horrible "electronic stereo" fakes.

[Gemini Cricket]

Well, if you get mono it's probably because you kissed someone infected.

[Moonliner]

What's cool is that the Beatles albums were mixed differently for mono and stereo when they were first released, so they were absolutely unique versions.

Once mono finally died, the only releases were in stereo.



So in essence, the Mono version will appeal primarily to hard core music buffs who know sh*t like this. A demographic which spends more on music and thus allows the higher price point for the mono set.

[innerSpaceman]

Please someone stop me before i buy this.


Or rather, please someone give this a good comparative listen and tell me seriously if there's any reason to bother.




On the other hand, I'm the kind of rapid Beatles fan that knows all about the mono mixes and have enjoyed hearing some now and again, but I've no desire to buy the set of (imo) inferior and no less or more authentic recordings, even if it weren't more expensive.

[Gemini Cricket]

iSm, I say buy them both.

[innerSpaceman]

hmmm, maybe i'll do just that.



But I guess I'm actually the type of "rapid" Beatles fan who just types really quickly without spellchecking, and not the rabid type that might fall for this insane bit of marketing ploy. Um, the originals were not recorded well enough to even sound good on CD, much less "remastered." Um, why? 1960s, my friends. You cannot make this stuff sound good, otherwise it would not sound authentic.

[Moonliner]

Um, why? 1960s, my friends. You cannot make this stuff sound good, otherwise it would not sound authentic.

My thought exactly. Well said.

I'm perfectly happy with the versions I already have.

[Alex]

Well, I similarly demand that when old Technicolor movies are transferred to DVD\Blu-Ray that they maintain the imperfect alignment between the color strips. All the extra clarity is wrong.

[mousepod]

Actually, that's pretty silly. Microphones and recording technology were perfectly fine (sound-wise) back in the 1960s. However, mass-produced records are fraught with potential sound problems (and crappy styluses (stylii?) didn't help much either). The idea of these CDs is that the original master recordings are utilized and the digital reproduction will be lossless.

[innerSpaceman]

What recordings did they use for the first round of CD? The slaves?


mp, are you going to listen to any of them any time soon? I will trust your discerning ear.




As for imperfect technicolor strips ... I dunno about that. But I watched the blu-ray of Close Encounters the other night - - and it looked so crisp and clean and grainless that it seemed downright wrong at times.

[mousepod]

I've listened to much of the stereo and mono boxes so far. They sound spectacular. This is the best CD release so far.

I haven't compared them to the Purple Chick needle drops yet, but I imagine they're at least a little better.

Still, if I'm going to spend money on The Beatles again, I'm going to wait for the audiophile vinyl pressings.

[Alex]

As for imperfect technicolor strips ... I dunno about that. But I watched the blu-ray of Close Encounters the other night - - and it looked so crisp and clean and grainless that it seemed downright wrong at times.

Yeah, I jested but there are legitimate issues (such as how much grain to leave in when cleaning up the dust and other later imperfections). For the new Wizard of Oz blu-ray the perfect alignment of the strips resulted in otherwise barely discernible strings snapping into perfect clarity when the flying monkeys come through. They made the decision to remove them (the monkeys, not the strings) digitally.

[Betty]

Purple Chick needle drops

What in the heck does that mean?

[mousepod]

What in the heck does that mean?

Since the original CD releases sounded inferior to the original LPs, a bunch of different fans (under various different names) went back to the cleanest-sounding vinyl they could find and recorded it, using no special digital tricks or equalization. They're called "needle drops" because it's basically the sound you'd get if you dropped the needle on the record and hit "record".

Another fan group called Purple Chick weeded through the best of the needle drops (and all other existing bootlegs) and built and shared (for free) a set with other Beatles fans.

[flippyshark]

*sigh* - I forgot about the vinyl release. I'm going to want that too.

[flippyshark]

Oh, and Purple Chick Needle Drops would be a great name for a band.

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, Isaac asked me why I just didn't disconnect my turntable yesterday. I can't remember the last time I used it.

That said, I have both a German set and a Japanese set of Beatles vinyl. That's as good as I care to get, considering I'll NEVER listen to them.


Too bad the new release is not in one of the (extinct I guess) audiophile uber-CD formats. Now that I've got an Oppo blu-ray to decode and play those, I'm hankering to get a few somehow (a time machine might be necessary). Beatles would have been perfect.

As it is, maybe I'll buy one of the new CDs and do a Pepsi/Coke blindfold test with the old CDs. If I can tell the difference .... hmmm?

[Moonliner]

Well, I similarly demand that when old Technicolor movies are transferred to DVD\Blu-Ray that they maintain the imperfect alignment between the color strips. All the extra clarity is wrong.

I may have to call my old Pysch professor, I think there is a paper in this....

For movies: Better clarity/sound is better. No matter how old the movie (with the notable exception of colorization)

For music: I tend perfer it in whatever quality I first heard it. They way people tend to like their first James Bond or Dr. Who. Clean it up too much and it just sounds wrong.

Or is that just me?

[lindyhop]

I'm tempted by the mono versions because most of what I originally owned was mono. A mono lp was $2.99 and stereo was $3.99 and that made a big difference to me. But the mono boxed set is a limited edition, isn't it? So it could be gone before you make up your mind.

I wonder if with the stereo versions, is the sound still split between the two speakers? They would have something like vocals in one speaker and instruments in the other. We listened to these records like we were deciphering ancient texts.

I have vinyl boxed sets from god knows when up on a shelf in my closet. They've probably melted by now.:(

[innerSpaceman]

For music: I tend perfer it in whatever quality I first heard it. They way people tend to like their first James Bond or Dr. Who. Clean it up too much and it just sounds wrong.

Or is that just me?
Interestingly, in creating the Disneyland 50 retrospective, I mixed remastered segments of such Park hits as Yo Ho, A Pirates Life for Me and it's a small world after all with old recordings from the 60's. The old sounds were decidedly "right," and the new mixes were beautifully awesome. I used them both, as both were great. I'm glad I didn't have to choose between, and I'm none too sure anyone notices the mid-song switcheroos but me.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Chuck Klosterman Repeats The Beatles (http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles,32560/)Love it! The inside jokes aimed at true fans are a crack up.

No, I won't be buying this. I'm glad it exists though. Perhaps one day I'll feel the need to repurchase them and there they'll be, even better than before.

[SacTown Chronic]

I recently discovered that my grandmother has a bootleg 8mm video of The Beatles in concert at the Cow Palace circa 1964. Apparently grandma found a "high spot" in which to secretly record while my mom was down in the floor seats.

I mentioned to grandma that I'd love to borrow it but she just gave me the stink eye (She's kinda paranoid and mean, so I don't think it'll get loaned out anytime soon). So then I put it out there that I would like to have it when she passes. Despite the fact that I've never asked anyone in my family for anything - ever -, I got another stink eye from grandma. And one from my mom.

[innerSpaceman]

oh, le sigh.



Let's just say .... my roommate's gonna hate me.

[Kevy Baby]

But I guess I'm actually the type of "rapid" Beatles fan who just types really quickly without spellchecking, and not the rabid type that might fall for this insane bit of marketing ploy.See... I thought you had intended to say you were a vapid fan

[Ghoulish Delight]

I jus listebed to a really interesting piece from NPR's All Songs Cnsidered about this, an interview with someone involved in the profuction.

listen here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112652937)

He starts with a discussion of what remastering is, what source material they used, and the things they decided to "fix" without ruining the integrity of the recordings. He played a shirt clip to demonstrate how they took an obvious recording error (backing vocal track dropping out for a moment) and fixed it the way the Beatles certainly would have if they had the capability. To be honest I listened 3 times and couldn really make out the difference. Such audio quality things are clearly lost on my ears.

More interesting to me was the discussion of the difference between the mono and stereo mixes. He focused on Sgt. Peppers which probably represents the biggest difference between the 2 sibce the Beatles themselves oversaw the mono mix while they left the stereo mix entirely to George Martin. The guy in the interview made a case for the mono mix being his preferred, and I'll say he was pretty persuasive. At the very least it certainly justifies the existence of both box sets from a completeness standpoint.

Well worth the 20 minute or so listen.

[innerSpaceman]

It's too bad it's not the monos that are released as single items. I'd be interested in picking up 2 or 3 of them, especially Sgt. Pepper.

[mousepod]

I think the White Album is one of the most listenable of the mono records. But I love the White Album.

[innerSpaceman]

I should have splurged on the mono set as well. True, I would have listened to them only once, but the same can be said of watching many DVDs I buy.


That NPR interview GD linked to brought up some strong memories. We must have had the mono Sgt. Pepper when I was a kid, and I haven't heard some of that stuff since 1967. I particularly recall She's Leaving Home at the different tempo and key. It released a flood of memory, and I'm really keen to listen to the mono mixes of these LPs. A pox on them for not selling them separately.

[lindyhop]

I've read and heard several enthusiastic reviews of these reissues so I think I'm going to have splurge on a boxed set. I should anyway, just to re-establish my Beatlemaniac cred. I never bought more than a few CDs so I can't play much of my favorite music. Time to fix that.

[innerSpaceman]

Isaac and I have such similar tastes in music, so I'm amazed he doesn't like the Beatles at all. He can stand perhaps 3 or 4 of their songs, and that's about as many as I don't like in their entire catalog.

He just doesn't get it. Fortunately, I don't feel the need to explain or justify when the release of their music and availability on a hit video game causes a media storm 40 years after they broke up. Isaac's clearly missing something.


I don't mean to imply that his taste is wrong ... but, well, it is. ;)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yeah....kind of hard to give Isaac the benefit of the doubt...when there is no doubt ;)

[flippyshark]

Flippyshark reviews the remastered

MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR

Okay, I can't afford any box sets, and the mono set is now officially hard to find. So, I'll be purchasing the separate releases two or three at a time and hope that the mono box comes my way for Christmas or further down the road.

I made my first new Beatles purchase a few days ago, picking up Abbey Road and Magical Mystery Tour, along with a free 5 dollar Target gift card. (Yes, my subsequent purchases will also happen at Target.) Abbey Road I've been listening to endlessly for years now. It's my favorite album from anyone ever, and I know it's every quiver and quaver. I never tire of it.

On the other hand, I hadn't actually listened to Tour for a very long time. When I was probably six years old, living briefly in Orlando (this was 1971, the year WDW opened, and to save you the math, yes I'm 44 as of this writing), my oldest brother Jeff was going through an avid Beatles phase. When he brought home the Magical Mystery Tour lp, I was drawn to it by the weird animal suits on the cover, and the comic strip style cartoons of the booklet within. And wow, when I heard the record itself, I wasn't just hooked, I was captivated, overwhelmed, equal parts delighted and terrified. This was one of the first "grown up" records I ever really listened to, and I'm not kidding when I tell you that the experience of hearing it was just as profound and transporting as any of the rides at the Magic Kingdom that I was so very obsessed with at that very same time.

That said, and given that I heard the lp no doubt hundreds of times as a kid, I didn't ever purchase it in my adult years, though it was always somewhere in the "got to get around to that" file. I figured I could run through the music in my brain with considerable accuracy, so no rush adding it to my collection.

So, now I have this cd, and I've just revisited the album (three times in the space of two days), and I'm gobsmacked. This wasn't just an experience of nostalgia, it was a vivid, intense hit of emotion and sensation.

First of all, it sounds fantastic, and in the case of this particularly psychedelic and complex songlist, I'm glad I have the stereo mix, as it helps to single out the various elements. Paul's bass comes through especially well, and the vocals, though occasionally flanged and processed, still have a nice "Oh, John is right over there by my cat" feel to them.

So, a few song-specific notes:

Title Song: This is a fun, upbeat song, and I know it really drew me in as a lad. I was expecting some sort of story from the album the first time I put it on. (The booklet also gives this impression, though a reading of the cartoon strip text does not deliver anything like an actual narrative. Of course, neither does the freeform home movie to which half of this album is the soundtrack.) It's easy to see now how this opening is similar to Sgt. Pepper, in that it sets up the illusion of a unifying concept to the rest of the tracks. Also, there is a great big stereophonic WHOOSH early on that made me giggle way back when.

Fool On The Hill: I kind of forgot about this song for a few decades. Now I remember how sad it used to make me. Specifically, the line "nobody seems to like him," so simple and direct, made my heart ache for whoever this "man with a thousand voices" might be. I took it personally back then, and this tune felt like my own, especially in those moments (frequent) when I felt like an outsider. Inevitably, my revisit with the song left me sniffly and blubbery.

Your Mother Should Know: Side one was always a journey, with the emotional Fool followed on by the instrumental Flying and the trippy Blue Jay Way. By the time I reached track four, I was always ready for a lift, and Your Mother Should Know was a perfect tonic for the somewhat unsettling if fascinating soundscape of those two tracks. It was a dose of musical comfort food that I welcomed, even though I knew that as soon as it was over, I had to face the (to me) spooky excesses of ...

I Am The Walrus: Really, this whole album may have been a little bit too much for such an easily over-stimulated kid as yours truly, but THIS song, Good Lord but it bent my brain. It scared me, but in such a compelling way that I kept returning to it, over and over again. I didn't understand a word of it (how could I have?), but it struck me as some kind of unearthly incantation. I used to jump at the HO HO HO, HEE HEE HEE, HA HA HA in the middle of the song (I did NOT want to meet that Joker that was apparently laughing at me) - and as the chanting at the end of the track began, I used to picture the busload of people (seen in the booklet) turning into monsters of various shapes and sizes, a bit like the spirits in Fantasia's Bald Mountain sequence. When the radio voices from Hamlet started up, I imagined they were figures from the Haunted Mansion's grave yard, especially the tea-drinking mummy and his long-bearded deaf companion, commenting from the sidelines about the bizarre monster-bus spectacle. I used to be exhausted by the time this track, and Side One of the album, were over.

So, that was wild to revisit.

Strawberry Fields Forever: On the whole, Side Two was a picnic compared to the sensory roller-coaster of Side One. But, this flipside contained a moment of such pure terror, it haunted my dreams. I speak, of course, about the legendary "I Buried Paul" lurking in the outro of Strawberry Fields. Naturally, my older brother told me about this "hidden message" and the rumors of Paul's demise. He assured me that Paul was very much alive. That didn't matter. I found it perverse and horrifying that at the end of this lovely song, after it seemed to have faded out, this strange fluttery flute and chugging drum would show up, and there, in the background, a low, slow voice saying what sounded for all the world like "I Buried Paul." My mental picture, a shaggy green Swamp-Thing-like monster standing in my bedroom doorway at midnight, holding a dirt-covered shovel in his hand, and delivering this dire piece of news. Of course, I knew that truth - that beast had buried Paul all right - BURIED HIM ALIVE. So, I would listen to the song through that first fade out, and then BOY did I dive for the volume knob, or sometimes I would just lift the needle and carefully try to drop it over to the welcome sunshine of Penny Lane.

Duly noted: On the new cd, it is abundantly clear that the voice is actually saying Cranberry Sauce, just like John always said. So, now I'm stuck with a big shaggy monster with a shovel showing up at my bedroom door and saying "Cranberry Sauce." Not quite so sinister, I guess.

One last note - in spite of the rumors, I simply cannot hear the supposed "rich fag Jew" slur against Brian Epstein in Baby You're A Rich Man. It's crystal clear that they are singing "rich man too" every time.

Oh, and Abby Road sounds wonderful as well.

(Soon, I will get to write about the other two Beatles songs that gave me shivers - Revolution Number Nine, and A Day In The Life.)

[innerSpaceman]

I hate Magical Mystery Tour.




That's not to say I don't love the songs on it. I do.


But why is it released as an official UK Beatles album when it most certainly was not? It was a U.S.-only creation, just as all of those Capital Records anthologies were. Perhaps the American creation was released in the UK at some point, but it was NOT during the Beatles actual lifetime as a band.


Side One is indeed the (for the most part wonderful songs which were featured on the truly (for the most part) awful movie of the same name, but they are not featured on this album in the same running order as they were released in the UK - on an E.P. (extended play record).

The E.P. was an oddity (to us) of Brit music distribution. A single-sized record containing, typically, four songs. The Beatles released several of these, mostly containing songs that were on their albums. But there were a handful of songs before the Magical Mystery Tour EP that were not on any of their albums. (Many of the songs on Beatles singles were also not on any of their albums). I believe Magical Mystery Tour was their last E.P. -- but the E.P. features the "correct" running order of the authentic British release, and the album version is simply wrong.


The flip side of the L.P. is a mish-mash of mostly unreleased material from that time period ... but the notable songs, Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever, were long-standing hits that had been released on a single several months before Sgt. Pepper, and well over a year before the Magical Mystery Tour compilation L.P. was cobbled together.


I'm not noting this to debunk flippy's great review. It just bugs me that it's "now" considered part of the authentic UK releases, when it is nothing of the sort.

I rather like the psychedelic-groovy songs from this bizarre period of the Beatles' work. Many of the other songs from this era are on the similarly cobbled-together Yellow Submarine LP released yet another year or so later. (But at least that one was really released in the U.K.)


It's too bad The Beatles' recording habits fell apart after Sgt. Pepper. Maybe it was the loss of their manager Brian Epstein, maybe it was the decision to stop touring, who knows? But they never really put together another LP until the White Album, almost 3 years later ... and even that was more a collection of solo projects than an actual Beatles album. (Ironic that the "real" name of the White Album is "The Beatles.")



Anyway, Amazon ... where's my box set???

[Snowflake]

Thank you Flippy for the trip down memory lane re The Magical Mystery Tour. I've never seen the film/tv show, but I always loved this album, have not heard it in years and your descriptions brought it all right back to me.

[flippyshark]

According to the liner notes - The US album "was released in the UK in November 1976 and was added to the "core" Beatles catalogue when their music was transferred to CD in 1987." It's the only US compilation to have been "adopted" as the official version.

[mousepod]

...and the US LP version was imported into the UK, where it actually charted.

[innerSpaceman]

According to the liner notes - The US album "was released in the UK in November 1976 and was added to the "core" Beatles catalogue when their music was transferred to CD in 1987." It's the only US compilation to have been "adopted" as the official version.

With all due disrespect for revisionist history, you can make it "official" all you want ... but you cannot change the fact that it was not released in the U.K. by The Beatles.

It's bogus. All the songs should be on the Past Masters compilations of amazing hits and several klunkers that were never released on a Beatles album in Great Britain.


Curmudgeon says Bah. :p

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Awesome review, Flippy! I'm going to listen to my cruddy old version ASAP.

MMT also turned me on when I first discovered the Beatles. I actually put the LP on for my friends and freaked them out with I Am The Walrus. I happened to already be in high school, however, and I'm the type to read things up, so I always heard "cranberry sauce", among other things.

[Snowflake]

Dredging this up to see if anyone caught Great Performances PBS show this week on The Magical Mystery Tour? I enjoyed the documentary though I wished they'd talked more to John and George before they died about it.

The film itself was fun and I did love some of the camerawork and can totally see why the establishment in Britain hated it and the younger gebneration loved it. Interesting Xmas release, to be sure. While I doubt I'll buy the DVD of it, it was sure fun to see in quality rather than the various stinky youtube clips I've watched.

So now I am back into wanting some of the 2009 remasterings. Still sadly lacking in some of the core Beatles releases on CD. Guess it's time to use that amazon gift card!

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, I did not catch that. Might it be repeated?

Ironically, I just yesterday finally stated to watch the Martin Scorcese documentary about George Harrison that I got from Netflix over 3 months ago and has been sitting on my shelf all that time while my queue gathers dust and my monthly billing gets me nothing.

I realize I've listened to the CD remasters (stereo versions) that this thread is about only ONCE, but I'd still love to find a used mono set for sale on the cheap.

[Snowflake]

Oh, I did not catch that. Might it be repeated?

Ironically, I just yesterday finally stated to watch the Martin Scorcese documentary about George Harrison that I got from Netflix over 3 months ago and has been sitting on my shelf all that time while my queue gathers dust and my monthly billing gets me nothing.

I realize I've listened to the CD remasters (stereo versions) that this thread is about only ONCE, but I'd still love to find a used mono set for sale on the cheap.

Amazon has a used MONO set for about $125, just sayin

iSm, check your local PBS station, I'm sure they will repeat it.

Info from the PBS site (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/episodes/magical-mystery-tour-revisited/watch-the-full-film/1483/)

[CoasterMatt]

How about, animated?
http://i.imgur.com/mPNHN.gif

[lashbear]

Love you, Matt.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

VCMM!