Mono vs Stereo reissues

For jazz through the late '60s, you want mono. For classical you generally want stereo where available. (Not in the case of certain French labels from the '50s and '60s.) For rock it's partly a matter of taste, partly a matter of how important which mix was to the group in question. For the Beatles, for instance, you definitely want mono through Revolver or so; then you want both through perhaps the White Album. Late '60s rock mono records are generally curiosities made in small quantities, and can go for lots of money - the Kinks 'Arthur,' etc.

A true stereo mix cannot be created from a mono master if there are no multitracks. Fake stereo re-creations were made in the '60s in many instances and they are monstrosities.

Even in the days of mono LPs, the original master recordings were often multitrack. When that is the case a stereo issue makes sense.

I have a multichannel DVDA disc, "Emmylou Harris, Producer's Cut" which is material originally issued in stereo decades ago. But the masters were 24 channel, and the multichannel mix is great.

Similarly, the recent 3-channel Mercury issues were possible because the masters were 3 channel, but had to be mixed down to stereo when they were originally released.

if the mixes are drastically different, or if the mono versions contain different takes, you get both....otherwise the mono versions are not the way to go. examples are the byrds stuff on sundazed...the mono versions are the only ones available now because sony withdrew the license for the stereo versions. sony would not part with the stereo dylan stuff. stereo was the norm in the 1960's, not mono. it is fun however to own both if you are a collector...good examples ...piper at the gates of dawn, axis bold as love, who sellout. both verasions have their charms and differences. lots more too...there are but 4 small faces, yada yada

Oh man, I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more Jaybo.

First of all, for many '60s British groups in particular, the mono mix was the one that they paid attention to. George Martin in the Beatles famously mixed in mono -- the stereo was farmed out to an assistant engineer through '67 or so. If you want to hear what the band wanted you to hear, go with mono. And as you point out, these are vastly different mixes, and often different takes. Same applies to, for example, the Beach Boys - Brian Wilson is actually deaf in one ear, and therefore hears in mono... that's the way you ought to hear Pet Sounds.

Moving to other genres, famous small-group jazz recordings also need to be heard in mono, this time with recordings through '69 again. Attention was lavished on the mono mix for the great Blue Notes, Verves, Clefs, Prestiges, Contemporarys and so on. Of course for a small group recorded close-up a mono mix is arguably preferable for technical reasons to the "wide-angle" stereo favored in the early days of the technology... no reason to have the drums on the left and the bass on the right when they're actually clustered together in the middle of the stage.

Only for classical, especially orchestral, with its wide wide natural soundstage, is stereo *automatically* to be preferred to mono for recordings from the '50s and most of the '60s. (And even here there are exceptions, e.g. with early Erato LDEs and Club francais du disque, as I mentioned above.)

There are exceptions for individual records throughout, and the early stereo Byrds are certainly really good. .For 'Piper at the Gates of Dawn' however, I'd go mono, mono, mono all the way dude...

Patrick

well first of all, the beat groups of that era were recording with the intention of being heard on am radio. 45's drove the industry, not lp's. fm stereo changed all that, plus the target audience and the bands themselves grew up. brian embrassed stereo on the friends lp, which is his favorite of all (and mine).