So, What is the Verdict on the Beatles Box Sets?

I got several of the stereo remixes today. Listened to part of Sgt Peppers. I was a bit put off actually and suprisingly so after the review I'd read saying how good they were. It's the same ole stuff - added treble emphasis, compression. I just didn't expect it to that degree. Even on my Mcintosh system it jumped right out. Yes, you can hear more detail, everything is cleaned up but they went too far with it. I'm kinda having buyer's remorse right now. I might buy a mono mix and see how it sounds. I'm havin' trouble getting my mind around the mono better than stereo concept but, man, the added boom and sparkle - ouch!

I'm curious, how is it that there are mono versions? I know their early stuff was mono but was there ever a commercially released mono version of, say, Sgt Peppers or is it something that was done for the remasters? I mean you can't go out and buy Rumours in Mono. I'm assuming all the Beatles albums were mono in some sort of finished product and that later after the 60s it just wasn't done much. I'd like a little more insight into this aspect. If both mono and stereo were available for Sgt Pepper's at the time of original release, why did they do it? Was there any demand for mono back then?

I've listened to a couple of the monos today. Much better. Can't figure out what people are thinking when they like the stereo versions better. Even my 4 and 8 year old said they like the mono better and I wasn't quizzing them about it either. My 8 year old starting saying how good it sounds (mono) and she's pretty familiar with Sgt Pepper's. I didn't bring it up that it was a different version. They don't know anything about the versions. Honestly I listed to the first 10 seconds and was immediately struck by how much better they sounded. I thought my ears were playing tricks on me and so I started a-b'ing the first 10 seconds and could easily tell the difference.

Alpass, funny you should mention that. While listening to monos and stereos back-to-back, I could hear the difference but equally importantly I could also *feel* the difference. It's a familiar but uncomfortable physical reaction I recognize from a lot of latter-day recordings. The interesting thing is, I believe my kids without consciously knowing it had the same reaction. Honestly I was proud of the rug-rats.

I didn't say mono passed me, and in fact watched and remember the moon landing. But when I started buying albums heavily in the 70s, which included the Beatles collection, most of them were stereo. I seem to recall that Revolver and everything after was in stereo, even if it was inititally pretty basic (voice out of one speaker instruments out the other). There was no choice of mono that i recall and I was an avid collecter visting many record stores even up through the late 80s. Things were a little simpler then too. :) Although the 2000s have been a little complicated to recall.

As far as buying Love (Money can't buy me Love}... I don't really care for those kinds of latter day collections though I've read some reviews that it was good. It got all the digital "treatment" and all right? Ooops, not sure that's a plus... And the new stereo remasters got some good reviews.

Generally, I haven't heard a lot of remasters that improved much on the originals, including those Jimmy Page did with their stuff ("How the West was Won"). Sorry it's all about boosted highs and higher levels. Ridiculous and a sad what these brilliant muscisians must be thinking when people tell them they have to go the DSP route and make it louder with more bass and sparkle "so that people will listen."

I'm happy with the mono reissues that I've heard. I think it's one case where the purists won out. Still I bet it doesn't sell an inkling of the stereo remasters volume.

Yesterday I was buying a couple of speakers from a smart but relatively young Dentist. He was telling me he's an audiophile. His "audiophile" source was a modded ipod called the imod that plugged directly into the active speakers I bought. I guess I encountered the target audience for "remastered" music!

I think this quote from the Pitchfork article pretty much says it all. I mean is anyone really gonna sit there and say someone else's version of the album is better than the artists'? By that logic why don't we have someone update and rewrite the _The Great Gatsy_, or _Tender is the Night_, or add some touchups to Monet's Water Lilies? After all technology's better now right? Add a little color saturation, a few ticks of brightness in Photoshop. Yeah that's the ticket. The thing is a lot of people would see these changes as improvements.

But I'll give Pitchfork credit. It's not the first publication I'd expect to give a someone even-handed treatment to the Beatles remasters.

Given their audience and the technology of the time, for much of the Beatles' run, the band themselves considered the mono mix as the "real" version of the record and devoted more of their attention to it. Mono mixes were prepared first with the involvement of the band, and in some cases, George Martin and EMI engineers completed stereo remixes of the albums later, after the group had left the studio. So mono, first off, presumably hews closer to the intentions of the Beatles themselves. It's what the Beatles had in mind, their vision of the records.

Approval doesn't necessarily mean they prefer them to the Mono versions. I'm sure they're being told the recordings need to be louder, punchier to compete with "modern" recordings (and to sell better to that target group). What do they know at their age what kids want? They don't want to be thought of as old fogeys out of touch with what's current. Besides the stereo remasters aren't *that* bad. They could've been a lot worse so it's not a case of total loss of artistic integrity.

With regard to the old classical masters, of course we'd all rather hear them as intended in the large concert hall. But we don't have the opportunity very often. OTOH we do have the opportunity to hear the Beatles mono masters anywhere and as they were intended to sound.

As far as intent goes, sure there are better remakes. I prefer Mannfred Mann's version of _Blinded by the Light_ and 3-Dog-Night's version of _Try a Little Tenderness_ over the originals. The difference is they reinterperated the orginal into something new. They didn't take the orignal and try to copy it but with improved recording techniques. I think there's a difference. The Beatles remasters weren't remastered to create something new, but only improve the sound quality. I think they did that with the Monos and remained faithful to the artists' vision of how it should sound. The stereo remasters have a different audience. They just don't know any better. :)

So Coffee, let me get this straight, you "spent thousands on [the Beatles rereleases] uk mono press lps" and you're castigating me for being an apologist for the new mono remasters? Not to mention you've decided to stop addressing any content and resorted to namecalling (right after posting to "mooooooove on." Can one's credibility drop any lower?