Why the Beatles?

[Purple Stickpin]

I think it's worth mentioning how comprehensively the 2009 mono CD mixes destroy some key elements of certain tracks. Take While My Guitar Gently Weeps. The 2009 mono CD of the White Album contains a muffled, wholly far-too-integrated-into-the mix cluster fuck of bullshit. You know a bass is playing, but you can't hear it, you can only sense it.

Conversely, the 2009 stereo CD affords us Paul's brilliant bass line, especially during the chorus. He nails a lovely counter-melody while creating a great bass part. Mono lovers can go screw. Yes, the vocals tend to be more focused with mono, but when you screw with and destroy the bass part, you're losing me 101% of the time.

And don't even ask about the barfing chicken on the mono Pepper.

 

[mjp]

You have it backwards. The mono mixes don't destroy anything, they are the definitive versions of the songs. It's the stereo that's destructive.

You can nitpick the mono (or the mono versions of a couple of songs), but the stereo "mixes" on almost everything are dismal. Put on some headphones and listen to Rubber Soul. If you can. It's painful. The ridiculous, unnatural hard panning (music all the way left, vocals all the way right - or vice versa, you know, to change things up) sucks every bit of the power from the songs. By the time of Revolver the studio technicians who did the stereo mixes had learned to leave some things in "the middle" of the mix, but the hard panning of other tracks is still there.

Your examples are from later records, the two albums that kind of sit right on that cusp when mono was going away and people were learning how to do stereo properly. But when you say, "Mono lovers can go screw," you're making a blanket statement about the mono versions that just doesn't stand up. I understand that the stereo versions are interesting to listen to, as a musician, because you can hear things you might not hear on the mono versions. But as a musical experience the exaggerated "stereo" - of the first seven albums, at least - is awful.

I get it, for most people those stereo versions are what they know. Over the past few years when I've talked to anyone who was interested about the mono versions, what I usually hear is that people prefer the stereo. When I ask why they say it's because that's what they're used to. But as a kid in the 60s I didn't hear any Beatles music in stereo. I heard it on AM radio and my little one speaker record player. When I heard the stereo versions later in life I was shocked, and they actually turned me off The Beatles music for a long time. If the stereo was all we had, I really couldn't listen to their pre-1967 music.

The Beatles recorded at an interesting time, straddling the mono and stereo eras. But with the exception of the later albums that were mixed in stereo with the input of the band, the stereo was absolutely an afterthought (and an unapologetic commercial ploy to sell more records by clumsily catering to a new technology), and it sounds like it.


I really want to draw an analogy between the after-the-fact stereo mixes of the mono albums and the posthumous Black Sparrow books, but I won't.

Oops, I guess I just did. ;)

 

[Bukfan]

It's refreshing to see a different opinion about the 2008 mono CD mixes. I recently read a comment in a Fcebook Beatles group saying you have´nt heard The Beatles if you have´nt heard them in mono. I thought that was quite an overstatement although I don't have the mono box set.

I bought a bunch of the 2009 stereo mixes, but I could´nt tell much difference between them and the old CD's I had except that the 2009 stereo mixes sounds louder. The difference between the two stereo mixes are not that distinct, I think. In fact, I might as well have stuck with my old Beatles CDs and saved myself the disappointment and the money.

 

[mjp]

the 2009 stereo mixes sounds louder.

Because they reduced the dynamic range (the difference between loud and soft sounds) when they mastered those. That's how everything is mastered now. People who are involved in recording or producing music call it "the loudness wars."

I have the 2009 stereo remasters and a few of older CDs, and you're right, you can hear the difference in volume. Though in all fairness they didn't squash the dynamics in the 2009 stereo versions as much as they do with most pop music these days.

 

[Bukfan]

Apart from the difference in volume, can you hear any difference between the old CDs and the new ones?

 

[mjp]

Yeah, but I did mixing and mastering for a living, so I suspect I hear things that most people wouldn't notice or care about. CD mastering in the 80s was hit and miss, so most times you'll be getting something closer to what's on the master tapes with a later mastering. But it's often a trade-off, because you also get the bad parts of "modern" mastering (loudness for the sake of loudness).

Sound is sound, you know. It's scientifically measurable, but the point of it is to transmit something from one person to another, so it's always going to be subjective. If the records sound the same to you, then they're the same.

 

[Bukfan]

If it's subjective, then that must be why I can't hear any obvious difference between the old Beatles CDs and the new remastered ones, while you who did mixing and mastering for a living can.

I was thinking about The Beatles not doing the stereo mastering themselves and thought maybe if they had done the stereo masterings they probably would´nt have been much different from the the masterings George Martin did. I´m not sure if it's a valid argument, but it was a thought that popped up in my head.
So, if it's a valid argument then maybe the real problem with the early stereo masterings is not if The Beatles or Martin did them, but the fact that early stereo was mixed in strange ways, such as having the vocal in one channel and the music in the other one, or some other strange combinations.

 

[mjp]

Yes that's partly true. Early stereo was a gimmick, and hard panning like that was common. I say it was a gimmick because no one knew what to do with it or how to use it. So for a while there it was just two different sounds coming out of separate speakers. And people were amazed by that (I know I was), and it sounded fresh and new and weird.

So if Martin and the Beatles had been doing stereo mixes they probably would have sounded like everyone else's stereo mixes. But we'll never know because they didn't. So you have to ask yourself why they continued with mono when stereo was available. Maybe because they thought it sounded better.

And I'm not sure Martin did those early "stereo" mixes. I probably read about it in one of the 50 Beatles books, but I don't remember. It seems more like a task they would give to someone a little lower on the totem pole.

 

[Bukfan]

I don't don't either if Martin himself did the early stereo mixes. I sorta took it for granted that he did or at least supervised it being done and approved the results.

So you have to ask yourself why they continued with mono when stereo was available. Maybe because they thought it sounded better.

Good point! I guess they thought mono sounded better than the early stereo mixes, which were often horrible to listen to.
Funny, that it took a fairly long time to figure out how to use stereo the right way, but that's of course easy to say in retrospect.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

You have it backwards.

I have it backwards if the subject is "which is manipulated." (well, perhaps not; see below). I don't if the subject is "which sounds better to me."

I didn't quote your whole post, but I am aware of all the points you've made. I also use headphones 99% of the time. I like the hard panned stereo w/ added reverb on the US releases, such as Rubber Soul. And they're as "bad" as it gets. I A/B'ed good portions Rubber Soul mono vs. original stereo and mono vs. modern "loudness wars" stereo recently. I have my preferences, and they are not stricly based on what I grew up with and/or what I know. It's deeper than that. The only advantage I can cite for mono is stronger, more focused vocals.

The main point I was trying to make is that, at least in terms of While My Guitar Gently Weeps (there are other cases, but this is the subject for now), mono mashes all the instruments into "one sound." I hate that. I want to hear each part speak on its own and assemble that into a collective in my head. While My Guitar Gently Weeps is a prime example of mashing that, to me, destroys the individuality of the instrumental and vocal inputs (with my main complaint, McCartney's brilliant bass line, which is a useless throwaway on the mono version and a stand-out supporting element in the stereo version. I realize that mono was the definitive mix. I get all that. End game: The mono While My Guitar Gently Weeps sounds like garbage to me; conversely, the stereo version opens up the music to be heard on either an individual input or collective input level. Mono only offers the latter, at least in this case.

Put another way, McCartney's bass line on While My Guitar Gently Weeps didn't sound bad at all when he laid it down, as evidenced by its appearance on the stereo mastering. But it sure sounds like indistinct mud on the "definitive" mono mastering. Why is that? If I hate the mono master, how could the mono version have not destroyed what was originally laid down?

This isn't all about liking or disliking the faux, hard-panned stereo of '65; it's all about whether you can hear the bass line on While My Guitar Gently Weeps on the mono version or the stereo version. I can sense it on the mono version; I can live every aspect of it on the stereo version. So, isn't the mono master more manipulated than the stereo master? Screw compression and all that cal. Which parts sound more like they did when they were laid down?

 

[mjp]

it sure sounds like indistinct mud on the "definitive" mono mastering. Why is that?

Because that's the way they mixed it.

A funny thing happens when you're mixing songs in a recording studio: everyone wants their parts to be more prominent. But everything can't be prominent all the time. If everything is prominent, nothing is prominent. You like the stereo version of Weeps because you can hear the bass. But apparently when they were mixing they thought the bass had to take a less prominent role, for the overall sound of that particular song. That's certainly not the case on many (most?) of the mono mixes, where the bass is right up there, prominent.

Like I said, music is subjective, so what they were going for in the studio isn't always what you as a listener want to hear. Especially when the "you" is a musician who wants to hear specific things. I would mix 90% of the records I listen to differently, and a lot of what I would prefer to hear is also bass, so I know what you're saying. Every time we'd walk in to Bernie Grundman's to master tracks Brian would see Trevy and I coming and say, "Oh oh, here come the deep cuts!" because he knew we were going to hand him bass heavy tapes to work with. But Brian knew how to master bass for vinyl (and CD), so he was the man for the job. He mastered the NWA records and they credited him as "Big bass" Brian.

Final mixes always come down to the tastes or preferences of one or two people, so every mix is a compromise. Then mastering is another compromise, for a lot of technical reasons. In the end all you can do is what sounds good to you, or to the people in the room. No one mix ever pleases everyone.

 

[mjp]

I spent a couple hours listening to the 2009 stereo mixes tonight, because I'm always open to the possibility that I'm horribly wrong about just about anything (or everything).

I'll say that the 2009 mixes are better than the original "stereo" mixes of Help! and Rubber Soul (those are the only 60s stereo mixes I have access to because they were included in the mono set). The hard panning is adjusted slightly on the new set, but they're still pretty unimaginatively mixed. I'm aware that most of that is probably due to limitations with the master tapes. They didn't have the luxury of each instrument being on a separate track, so what could they do, really, besides stick the vocals on this side and the instruments on that side.

Knowing how that stuff was recorded and what they had to do to record a rock band in those days, the records are miraculous in mono or stereo. If nothing else, we should get that fact out the way. For all of their flaws - and there are a lot of flaws - they were essentially spinning gold from straw, and my hat is perpetually off to them for that.

As music though, as songs and creative things, I still have to go with the mono versions. The stereo versions weaken the songs. Highlighting their vocals and harmonies away from the instruments really lets you hear how great they were as singers. But shoving that band, all of that music, over to one side does a disservice to the whole enchilada. And I think the enchilada is more important than the individual ingredients. It's more tasty, anyway.

IMHO and all that.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

I'll say that the 2009 mixes are better than the original "stereo" mixes of Help! and Rubber Soul (those are the only 60s stereo mixes I have access to because they were included in the mono set). The hard panning is adjusted slightly on the new set, but they're still pretty unimaginatively mixed. I'm aware that most of that is probably due to limitations with the master tapes. They didn't have the luxury of each instrument being on a separate track, so what could they do, really, besides stick the vocals on this side and the instruments on that side.

You are spot on in that the 2-track masters didn't allow for significant re-configuration. But what you have on the mono CDs are mildly revised stereo versions of the original hard-panned stuff. The remastered stereo releases don't have such a mediocre improvement as the original stereo masters on the mono discs (but they are not massive improvements over the '87 stereo versions, but there are improvements). So, you really haven't compared mono to the stereo track I was speaking of (in this case, While My Guitar Gently Weeps).

For me, the difference between mono and stereo really only matters from Pepper onwards, since that's the first Beatles album where the bass is truly prominent. And while I'll willingly concede that mono makes the vocals more focused and powerful, the difference between mono and stereo on WMGGW is palpable. I like to mix the instruments in my head on headphones. On the mono WMGGY, all I hear is one background swirl until Clapton comes in (well, McCartney's piano intro is distinguishable). On the stereo remaster (and even on the '87 stereo version), the individual parts are clear yet cohesive.

As an analogy that I used when my band was recording, I want a mix to sound like '71 Yes, where you can hear each individual instrument contributing to the overall sound as opposed to a "U2" type of mix which sounds like one mashed together blob with Bono singing over it. Forget your opinions of Yes or U2; I think you can envision the sonic differences between the two.

 

[yougetso]

Geeksville called. Apparently you guys have been nominated co-mayors.

 

[zobraks]

You ain't seen nuthin' yet... Check this topic.
P.S. Whatever you do, never call a bass guitar "a bass guitar" there! It's a (fucking) BASS.
P.P.S. I apologize to the regulars for the intrusion. Blame it on yougetso.

 

[yougetso]

P.P.S. I apologize to the regulars for the intrusion. Blame it on yougetso.

To be clear, I was kidding around. I enjoy following along. My comment was more along the lines of 'this is great stuff, if anybody needs anything from concessions, I'm going for a refill on popcorn'

 

[Purple Stickpin]

No worries; mjp and I are something of music techno-geeks. We're not bothered in the least by those who recognize that, but don't call us audiophiles. That thar is a dirty word.

 

[zenarus]

It was 49 years ago today....

 

[Purple Stickpin]

And back to the Ringo argument. Here's your alternative:

 

[d gray]

those machine-gun fills are just what the song was missing...

 

[zenarus]

Well you either like the music or you don't..
I was 10 in 1964 and followed them all the way.
Just because other people like their music doesn't mean you have to.

 

[Black Swan]

famous-last-words-the-snub-that-led-to-the-beatles-breakup

https://medium.com/cuepoint/famous-last-words-the-snub-that-led-to-the-beatles-breakup-36ddd2088942

 

[mjp]

 

[d gray]

http://entertainment.ha.com/c/searc...4&ic5=CatalogHome-ActionArea-BrowseAll-071515

 

[Skygazer]

And back to the Ringo argument. Here's your alternative:

No argument really is there? he fitted - perfectly. Post Beatles, I loved Photograph and It Don't Come Easy.
Forgetting words, singing a bit flat at times (drumming sounds good though) at the Concert for Bangladesh 1971 at Madison Square Garden.
Accompanied by Harrison and Clapton; but it's Ringo getting the huge round of applause:)

[This video is unavailable.]

 

[Danny Mac]

I think I already went on and on, on how much of a great drummer Ringo was. He was the reason why I eventually owned that drum set you see in my sitcron, motron, scoron...what the hell is it called...oh yeah Avatar.

 

[mjp]

She's So...Shreddy version.

 

[Skygazer]

Another list, I think this is Costello's own choices.It's an enjoyable read, you forget sometimes how funny they were, I was laughing at some of them:

1."He later told Rolling Stone that when the Maharishi asked why the pair were leaving, he replied, "Well, if you're so cosmic, you'll know why."
2."John expected to be in jail one day and he'd be the guy who played the harmonica."
3.As McCartney admitted, "I remember giggling with John when we wrote the lines 'What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you, but I know it's mine.' It could have been him playing with his willy under the covers, or it could have been taken on a deeper level."
4.Lennon was known to be a sedentary sort. In March 1966, he confessed that "sex is the only physical thing I can be bothered with anymore."
5.But he also suspected that the song was secretly aimed at Yoko Ono: "You know, 'Get back to where you once belonged.' Every time [Paul] sang the line in the studio, he'd look at Yoko."
6.When Harrison briefly quit the Beatles during the Let It Besessions, Lennon's response was to snap, "If he doesn't come back by Tuesday, we'll just get Clapton."

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-beatles-songs-20110919
One of my favourites from Revolver

 

[mjp]

To drag this back in to the mono vs. stereo mud...

The "1" record was re-released (for the third time), along with all of the promo videos The Beatles ever made (including some later ones that they didn't make). I bought it for the video - which is really fab and gear, and recommended - and I wasn't even going to listen to the CD, but @Purple Stickpin said I should, so I did.

The mixes on the 1 CD are very different than the 2009 stereo mixes. The mastering is also much better. When you compare them, the 2009 tracks sound strangled (over-compressed and limited), but the new ones are more dynamic.

Probably most notable on the later stuff is the fact that the hard right, hard left "stereo" mixes have been tamed and sound a lot more natural and modern, for lack of a better word. For instance on All You Need Is Love in the 2009 stereo set the right side is totally drops out until those stings come up which is really weird, but here everything is pulled more toward the center and natural (not like mono center, but enough to fix the claustrophobia of the 2009 mixes). But even the earlier stuff, A Hard Day's Night, Ticket to Ride, Help! are noticeably different mixes.

I'll put it like this, if the 2009 stereo set sounded like this 1 disc sounds, I'd buy them and never say a bad thing about them. So yeah, much improved. Too bad whoever did this didn't do the 2009 set.

 

[Bukfan]

How does the original 1 from 2000 hold up to the 2009 version and the new one? Are the 2000 and 2009 releases identical? I only have the one from 2000, but I´m seriously thinking about getting the new one with the DVD included.