The Beatles remasters have finally hit the street and all across the world, music fans are gorging themselves on the most fabled and revered repertoire in pop music history. This may well prove to be the last hurrah of the CD age and certainly the marketing gurus at Capital have been working overtime to make sure we’ve all very aware of the Beatles as we approach this holiday season. It’s highly likely that the Fab Four will prove to be the best selling artists of this decade, an incredible feat for a group that disbanded nearly 40 years ago. So the question—the only question, for the Beatles are hardly an unknown quantity—is simply are these new versions worth it? Are they that much different? Should people who’ve already bought these albums umpteen times buy them again? I’ll try to answer that question here for those of you who still might be on the fence.

A lot of audiophile types bitch and moan about the old Beatles CDs but I never thought they sounded that terrible. Originally released on CD in 1987, the old crop of Beatles CDs were, however, starting to show their vintage. The audio gear they used to digitally remaster the Beatles catalog in 1987 was surely the state of the art at the time, but has been greatly surpassed since then. Given the advances in audio production techniques, the time was more than ripe for the Beatles to get a sonic make-over. There are no extra tracks, so the lure here is clearly just the audio quality. If you already own these albums—and what serious music fan doesn’t—is it worth buying them again? The answer, in my opinion, is a resounding YES. George Martin and the team behind these remastered albums have done a fantastic job. The packaging is first rate. The entire production has such a “classy” sheen to it that it would be a shame to download them off the Internet with homemade art by Sharpie. This is the fucking Beatles. This music deserves more respect than that. It’s not that they need your money, that’s not the point, it’s that you—if you are a serious music fan and if not why are you reading this—need the Beatles albums in the best possible sonic configuration you can possibly get them in. This is the greatest music of our age. This isn’t music for ear buds, it’s music to listen to, to savor, smoke a joint, sink into and let it overwhelm you with its magnificent greatness. Which is funnily enough exactly what I did in one marathon listening session…

I should qualify my remarks, a bit. I’m an unashamed audiophile. I do not listen to MP3s on my computer, I listen to music on a proper “hi fidelity stereo” (one that I bought used, so no charges of elitism, please) with good speakers. When I listen to music, I listen to music. It’s not something on in the background, it’s the main event, cranked loud via a powerful stereo amplifier. I don’t understand how people can be satisfied with crappy sounding MP3s that have one tenth of the digital information that a CD or lossless format has. I want to hear the best reproduction of the music possible, as close to what the musicians heard in the control room when they pronounced it finished, as you can get. Look at the painting directly or reproduced as a black and white Xerox copy, you do have a choice…

In recent years the Rolling Stones ABKCO years remastering job removed so much sonic muck that entirely new instruments started showing up in familiar songs. You could hear the buzz in Keith’s amp, the crack rhythm section of Wyman and Watts, the ambiance of the room they were recording in and Brian Jones’ unique contribution to the Stones sound. It was remarkable to hear them sound so clear, raw and so ferocious. The Bob Dylan catalog, when it was released on SACD a few years back was remastered so beautifully that it sounded like Dylan was singing and playing in the room with you. You could hear his finger pads moving against the ridges of the guitar strings and feel his breath going through his harmonica. With the remastered Goodbye Yellow Brick Road you could hear Sir Elton’s foot pedals on the piano for Christ’s sake! And don’t get me started on the Kinks remasters or Bitches Brew… and blah blah blah, you take my point. I’m one of those guys.

At first I set myself the task of comparing the limited edition Beatles Mono Box set vs the stereo mixes. Many audiophile reviewers have shown a stated preference for the mono versions, the argument tending to be—and this is true—that the mono was more important than stereo to both the group and producer George Martin and that the stereo mixes were often done almost as an afterthought, with all four Beatles not always present. The mono mixes, the argument goes, are supposedly the “purest” versions, the versions closest to the Beatles’ vision in the recording studio. I’m know I’m committing an audiophile heresy here, but the mono Beatles remasters kinda sound flat to me. What these remasters essentially are, is by and large, simply an expert re-EQing of master tapes. How much can you do with a single channel of audio?

I offer the opinion—and it’s only an opinion—that the mono versions sound a bit more sonically crammed and congested than the stereo masters, which having an extra audio channel for the music to “breathe” offers a far more nuanced listening experience. Is the point to recreate them as they were originally heard in the Sixties (on AM radio or teenager’s record players) or to hear them the best they can be heard for today’s audiophile expectations? The stereo versions, even as early back as Please, Please Me, sound far more alive and vital. Tighter. Rawer. For me at least, it’s not an issue of authenticity, but much more the matter of what sounds the best and I give the stereo versions —by far— the upper hand nearly every time. The knee jerk pro-mono reaction of the vast audiophile majority seems based on wanting to like the mono mixes more because it seems cooler to espouse that opinion than based on the actual listening experience in 2009.

Whether or not you opt for the Beatles Mono box or the stereo versions, a few things are not in dispute: They’ve managed to bring McCartney’s bass out in a manner never before revealed. His bass patterns were far more intricate than we’ve ever been able to hear before and there is a noticeable fullness in the mid-range that was lacking on the 1987 versions. His prodigious musical genius seems even more dazzling when seen in this new light. Ringo’s drums, uniformly throughout all the records, sound as crisp as can be: you don’t just hear his drums, you hear the sound of the stick hitting the drum and how hard it is being hit. Nuanced is the word I keep using to describe them to friends and it’s the right one. The layered backing vocals, hand claps, tambourines, all the exotic instrumentation, orchestrations and tape manipulations have a wide-screen presence as never before. The group sounds “friskier” throughout. When the piano keys are pounded, you can tell how hard they were being pounded. The Beatles remasters—continuously—reveal things we’ve never heard before until now.

This is the great gift of the remastered Beatles catalog: getting to hear the most over-familiar music in all of (audio)recorded history with fresh ears! I listened to the albums all the way through, from Please Please Me to Abbey Road and I was literally overwhelmed by the experience. Throughout the majestic sweep of those records you hear not only the development of the recording studio (George Martin and the Beatles were—along with Frank Zappa—probably the most innovative audio technicians of the decade) but the rapid development of the Rock art form. As the Beatles progress from their showbiz roots playing Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry and Little Richard covers to their mature musical genius, I remind you, this took but six and a half years. If they broke up today, this would mean Please, Please Me would have come out when Bush was seeking re-election. Yup. Think about that. None of them were even thirty at the time!

Eventually these albums will come out on Blu-ray or they’ll do surround mixes of the later recordings. I’ll admit that I’ll probably buy those too. I know it’s a pipe dream, but maybe, just maybe, these sparkling new hi-fidelity Beatles remasters will educate the younger generation, so used to the way MP3s sound on their laptop speakers and iPods, in the joys of great sound. I hope so.

Some of the highlights:

Please Please Me: The harmonica on “Chains” and Ringo’s crystal clear, he’s-in-the-room-with-you singing on “Boys.” John Lennon’s sore throat take on “Twist and Shout.”

A Hard Day’s Night: George Harrison’s opening chord is one of the most famous sounds ever made, but you’ve never heard it sound like this. I was grinning from ear to ear as I listened.

Rubber Soul and Revolver sound incredible!

Sgt. Pepper’s: Never a fan of this one, not a single one of my favorite Beatles songs is on it, but as a audio immersion experience, it’s utterly astonishing. “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” is a swirling mind-blower. “Lovely Rita” a shimmering stunner.

Magical Mystery Tour: John Lennon spitting out the words “pretty little policemen in a row” with unheard before vehemence in “I Am the Walrus.” On a good stereo it’s like he’s spitting in your face. “Strawberry Fields Forever” is a wow, too.

The White Album: Too many great moments here, it’s an absolute must-have, but “The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill,” “Blackbird” and “Birthday” blew my doors off.  “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” is amazing. Eric Clapton’s solo sounds phenomenal with that much space around it. “Happiness is a Warm Gun” is great in both stereo and mono versions, but a lot of audiophile purists are voting for the mono White Album over the stereo version. Do not believe them.

Abbey Road: By the time I got to Abbey Road—which sounds absolutely incredible—I was so invested in the drama of the Beatles musical tale that I wept tears of joy as the album ended. This of course, is another must have album and the overwhelming sense of the Beatles historical greatness—for all the ages, for all humankind from now to the end of time—is hammered home with definitive force here.

I think fidelity ( although the bass response is considerably “richer” and, as you mentioned, much more defined in the arrangements) is really not the reason one should purchase the Beatles Mono set. I for one enjoy the sound of the Mono more..but it’s still not the reason

The reason to cough up the $300 bucks is that the mono mixes are simply the mixes that the Beatles wanted you to hear.

Now it’s all rather subjective whether or not George Martin created a “superior” representation of the mixes, and I expect those points can be argued.

But I will always settle on the actual artist statement over any that was created when they were not in the room, as good as it may be.

I want to hear what the Beatles wanted me to hear.

And as a side note, Harrison famously complained about the fidelity of the Stereo mixes. The rest of the band couldn’t be bothered..or as McCartney later admitted “Just couldn’t hear it”

You Bastard Metzger!  I was on the fence about these reissues, until I read your review… 
My wallet will soon be $400 lighter!

Brilliant… i thought another money making marketing scheme to coinside with the Rock Band release, which i think it still is. Gareth is right… BASTARD!!!!

Wow. Great review. Now I have to add this to my wish list. As far as “what the Beatles wanted me to hear”, unless you’re a kid, we all have the originals (albums or CDs). I don’t see how adding this to your collection lessens that value (or is any worse than an MP3- did the Beatles want us to listen to that format?).

Thanks!

Very good review and overview about WHY these remasters are important for fans of The Beatles.

One thing though is that John didn’t sing “I Saw Her Standing There”. Paul did. Perhaps you were thinking of John’s “Twist and Should” which was recorded while he had a cold.

Richard, thanks so much for the review. From reading your posts for awhile now, I’ve known that your recommendations coincide spot on with my own tastes and style.
So, one it was a pleasure to see that you had provided a review and I knew that it would be the true litmus test as to whether I would get the re-issues or not and whether it would be mono, stereo, or perhaps both(?).

I guess I’ll be popping for the stereo package and soon. You got me really excited about these albums. (Glad to hear you don’t buy into the awful quality of MP3s).

@Wayne Klein,

Shit, that is what I meant, thanks for catching that, fixed now.

RM

As with most hardcore Beatles fans, nobody’s favorite is Sgt. Peppers.

I’m with you on the Stereo Mix vs. Mono. I’m so used to the stereo mixes, the mono mixes just don’t sound right to me.

Oh for the love of fucking god cut it out!
Paul McCartney never in his life wrote a melody that wasn’t despicably saccharine and unforgivably dull.
John Lennon was a bore.
I don’t have much against George and Ringo but the world has got to move the fuck on to better things.

I agree with Andy Warhol that everybody gets their 15 minutes of fame, but some people are just culture sponges that live their whole lives robbing the spotlight from other artists and contributing to flaccid sterility of the pop culture landscape.

It’s not even that I think they’re that bad. They have a handfull of songs that were halfway pleasant, and I find them just about as good as most bands from that time. But if you remove all the qualifiers of them being “The biggest band ever” or “the most influential band of all time” and listen to them objectively, most of their shit is not good at all. “Let it be” is the most insipid irritating song ever written.

I’m usually not a troll but this is the fifth fawning Beatles post I’ve seen in my RSS feed today and I can’t take it anymore!

Thanks indeed! I was going to pass (I already have my vinyl) but your review tipped the scales in my mind when I saw the remastered Abbey Road at my morning coffee stop (Abbey Road is pretty much my hands down favorite as an adult; Revolver was my favorite as a kid/adolescent). All I will say is I will never regret that purchase; this is just fabulous. I probably wouldn’t have caved in and bought it for a while if not for this review in particular.

I hope the interest and sales leads someone to dig up Glyn Johns’ Get Back mixes and gives them a polish; there’s no comparison between Let It Be and what it should have been.

puggapugga—

Your fifteen minutes of fame are up go troll somewhere else…(the name of your blog says it all).

“influential” says it all.

The Beatles were as flawed as any other band but they were an example of a band that was the best at what they did and also were the most popular (a rarity)as well as groundbreaking.

When you record something as influential as “Strawberry Fields Forever” or “A Day in the Life” let me know.

Remember what Harlan Ellison said not everyone is entitled to express an opinion-only those with an informed opinion something that you clearly DON’T have in this case.

I bought these on a whim because they were on sale release day. As a completist, and bargain hunter, it totally appealed to me.
Yes, I know 90% of the catalog by heart, but had always been more of a “Stones gal”.
I spent the next day “beatles-ing out” and I don’t know wether it’s the enhanced bass or just better overall sound, but who knew The Beatles could be so damned funky! I am enjoying them as if it were the first time I’ve ever heard them.
Kudos to the remastering team and my Totem speakers!

I have both the mono and stereo sets, and I like them both for different reasons. 

I am a musician and the Beatles are my favorite band, so the stereo mixes appeal to the obsessive in me and allow me to hear the nuances in each individual instrument as clearly as possible. 

The mono mixes are appealing for a couple reasons.  I realized when I was first listening to them that, due to my age (28), I had NEVER heard any of this stuff in mono.  That alone was enough for me, since listening to each record would actually be a brand new experience for me, rather than an improvement on a familiar experience. 

The other reason is the aforementioned “this is the mix the band cared about” reason.  Where it really shines is on Sgt. Pepper’s (which, you admitted, was not your favorite).  Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds and the last three songs (Good Morning, Good Morning through A Day In The Life) sound like completely new songs.  The listening experience is much more intense in mono with all of these crazy sonic layers piled on top of one another rather than spread out across the stereo field.

Still, both are amazing, and my favorite part of all the reviews I’ve read are the recognition that Paul McCartney’s phenomenal and unique bass playing is getting, particularly on the earlier recordings.

One thing that might appeal to collecters… the mono box set, manufactured exclusively by EMI in Japan, recreates the original UK Parliphone album releases down to the smallest detail.  That is, they are mini-LPs, even down to the dust sleeves.  It is pretty freaking cool.

As for audio quality and mono vs. stereo, I have moments where one sounds better to me than others.  But I don’t just listen to music at home.  I listen in my car, on the metro, in the office on headphones.  In some of these situations, the large channel separation of the stereo mixes is just too distracting. 

Even on the home stereo, the difference between mono vs. stereo is wild.  Sgt. Pepper and White Album are completely different experiences.  If I were on acid, the stereos would be more of a trip, but the monos on headphones make it seem as if the music is in the center of your head, which is pretty nice.

Advice, if you are a collector, buy the mono box (if you can find it at retail) and supplement with some of the Stereo albums.  Also, the effect of the remastering is most jarring for the earlier efforts.

Loved your review. Nothing measures up to actually sitting down in front of the best hifi system your budget allows you, cranking it all the way up, and ripping through the entire box set. You owe it to yourself to experience this. You’ll be elated and devastated at the same time.

What I’m trying to say here is: you haven’t lived until you’ve experienced the Beatles in their full sonic glory!

Some of the Rolling Stones remasters replaced vintage tape slaps, and wire reverbs with mushy sounding modern digital reverbs. Worse yet, they changed the equalization on Jagger’s vocals, completely changing the sharp edged tone of his voice. Street Fighting Man is *nothing* like the version of Street Fighting Man I have on vinyl. With all of the production techniques used in Beatles albums, tearing the songs apart and puting them back together without using the original mixdowns is bound to result in massive changes to the balances and sound that is imprinted on my brain from years and years of listening to them.

I don’t care so much about sharpness and clarity as I do overall balance and tone. Can you comment on the mix?

Great read, Richard.

I’m sure you’ve posted this info elsewhere on your site, but would you mind sharing your current hi-fi setup with us? I’m a novice when it comes to such arcane info and I’d love a good starting point.

The same goes for the other ‘philes here, too, if they care to chime in.

As with the Beach Boys and Phil Spector LP’s, Mono was a way for the artist to control their sound. Whether playing on a high end stereo, headphones, car stereo, and now ipods and such, Mono is the mix the way the artist wants you to hear their music.
Stereo is very cool, especially the panning extremes the Beatles tended to use (ever kill one channel in the old days just to hear George’s guitar, or John’s vocal?), which makes it a hard choice indeed for those who could only afford one version.

Puggapugga’s comments are odd when looked at from the perspective of jazz and classical musicians (Leonard Bernstein, for example, loved “Good Day Sunshine”). Many individuals from from both camps have been drawn to the Beatles’ melodies, particularly McCartney’s because of his undulating, contrapuntal style (“Here, There and Everywhere” is a beautiful example). There have been many books on the Beatles, of course, but for my money, for anyone who’s interested in understanding the musical intricacies of the band (and in a way that requires just minimal knowledge of music theory) while providing great historical context as well, I recommend the Second Revised Edition of “Revolution in the Head: The Beatles’ Records and the Sixties” by the Shostakovich scholar, Ian MacDonald.

Sounds great!  I’m ready to plunk down my money, (soon as the vinyl is issued, that is).

?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú> Michael Hughes

Excepting my turntable, I always buy used, (or vintage), gear.  You get more for your money.  The way I’ve gotten a decent stereo has been by continually trading up over time.  You don’t have to plunk down a million bucks all at once!

MMF-7 turntable
McIntosh MX-110 tube pre-amp/FM tuner (1963)
McIntosh 2100 solid state amplifier (late 1970’s)
ESS Heil AMT-1a Speakers

With a little work, it all ended up sounding great together, even though it’s not the highest high-end equipment.  Have a look at Audio Classics:  http://www.audioclassics.com/

@Michael Hughes

I’m not an audiophile, I’m an audio engineer, and I would warn you that “high end audiophile systems” lie. The norm for such systems is not a flat response across the frequency spectrum, but rather to “hype” the high mids (which are the frequencies the human ear is generally ‘tuned’ for).

Unlike audiophiles, we engineers require the flattest response possible (which is also the truest recreation of the master). You can get a pair of $250 amplified studio monitors (just one example, the Alesis M1 series; there are lots of preferences that go into monitors too so opinions vary) and it will more accurately reproduce the material than really expensive B&Ws; or the like. Granted, audiophiles tend to prefer audiophile gear over studio gear “for a reason” (they like hyped mids) but that’s only one perspective when it comes to high end listening.

Re audiophile components: they are like photo cameras. No one is pretending that a high-end camera gives you the most faithful optical replica of what’s ‘objectively’ out there. The purpose of using a high-end camera is to produce images that are pleasing to human eye. The more pleasing, the better. It is not a quest for ‘objectivity’.

Same is with audio gear—it is not meant to be used in a quest for audio objectivity. Of course, only a completely deranged person would ever bring him/herself to the point of claiming that even a million dollar worth hi fi audio chain can come anywhere close to resembling the sound of real musical instruments and human voices. But, the aim is to create an ear-pleasing impression, whereby the listener will be emotionally vested and compelled to enjoy the sweetness of the reproduced sound. So, in a way, it is similar to photography, which never claims to be even attempting to recreate the objects that are placed in front of the camera’s lens.

The reason we like to listen to the Beatles recordings using the highest quality audio components is that, by doing so, we tend to experience the strongest emotions. Certainly, the emotions elicited while listening to the Beatles on a high-end audio system tend to be, on the average, much more intense than when we listen to the same material on a crappy $40.00 iPod.

@Alex

Well I certainly agree with you about compressed format music and cheap listening equipment and so forth. A very intentional listening environment is something both audiophiles and audio engineers certainly have in common.

It’s not a matter of objectivity versus translation, of course all recorded media are just reproductions (imperfect recreations) of events that happened in time and space.

Think of the actual comparison this way:
the people who made the music (the musicians and the producers and the engineers) used flat-ish response equipment to ultimately determine the effectiveness of their work.

But hyped mids sound nice too. Like I said, it’s a matter of taste and only one perspective. But for $250-$350 you get a really great set of flat speakers and a reasonably clean amp and there are probably about a dozen brands operating in that price range that are worth owning (the aforementioned example simply being a really popular and readily available example).

Also, just because it’s topical and ironic, engineers do test their mixes out on “real world” systems, it would be incompetent not to (since virtually none of your listeners will actually hear your work through studio type monitors). We test them on boomboxes, ipod earbuds, car stereos (the cruddier the better), and computer speakers to name a few. We try to see how well the mix translates to speakers people will actually use (you audiophiles are an extreme minority; and one of the cool things about audiophile equipment is that it truly does make everything sound good anyway, it’s very complimentary). So chances are an engineer would reach for one of the formats that make you cringe long before they tested their material on something they would have in their home theaters.

/hijack off, sorry.
The Abbey Road mix is simply exquisite. I expected that it would be great and I was still blown away.

@Mitch:

Very good points, and thank you for sharing your impressive expertise with us here. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from the pros:)

Couple of additional observations:

Surprisingly, my subjective experience reveals that high quality audio equipment seems to potentiate and amplify both the virtues and the flaws of the source material. What I mean by this is that, in case we put on a exquisitely crafted remaster, such as Abbey Road, we’ll experience the sonic heaven, as a good system will bring up all the good aspects of the master. However, if we put a crappy master on, a good system (at least in my experience) tends to amplify its flaws, and tends to make it sound even crappier than it would sound on an average system. Is your experience in these matters similar, or quite the opposite?

Any time I upgrade my audio component, I get the most pleasure out of tightening the lows and opening up the highs. Yes, midrange is very important, but one would have to really, really spend a lot before one reaches the next milestone in the improved clarity in the mid-range. However, by switching from a combo amp to separates, one will undoubtedly experience palpable tightening of the bass. The bass now all of a sudden sounds ‘musical’, and it’s not just a booming bottom end that muddies the mids and the highs. It is extremely important to ensure that the bass response of your system is super quick.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that one doesn’t need big bucks in order to achieve near-professional sound reproduction. That’s the beauty of the constantly maturing technology—it keeps getting better and more affordable. Today, we have the option of purchasing the T-amp ($180.00) which, to all accounts, is a class A audiophile-grade little amp.

Also, I’ve discovered recently that, thanks to the unstoppable maturing of the technology, we can now enjoy, on the cheap, the luxury of pushing our source signal through the upsampling chip, which indeed produces dramatically warmer, airier, more overall musical sound. You have to hear this new technology to believe it. Incredibly, it can turn an old grandma into a young girl:)

So yes, the conclusion is that you don’t have to break the bank in order to experience the glory of the full blooded music. Ditch your stupid iPod and go out and by a T-amp, and the upsampling CD player, and a decent pair of speakers, and voila!—you’ll have a system that rivals multi thousand dollars high end systems. And it’ll make a dramatic difference in your life.

One final note—speaker placement. This is a witchcraft/black magic/voodoo topic that is inexhaustible. But hey, it makes a tremendous difference to the final result. How you place your speakers in the room, and how you arrange the stuff (furniture, drapes, whathaveyou) in that room, has such an enormous bearing on the sound you’ll be hearing, that it’s not even funny.

Also, as a parting note, I should say that I am quite averse to listening to the high quality music through the headphones.

Over and out (and things…)

Though I’ve chosen to go with the Mono box… I first want to thank you for a superb piece of writing. Intelligent, fair, clever and a pleasure to read.

Secondly I want to thank you for mentioning that you wept tears of joy at the end of your listening session.

I thought I was the only one that did that.

“This is the greatest music of our age”

you must be fucking kidding.

Thanks for this fine review.  Agree 1000% that the best way to prepare for any audio review is to first sit down and smoke a good joint.

Thanks for your positive reviews of these albums.  I would trust them more if your Amazon links didn’t earn you commission.

I fully concur with the reviewer. The remastered catalogue is fantastic!!!!

You audiophiles. Some of the best music I’ve ever heard was from across a lake out of someone’s boom box and out of the shittiest car radios. Really. Lay off the iPods already.

Not to nitpick,doesn’t that thought precede all the most blatant nitpicking, but to hate on Sgt. Peppers, the seminal and most highly lauded concept album in (audio) recorded history is akin to saying, “I love Van Gogh; I just don’t care for his impressionist period works.”

Great review save that one egregious error.

My 2 unrequested cents.

It always amazes me that when an interesting dialogue gets going on the internet, within a short time the level of discourse gets dragged down by some grouch who decides to throw bird droppings in the punch bowl. Normally the best thing to do is ignore the abberation, but in this case I can’r resist.

To Puggapugga - (the scribe who on September 11th gave us “...most of their shit is not good at all.”)...

Have you really nothing better to do? Is your life so empty that you find satisfaction in trashing what’s quite obviously a very happy and personal conversation amongst strangers? A conversation where they’re sharing their JOY about something?

Now… we all have our opinions that don’t march lockstep with the majority, and that’s a very good thing. I for example have no use for the Dead. I think the Beach Boys are fantastically overrated. And for 44 years I’ve found it painful to watch Mick Jagger on stage, and I think the Stones died when Brian Jones died.

BUT… if I was sitting in a coffeehouse and there were four people sitting at the table next to me, all talking with sparkling eyes and enthusiasm about a Dead concert they’d just seen… even though I’m not a fan, even though I think Dead mania is a case of the emperor having no clothes, not even a horse, I wouldn’t lean over and butt in and say THE DEAD SUCK AND GARCIA WASN’T MUCH OF A GUITARIST and fuck this and fuck that and YOU PEOPLE NEED TO GROW UP, which is basically what you said in your post.

I don’t like the Dead, especially after having seen them twice (1968 and the late seventies) but I do recognize that they’re talented, they deliver what their audiences want every time they hit the stage, and THEY MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY. I know how much they mean to people. I know what it’s like to love a band.

I simply assume that my tastes and standards are different, and above all else, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Musical beauty is in the ears and heart of the listener.

My ego is not so gigantic as to assume I have the right or the intellectual chops to say I’m correct and other folks are wrong when it comes to something as purely subjective as artistic taste.

I’m not a Barry Manilow fan. And you know how I handle that, Puggapugga? I don’t listen to his music, and I especially don’t waste my time by going to web discussions where his fans discuss him and throw their birthday cake on the floor.

Your comments are akin to walking up to a bunch of
NASA technicians celebrating some refinement in orbital rendezvous techniques, interrupting them, and telling them that the earth is flat.

Something lost in an awful lot of mono vs stereo Beatles discussion is that certain songs have different arrangements. For example, the mono “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” has some subtle flanging or phase-shifting effects which the stereo lacks. The jet sounds are different in “Back in the USSR” and the mono “Helter Skelter” features some beeping sounds not audible in the stereo.

Great review.
I bought the mono box, adding the single albums that were originally recorded in stereo.

When I first heard the mono mixes (“illegally”), I realized what my brain was telling me years ago when I would listen to the White Album in my car or in headphones: creating a stereo mix from mono vocals results in echoey distraction. I could never understand this mixing decision as a teenager and on. Now of, course, I know.
The difference in the mono/stereo is this: The mono experience is how it is meant to be heard and it’s like listening to fractals at times - completely amazing. The stereo mixes (of the mono) are sometimes distracting in the way they dissect and separate the instruments and sounds. It’s like trying to expand a 1:24 landscape into a 1:1 landscape - there’s a lot of space to fill with a concentrated medium. A lot of separated and panned reverb is necessary.
I say if you’re planning on buying one of the boxes, make it the mono.

I would love to hear more of all the mixes than what I heard on release day 9/10/09 on CBSFM. Perhaps radio compression should have been relaxed for some of this playback. A couple of points, tho: As was expected, Paul’s Bass & vocals were bumped up throughout like on the #1 CD Release of a few years ago. Not always a good thing. Rain sounded out of phase with a booming clunky bass, and a muddled over John Lennon vocal. Just awful. You’ve got To Hide Your Love Away was ruined by an overly raspy Lennon vocal repro and a lack of 12 string guitars. Terrible thing to do to such a special tune.  I often felt I was listening to some eurythmic class teacher’s version of the Beatles as Ringo’s percussion was too detailed and too prevalent. This Bass & Drum idea tends to kill the lyrical qualities of some of the songs. I guess this is how Paul assuaged Ringo…Remember, without John, there would be no Beatles or Beatle sound. I had hoped that there would be some BluRay or DVD A versions and Surround versions, but I guess we’ll have to wait. I agree with those who say that its the totality of a recording, that special Gestalt of a mix that makes it what it is. Which is why great songs/performances can come across even in lowfi. Picking stuff apart is just that. We’ll see how we react to these reproductions in a couple of years down the road. I’m assuming I heard all stereo on CBSFM but some of the earliest tunes were really invested with a new punchiness and clarity that i liked.  Or was it that John’s contribution couldn’t be as easily masked in those? Anyway educating today’s unwashed masses to Beatles has got to be a good cause and an IQ raising experience.
Is any of this out on 180 Gram Vinyl or do we have to make our own? I suspect that tape playback might also be a great way to hear this stuff. having standards of sonic excellence is a good thing. Long Live The Beatles!!!

The remastered stuff is pretty good, but they’re still CDs, still 16 bit and 44.1khz. I have LPs that blow them away. Why didn’t EMI give us hi-rez like the Neil Young archives?

@Aristedes Philip DuVal:

The mono box set was created to address the issues you’ve raised above. There was no attempt to ‘modernize’ the sound on the mono box set, and you should therefore settle on that one.

As far as the stereo remasters go, I give my nod to McCartney for not hijacking the project by attempting to boost his presence on account of others. If anything, Lennon comes off in these remasters as the ideological and inspirational workhorse of the Beatles. Paul really shines through with his sheer musicality and the beauty of his vocal renditions. But is now clearer than ever who was the leading creative force in the Beatles. The phenomenal genius and power of Lennon now blows your head off when you sit in front of these marvelous recordings.

@Paul K:

Not to belabor the point, but I could never understand the lure of the “Lowered Expectations (TM)” crowds. Yes, some people may claim that some of the best meals they’ve ever had was in McDonalds. And that’s cool. But why do they then insist that it automatically follows that all the others who have higher expectations in life should cease and desist and that all the high end restaurants must close?

You go David Jenkins!! Nobody could say it better then that. There are artists that I don’t care for but I respect their listeners.

Thanks Stacy! You hit the nail right on the head - it’s all about respect. It would be nice if more people in this country could figure that out. It’s one thing to speak firmly and perhaps even aggressively about a war, or jobs, or the economy… but the Beatles? Please.

I’ll respect anyone’s position on anything as long as they respect mine, and communicate with some logic and some civility… and they have the facts at their hands, and some real understanding of the subject…

Anyway, thanks for your kind words, best wishes to you!

DAVID

wowo. what a nerd.

Great review. I have heard the mono vs stereo debate for years now and had always bought into the mono is better thing. But then I purchased the CD reissue of Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys, which includes both the original mono and the new stereo mix by Brian Wilson. I dutifully listened to the mono first, then the stereo. Whithin three listenings I clearly prefered the new stereo mix, for all the reasons you cite: the mono sounds punchier, but more congested, the stereo has a lovely space and ambience that allows some instruments and voices buried in the mono to come forward. While prefer my old vinyl Beatles mono records to the American vinyl stereo versions, it could very well be because Capitol records did such a crappy job on the fake stereo on the early albums. I can’t wait to hear the new stereo releases.

So much to challenge here. Not that the effort to get this remaster out was wasted - quite the contrary. The challenge is on the mono/stereo front.

Having heard that some of the mono releases are better, I was torn about which to buy. Luckily, I teamed up with a somewhat richer friend and between us, we have both. So, before the sticky middle recordings, the first two albums were only ever done on two tracks, one for vocals, the other for backing. That is what has been serving as stereo for years. Move your audiophile balance control one way and only hear voice or backing with varying amounts of bleed to complete the picture. I dont know bout you, but I like a balance in sterao, so the first 2 are a no-brainer (MONO)

Then we get to Beatles for sale and Hard Days Night. Here we have better stereo masters, centered vocal and backing - so, STEREO. Next, Rubber Soul. Sad that here again we have the vocal/backing split. Not interested in that experience anymore, so MONO. Revolver - my fav too. The first 2 songs (Taxman/Eleanor Rigby) both have that sad vocal/backing split and so - MONO, but the rest of the album is a decent stereo mix, so OK, STEREO. Next we have Sgt. Pepper. In my research I found a book by Geoff Emerick that I was able to get at the library. Just finished reading it and he emphatically says that the stereo mixes for both Revolver and Sgt. Pepper were not attended by ANY Beatle and left to the engineers, who were trying a lot of things and so he does not recommend the stereo mixes for that reason. My track-by-track review of Revolver is above and I am about to do the same for Sgt. Pepper. I’ve read that the stereo mix of Magical Mystery Tour is an abortion, but look forward to a track-by-track with that one and the White Album, which has received mixed reviews on the stereo/mono front. The last two are stereo only, so no arguement there - and Yellow Submarine was also delivered in stereo so that leaves the HELP! soundtrack and Past/Mono Masters collections to go through track-by-track to determine the ULTIMATE Beatles Collection. Should take another day or two to get theough it all…

Also, worth noting that neither the Beatles nor George Martin knew ANYTHING about the technology of recording. They relied totally on the engineers at EMI (notably a young Geoff Emerick who was willing to break ALL of the EMI rules to give the Beatles what they wanted. They all knew they wanted something “different” but didn’t have a clue about how to get the sounds without the uncredited engineers.

Bottom line: Wonderful quality copies of the best rock/pop music ever created. Can’t wait for the day they reMIX, remaster and distribute in 24bit/192Mhz digital. Then we’ll be back to pristine vinyl quality.

I bought the Mono box listened and compared Please Please Me and White Album to the Stereo versions. I returned the Mono Box and bought the Stereo box coming to the exact conclusion as per your well written article. Thanks

I have to say that the original Sgt. Pepper album that I received as a gift from my Mother, was in Mono and I was very upset that it wasn’t the Stereo version as I believed Sgt. Pepper to be a must to hear in Stereo. I attempted to play this on a small stereo/mono portable and didn’t like the sound. I had to hear it in Stereo! Some of the new Stereo Remasters are not correct. Some are even better! There are some great old stereo vinyl mixes as well. I’ll take Mono when it works and Stereo if it works. Remember that the Engineers who do all that Legerdemain are artists as well.

Hi there, finally someone said something against the mono mixes.  I waited three months to get my hands on the mono box because it was supposedly “more accurate” and “blew the stereo versions away” and such nonsense.  The first album I put on was revolver and couldn’t get halfway through it.  It sounded like it was being played under a pillow inside of an elevator.  Maybe if you grew up with the mono mixes there is a certain nostalgia there and who knows maybe I’m just not listening to it right or something.  To me except for Please Please Me, With the Beatles and A Hard Day’s Night, stereo wins hands down.

For weeks now, I’ve been getting e-mail notices on all new comments, but haven’t made the time to respond until now.

I’m listening to the mono box in chronological order (tomorrow I continue with “Sgt. Pepper”), and I have to say I’m generally pleased with what I’m hearing. The first two albums in particular sound fantastic, and while I will concede that “A Hard Day’s Night” sounds a little congested (though it still sounds great), I don’t have this problem with the subsequent three albums.

My beef with the old stereo releases (and presumably this problem remains with the new editions) is the separation of elements, the classic example for me being “Eleonore Rigby”, with the string quartet coming out of one speaker and McCartney’s vocal coming out of the other. That has always annoyed me, and I point to that song as an exemplar of what’s “wrong” with the Beatles in stereo, at least as far as the early- and mid-career recordings are concerned. I may have more to say later on.

Wow. Great review. Now I accept to add this to my ambition list. As far as ?¢‚Ǩ?ìwhat the Beatles capital me to hear?¢‚Ǩ¬ù, unless you?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢re a kid, we all accept the originals (albums or CDs). I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t see how abacus this to your accumulating lessens that amount (or is any worse than an MP3- did the Beatles appetite us to accept to that format?).

I agree with you, they really never sounded that bad.  If the quality is decent on a music cd, I’ll listed to it.