Anyone else prefer the slow Beggar's Banquet - Rolling Stones

The first time I listened to this album was the 2002 corrected version. But not long ago I picked up the old CD of it, and I love the slower speed. Jigsaw Puzzle and Stray Cat Blues and well, everything else just has that spook to it at the slower speed.
I know, it's just me but I didn't "get" this album until I heard it at a slower speed.

 

People's taste in music differ and the only opinion that really matters is your own. That said, I think you will find your opinion on BB is the minority opinion here. I prefer the 2002 cd myself

 

I honestly had no idea there were different versions relating to the speed of the album. Mind blown, I suppose!

 

Slow or fast, I don't care. It's a great album.

 

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a tempo of wealth and taste...

In all seriousness, I tend to go back and forth over the two tempos on a song by song basis. I think some of the more earthy, acoustic flavored tracks benefit from the slightly slower mix, while others benefit because of the opposite - it gives the track a better and more vital energy.

I've come to really prefer Sympathy For The Devil at the correct brisker speed as I feel it brings the performance together more emphatically - the conga drums, Mick's vocals, and Keith's lead licks all burst through with a bit more vitality. But any mix of this album is still a good mix.

 

I prefer the slower version, but I am almost certain that's only because it's what I'm used to.

 

I like "Parachute Woman" slower. It's druggier. But Keith's vocals and the gospel backing vocals on"Salt of the Earth" never sounded right to me on the slower version. That's the dead giveaway that something's not quite right.

 

This is the first I have heard of this. Does anyone have a link to slow and fast of one track for comparison for me or can point out which two releases I need to buy?

 

This is the first I've heard of this as well, and I have the 2002 remaster. Unfortunately , I don't have the earlier version on CD so I can't compare, and it's been years since i owned a turntable or cassette player so it's no use dragging out my old copies.

 

Same here. Mind probably less blown, though.

 

Well, it's up to prefference i guess. a lot of people grew up listening to the slow version and a lot of people want to listen to the session speed. Most people don't care.

 

I never realized that Beggars Banquet was pressed in slower speed because (and here it comes -> ) my very first turntable actually had a faster rotation speed (probably 34rpm for unknown reasons, the 44rpm was correct though).
Now I have another turntable but with accurate speed 33 1/3 and 45. I also have two versions of the album (London Records 1968 and Abkco Remaster 2002). Funny thing is I still didn't realize those speed differences.^^

 

Don't like messing with history ( hey pepper)so I like the UK 1968 LP.
Speed ? STP.

 

I doubt many people would discern a difference, or 'know' that one was 'slower' -- unless the two were compared back to back.

 

I prefer the slow version. Especially on my Greek press! My favorite press of this album. I have a pressing UK (4K / 3K), german pressing DMM, SACD ... On the SACD, there is a distortion on the title "Stray cat blues"... weird!?

Sorry guys for my rudimentary english, je suis français !

 

How different are they? I assume it's not a full semitone or something. I have an old cd from the 90s and a recent clear vinyl but not home now to compare.

 

The speed-corrected Beggars Banquet is by far ABKCO's crowning achievement, together with the mono versions of Aftermath, Between The Buttons and Their Satanic Majesties Request. I think there is very few negative voices on those releases. On the rest of the 60's material, opinions are different and mixed.

Also, ABKCO's vinyl of Beggars Banquet are praised everywhere, even though it comes from a 'digital' source.

 

I never knew about this either. I have the Decca CD 800 084-2. It says it's "Digitally Remastered", but it doesn't say when or by whom. I don't recall where or when I bought it, but it was long before 2002.

According to a customer's review on Amazon, "This is one of the original and rare Rolling Stones European CD issues that would occasionally pop up in indie record stores when CDs first hit the US market. They were soon to disappear when Abkco began manufacturing its own inferior versions for the US market. These early European editions were digitally remastered by Mobile Fidelity, and they were superior sounding to their US counterparts. This is the only instance of MoFi remastering for another label other than their own." I have no idea if this is true, but I do know the CD sounds very good.

 

Have always preferred the 1968 speed. And I have posted here before on why I think it's far from clear that the 2002 is a "correction."

 

It's the same mix, just at different speeds.

 

There are two mixes actually, stereo and mono.

 

Three if you count the 5.1 surround sound mix!

I remember reading — and I don't have one to confirm — that original pressings of the Beggars album in mono had the single mix, which was printed as a dedicated true mono mix, at the faster speed but the rest of the album (presumably folded down from the slow-running stereo master tape) was at the slower pitch. Pretty compelling evidence that the slower speed is a mistake if you ask me

 

There's a surround mix of Beggars Banquet?

 

Not quite.

Stereo and True Mono, albeit only for Sympathy, the rest is a fold down

 

The mono version of Sympathy For The Devil is one of the best things I have heard on record. It was a digital source (the whole box) but damn it sounds amazing! Shame that it was their last dedicated mono mix