Beatles mix variations - WHY?

I totally agree with that. I don't doubt for a second that comfortable familiarity with the stereo mix isn't a factor in my preference.

Still, I never heard the mono Revolver til this past year either, and I now prefer the mono Tomorrow Never Knows and the mono Yellow Submarine, and the mono Paperback Writer, over their more familiar stereo counterparts.

The mono edit sounds very different to me...I haven't really dissected them, but it sounds almost......s t r e t c h e d..... in some weird way. I guess the ends matter more than the means or method involved. However they did it, the stereo edit there is definitive.

I can appreciate the mono mix differences, like any self-respecting beatlemaniac, but the overall muddy sound of the mono is kind of a turn-off. I will say that the mono With A Little Help From My Friends is better.

 

Good point. Hadn't thought about it that way. Seems more of a case of the stereo just getting an accidental lucky break...

 

No "Taxman"?

 

I agree the mono isn't as smooth, but I like the trade-off of being able to hear more of the intro for ADITL...

 

I believe that statement to be erroneous

the edit can't be exactly the same, because the mono has the extended guitar plucking

at any rate, I just lined them up and they don't match - they're not exactly the same

while I would agree that calling the mono edit itself "sloppy" may not be entirely accurate and is a subjective description, I would agree with those that perceive it as "sloppy"-sounding

 

I agree, and the pitch of the chicken cluck was altered for the stereo mix to better match the guitar note. Emerick says this was done in Lewisohn's book and that it was no accident. George Martin has been saying forever that the chicken/guitar matching was a lucky accident. Ron

 

Well, no, not exactly the same. But the two parts are essentially the same. In the stereo, the beginning starts on the left channel and shifts to the center. It is a tiny bit longer in the mono, but there is a break between the two plucks in both. If anything in the stereo the second pluck begins "mid pluck".

 

It's called "Lifting Latches".

- John

 

well, no offense intended, and apologies to you if you feel this is "harping" on the subject, but that is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier ("....All of the complaints of the mono mix of sloppy editing, IMO, are really just the jarring reaction to a different edit than you are used to....really the edit is exactly the same. The only difference being in that the two parts of the edit (the guitar) in stereo are mixed much lower and are in opposite channels....)

am I to understand that you now consider that members' perceptions that the edits are different are indeed valid, and not just a "jarring reaction"?

 

No offense taken. I think the edit is pretty much the same. I shouldn't have said "exactly". I think that most people point out that in the mono there seems to be a pause in between the two plucks. My point is that the pause is in the stereo as well.

 

This would only work if the mono mixes were easy to execute and therefore replicate . . . and they weren't easy! Plus, when you pan something (guitar, drums, whatever) to one side or another, it affects the overall volume making it even harder for the stereo mix to resemble the mono one.

 

The mono US LP is the one I grew up with (not in the '60s, though...I'm only 29). So you can imagine how surprised I was when I finally heard the stereo around '87. The biggest difference to me was the volume of the loops in "Mr. Kite."

I don't know if I'd say the mono is better, but there are little things I miss, like the volume of those loops and the weird chicken cluck and ad-libbing in "Sgt. Pepper Reprise."

 

John's being too modest. He wrote what is one of the better resources out there on the subject, which not ony details the original tapes themselves, but also provides a fascinating history of the various caches of tapes that have been "liberated" over the years, and how we came to know them as various gray market lps and CDs.

 

As you all know, I am a fan of both Beatles and Motown, and the latter was notorious for having dozens of various mixes of the same song, some very subtle. Some of those mixes have even surfaced once again on the ongoing Complete Singles series. Anyway, I almost always prefer the original stereo mixes as opposed to the stereo remixes done just a couple of years later. They may not have always been the best, but they didn't usually sound bad, either.

I think it would have made life easier to just have one official stereo, and one official mono mix for each song. Streamline everything. In a weird way, the Atlantic warehouse fire was a blessing, because now we have one mix of each, in the case of the 60s material. No revisionist history. No confusion. No crap. What you get is what you get. Better for the CD age.

 

?!

What's the *problem* in having multiple mixes? We'll always have a favorite, but it's still fun to hear alternates...

 

I guess the 'problem' is knowing the 'intended' mix and ensuring it's used. I see where Grant's coming from with Motown - Anthologies with alternate mixes replacing regulars etc.

 

It kind of is for me at times, but I was thinking how it cuts the hassle for never getting the right mixes available to the public, or how it prevents people from replacing the originals with new, modern remixes, as we have seen with Motown, Sly & The Family Stone, and now, proposed by the Doors. This is because the modern remixes do not usually match the originals. They always wind up changing something. I can accept something like "Hang On Sloopy" because all the remix does is remove the distortions.

So, as I see it, being stuck with one or the other original mix eliminates all the playing around with the sound and history, or, at least, I hope.

 

hence the term, remix

but don't forget, however much one may wish reality to be "static", things are always changing, and all "history" does is reflect this

as you point out, sometimes a remix improves something, despite it not "matching" or equalling a different version

 

But, most of the time, they are changing something that was not originally there, so it is revisionist history. It's not right!

 

If you grew up with the mono mix (as I did), you had the imnpression that the vocal ad-lib was mysteriously "down-mixed" on the stereo version (it IS there on the stereo, but it sounds as if it's just a "ghost"). Maybe it sounds silly if you grew up on the stereo, but is sounds like a deletion if you grew up with the mono.

I agree - I came to the stereo mix later, and still have some problems coming to grips with it.

The trouble is - when you have had the mono mix INGRAINED in your brain long before you ever heard the stereo - that very transition sounds like a HARD EDIT on the stereo mix. Others have debated that it sounds like the tape is "winding up" to speed before the guitar squak on the mono, but I cannot state for certian that I was aware that was even an "edit point" at that time. When I first heard the stereo - it sounded like someone chopped a milli-second out of the tape and put it back together with crazy glue.

Call me nuts - I still lament the missing bar of music that only appeared on the US single of I am the Walrus.

Yes - I go back that far and I am that old.

 

I'm old too Al And I was also shocked to find (years later on bootleg) that the extra bar or 2 on the US 45 was caused by Lennon starting his vocal too soon. The US 45 shouldn't have included that brief bit ast all. It almost sounds like a rough mix was sent to Capitol in error. As it was, 17 different mono mixes were attempted, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the 'wrong' mix was sent to Capitol. Ron

 

Yeah, I know the given reason WHY that extra bar exists, but isn't it strange that Martins string charts COVER it? If it was such a monumental 'F' up, why would he write a score to accomodate it?

 

I like to think that Capitol got an alternate edited version than the wrong version!

To me, the Capitol 45 of "Walrus" is the correct version!

 

And...yeah...I'm that old too!!!

 

I just played the 45... the mix of the strings sounds so different (particularly the cello swoops) up to the "English Garden" part. At the edit point, the strings sounds are rather strangely, just one continuous note... I agree, it is very odd indeed that Martin recorded strings at all for this obvious error. Perhaps he felt it would make a smoother edit during mixing? Does sound good though... and Ringo's drums sound better in this mix to my old ears too. Ron