Beatles Mono Coll. Red vs. Black/Musings

It is with some trepidation that this new forum member wades into the water here (one risks drowning in either criticism or an onslaught of vastly superior knowledge). But after several weeks of lurking -- AND LEARNING -- I thought I would risk providing a bit of information about the Beatles Mono Collection Red Box versus the Black Box. This subject was briefly addressed in another thread, and there seems to be some confusion as to the distinction between the two, if there is any. In my long search for a set I have gathered the following information.

I recently purchased a Mint set of The Beatles Mono Collection - Red Box. The Red Box was a set created specifically for the British market. In the early 1980s all of the Beatles mono albums were briefly reissued, and the set (released in 1982) represented a deluxe means by which to secure the whole lot of 10. Because demand for the British mono lps was reasonably low in Britain, the Beatles Mono Collection Red Box was an extremely limited edition of 200 sets. There seems some argument about the exact number originally issued but two sites, including yokono.com, have concluded that only 200 sets were indeed issued of this set for the British market. Yokono.com does have pictures of the Red Box. The Japanese Mono Collection was a spin-off of the British edition.

Now, there was greater interest evinced abroad for a Beatles Mono Collection. Therefore a special EXPORT ONLY edition was created. This was the Beatles Mono Collection Black Box, complete with limited edition number assigned to each set. The bulk of these EXPORT ONLY Black Box editions were intended for the U.S. market, though they undoubtedly were available elsewhere as well. Estimates on the number of these sets issued range from 1000 to 2000. This Black Box EXPORT ONLY version is, apparently, the most common. Hence its lower price on the collector's market.

According to one site -- on which are posted current "going rates" for various Beatles Box Sets -- the Red Box has been selling for $2,000.00. But this site attributes the difference in value between Red and Black boxes not only to relative scarcity but to the fact that supposedly some versions of the EXPORT Black Box, and NOT the DOMESTIC British Red Box, are reputed to contain a "Sgt.Pepper's" that is 1/2 mono and 1/2 stereo.

To confuse matters further, a Swedish edition of the Beatles Mono Collection -- A RED BOX!!!! -- also reputedly has the mispressed "Pepper's."

I purchased my Beatles Mono Collection Red Box from an American collector who was completely unaware of the Black Box intended for Americans. He received a Red Box direct from Britain in 1982.

This, then, is what I have uncovered to date. Apparently there were several editions intended for different markets. The smallest number issued was in the British Domestic Edition Red Box of, if these sources are correct, only 200 copies. This is the one I have bought. I'll have it Wednesday. I certainly hope it is as good as it is rare!

Miscellaneous musings:

1). I find it hard to believe, as I have read in other threads, that some so-called Beatles fans don't believe Ringo Starr to be a particularly good drummer. If you like the Beatles' music -- less the output of four instrumental virtuosos and more the music of four musical minds miraculously in sinc -- you CANNOT dismiss his drumming. Perhaps not flashy, but enormously musical. I have found myself concentrating on Ringo's drumming when I listen to Beatles tracks, and have found myself often amazed at his musicality. At his absolute rightness of accompaniment in so many ways. Don't be fooled by the cartoon version of dim-bulb Ringo ("Yellow Submarine" or the Beatles cartoon show), for in the context of the Beatles his drumming is more often that not ABSOLUTELY right. And I do not believe Ringo was reading his drum parts from a score written by McCartney or Lennon. I write this as someone who is at heart a jazz snob, and who for years was also a Ringo doubter. He was integral to that group and that sound. I really can't fathom how after 40 years there could be any doubt, when we are still listening to and marveling at the music of these FOUR musicians.

2). Historical food for thought (well, I am a historian, so...). It was forty years ago that the Beatles released "Love Me Do." And forty years later the song is on a number one selling CD, still listened to, and still loved. I don't really know what argument I am actually making, except to point out the following. In 1962 forty years ago was 1922. If the Beatles or their fans were having arguments with their parents about what had been recorded and had been listened to forty years before "Love Me Do," it would have been a world of music before even the first recordings of jazz music made by black musicians (unless you count Kid Ory's Sunshine Orchestra's recordings of 1922 as black jazz). This was before Louis Armstrong, King Oliver, Bessie Smith. And in America at least, commercial radio was ONLY TWO YEARS OLD (commencing on KDKA in 1920 to carry returns of the Harding/Cox election) So for young Beatles fans today, as we hit the fortieth anniversary of "Love Me Do": in 2002 that record is as FAR from today's teens in historical time as were the New Orleans Rhythm Kings Gennet records of 1922 from 1962's "Love Me Do" and from the generation who heard IT when first released. I guess this was just a way of suggesting by analogy, though it is hard to believe, how far away in historical time those Beatles recordings are from today's youth. The Beatles are as "ancient" to and removed from today's youth (the young of 2002) as the New Orleans Rhythm Kings were to and from us (the young of 1962). And yet they are still listening.

(For my money the young should ALSO be listening to the New Orleans Rhythm Kings and Kid Ory!).

For whatever it's worth.

 

Excellent post from a fellow Cambridgean Beatle fan/jazz snob. In favor of Ringo, I'll add that I think a lot of his "rightness" came not just from *what* he played, but from the context of the contrasting and complementary rhythm section feels -- Paul's bass on top of the beat, Ringo's drums a little behind, and John's rhythm guitar straight up the middle.

 

I think the 40 year "knowledge" of younger people is a bit better today as opposed to 40 years ago because kid's are smarter (not really). I just think that with the evolution of communications/music business/radio/TV/reissues/etc. has helped. Also, I'm sure in 1962, kids had some knowledge of Gilbert & Sullivan (even though they wouldn't admit it). The Beatles were almost like the G&S of the later 20th century. I think there were 3 big names that really were inspired what we here today and they won't be forgotten for a long time. These names still have meaning to the younger generation (an almost curiousity). The names are Sinatra, Elvis & the Beatles (a few others but those 3 names are BIG and still respected!)...

Todd

P.S. Yes, I agree, Ringo was a great drummer (very precise)...

 

Another thing. I wish EMI (or whatever they're called now) would just press a few extra thousand black or red boxsets and put them on the market again. Does anyone over there pay attention to the demand that exists "today" for those pressings and they could make a few pounds selling them now??? I mean they're still going to the trouble of releasing "new" pressings of the digital stuff on vinyl. Why not just throw the mono stuff back into the mix. Maybe they just need some young up-start to join the firm and shake things up a bit. If there isn't a demand then why are they selling for soooo much money? Yes, there are collectors but I think many people are still listening to them...

Todd

 

It's all up to APPLE when and if anything new gets released.

 

I agree about that but I'm talking about something "old". I don't know but did Apple approve the UK vinyl reissues in the late 90's (not the "limited Edition" Capitol stuff) or EMI?

Todd

 

First of all, thank you Steve and fellow Forum members for the welcome. I've lurked for a few weeks and must say in, all honesty, that this is on the whole an extremely intelligent and very informative board. A nice vibe, as well. Thank you Steve for offering this outlet to discuss and exchange and share in an atmosphere of clear mutual respect.

1). As a result of the discussion on this board I went back to a local used record store and bought BACK the copy of the Beatles EP box that I sold a few weeks ago. It was one of those whim purchaes and after the whim evaporated, I wondered what the heck I had done. So I sold it to buy a few classical SACDs. Then your discussion. What scared me was when dbryant informed the board that he had scored a relatively inexpensive used copy of this very same set (we are both in Cambridge, MA.). MY SET!!! I panicked and called the store to which I had sold mine and, luckily, it was still there. It is back in its home and well listened to. Fabulous sound.

2). As a direct result of Steve's discussion of the UK pressing of "Hey Jude," I went on-line in a frantic search for one and found it! I'll post the web information if anyone is interested. The dealer is UK-based and specializes in 60s and 70s vinyl. His for-sale Beatles collection is "drool-worthy." Virtually all original UK pressings, with some of the special export pressings as well (hence my purchase of the "Hey Jude" edition Steve mentioned).

3). I am actually buying up Beatles vinyl because WHEN the Beatles catalog is finally refurbished, I am somewhat certain that there are going to be changes significant enough to be disturbing to someone who heard the originals. All of you who are hoping Apple/EMI will create the perfect SACDs from master tapes with Steve at the helm...Well, I am skeptical, though I DO think public and industry reaction to the Stones SACDS could have some influence on executive decisions. But I have decided that I will stock up on original mixes (mono and stereo) in case our fondest dreams do not come true (and they may not). And in vinyl editions. Unless, in the obvious case of the CD EP set, a convincing case can be made for CDs. I no longer have a turntable, but that is a minor inconvenience.

I'd like to mention that MMM's analysis of Sinatra recordings is brilliant and is almost like taking a class. That is just one example of the many threads from which I've learned something significant. It is just evidence that this forum is edging up to a critical mass of expertise in a range of musical areas. This is a good thing!

Is there anyone here who has heard the Artie Shaw box "Self-Portrait" and would like to review it? Well, maybe I better post that as a thread, eh?

Oh, and I voted "no" on Juan.

 

40 years

(For my money the young should ALSO be listening to the New Orleans Rhythm Kings and Kid Ory!).

Now at 40, I can attest to having followed the above advice since I was about 10. Even went so far back then as to insist my father take me to see NORK trombonist "Georg" Brunis play live. And how many do you know who own an entire Ory Sunshine Band compilation LP, with the additional "blues" accompaniment sides?

Interesting thing about "Love Me Do" is that stylistically it sounds as close to the jug band music of the 20s as to anything being created today, if not closer.

The biggest US hit of '62 was Ray Charles' "I Can't Stop Loving You," and I wonder if (recording technology aside) it would sound any less remote to a teen today than Al Jolson's "April Showers" (biggest hit of '22) might have to a kid in '62. Just musing on your good points.

Incidentally, how widely issued (or known) is the mix of "A Day In the Life" that begins with fully-audible strummed acoustic guitar, rather than the fade-in? I've only found it on the Imagine soundtrack (Capitol 90803).

 

I'd like to get the web info on where you got "Hey Jude". Thanks.

 

My guess: if the jackets and/or labels have Apple logos on them, there's your answer.

 

That mix of "A Day In The Life" can also be found on the CD edition of THE BEATLES 1967-1970. As for Ringo, I've always thought that he is a great drummer(I play them myself). As for whether he is a "good" or "bad" drummer, keep in mind that he was the "right" drummer for THE BEATLES. 'Nuff said.

 

Drlep,

Thanks for the info on those mono lp collections! And please post that info about that dealer. Great to find other sources than Ebay!

 

British dealer of rare Beatles vinyl

I purchased my copy of "Hey Jude" (British export lp, as recommended by Steve) from:

Greg Vandike at www.vandike.co.uk.

Gred has been in business for years and his Beatles list alone is amazing, though that is a small portion of the rarities offered on his site. I think the Beatles' vinyl list is five or six pages. Among the tantalizing offerings are several other specific items discussed elsewhere in this forum (mono "Revolvers", stereo original "Beatles for Sale," British export editions of several American lps like the "Hey Jude" I just bought).

Be advised, the prices are listed in pounds sterling. With the exchange rate going against American currency, plus shipping...double the amount listed to approximate your American charge. It is also more expensive to PayPal, because of certain fees the seller is charged for conversion purposes. Meaning, these items ARE expensive, though as set rate items and with Greg's clear expertise, you are much better off buying from him than bidding on Ebay. (I don't do Ebay after getting sucked into several Mosaic Records bidding wars). There were several things I SERIOUSLY wanted to buy, but I had to make the choice because I could only afford one item.

He responds very quickly and will answer any question you have with more detail, particularly about the condition of the vinyl and the cover, though, as he states, items are at least "excellent" unless stated otherwise. After quite a few email exchanges with him, I feel comfortable buying from Greg Vandike and also recommending him to others. He's not "chatty," by email, but then again are the British ever chatty?

 

Thanks for the info on the Beatles' mono boxed sets. I didn't know they had released a U.K. domestic version in a red box! I did know the rest of the story and have a bit more info here. There were 2,000 copies of the mono box set released in the U.S. Two different companies were given the rights to assemble and distribute the box sets from the remaining Parlaphone stock, with each company releasing 1,000 box sets. The sets were identical save for an insert by each respective distributor indicating the company name/logo along with a serial number for the set.

The two distributors were Ticket To Ryde Ltd. & Dutch East India Trading Co. I had an opportunity to buy an unplayed Dutch East India Trading Co. number 39/1000 for $1000.00. I just couldn't bring myself to do it... Argh!

There is a Japanese version of the same set, with all LP's pressed on red wax. I'd love to get my hands on that one...

 

I had that Japanese Red Mono set...No more.
Michael

 

Which Mono Coll. edition has the defective "Sgt. Pepper's"

Vex, your additional information makes this story even more intriguing. You wrote that Parlophone offered two different companies the rights to each assemble 1000 Black Box Mono Collection sets from remaining Parlophone stock. Is it your understanding, then, that Parlophone DID NOT specially press discs for these sets? And that they were assembled essentially from mono back stock?

If so, that might explain the defective "Sgt. Pepper" mystery, as some of the Black Box are reputed to have "Pepper's" that are 1/2 stereo and 1/2 mono (though, as I said above, a Swedish site claims that Swedish Red Box Mono editions had the mis-pressed "Pepper's" as well). If that is indeed the case, assembly from back stock, it is possible that the warehouse (or whatever) was storing what might have been a mis-pressed run of supposedly all-mono "Pepper's" and that this stock was included, accidently, with whatever back stock Parlophone allowed these two companies for the EXPORT edition of the "Mono Collection."

I am certainly "curioser and curioser" about this!

And Michael! For shame, Sir!

 

Re: Which Mono Coll. edition has the defective "Sgt. Pepper's"

For Shame, Sir
You got that right! If you knew all the Beatles vinyl I dumped, you'd need a Doctor!
I had every incarnation out there from America, Japan, England, Germany, etc. All the MFSL Single LPs and The Box-set, The Liverpool Box-Set from England, Same from Japan, Single Vinyl Box, EP Vinyl Box, Mono Red Vinyl Box, Limited Blue Box, Limited Capital Box, Red & Blue Vinyls, Plus hundreds more...Need I say more? I get sad sometimes when I think about it Hey we sometimes make mistakes some bigger than others..Believe it or not I've made more! LOL

 

Great post.

Not to sidetrack, but Kid Ory was very much considered a jazz artist in 1922. In fact, many historians consider Kid Ory's Creole Orchestra to be the very first African-American ensemble jazz band from New Orleans to professionally record in a studio - in 1922.

Incidentally, Louie Armstrong joined his first professional band with Kid Ory in New Orleans on May 1919. And in April 1923, Louie made his very first studio recording in Indiana with the King Oliver's Creole Jazz Band.

Later, in 1925, Kid Ory joined Louie Armstrong's new band, playing trombone in his Hot Five and Sevens, and recording Ory's "Muskrat Ramble." From 1922 to 1925, that would be comparable to the time between when "Love Me Do" and "Help!" were both recorded.

 

Re: Which Mono Coll. edition has the defective "Sgt. Pepper's"

These pressings must be the re-issues from '81? Which would make sense.

What I'm really curious about is whether these mono pressings were made from the original metal parts or not. Steve had mentioned that there were re-issues using the original parts but that was quite awhile ago, in one of the old DCC forums. I've been looking to for any info on any mono re-issues but the only ones ever mentioned are from '81 and the box sets of '82. For the 70's I've only seen info on the stereo re-issues (silver/black labels) but nothing about any mono's.

 

Yes, the U.S. issues of the Beatles Mono Collection box sets were created from back-stock of the individual U.K. Parlaphone mono reissue titles circa 1981. There was but a single insert along with the LP's indicating the distributor and the serial number of the set. No other promotional material or sales literature was included.

 

To add more fuel to the fire, I have a copy of the 1/2 mono, 1/2 stereo Pepper that was purchased outside of the box. However, that's not to say that it didn't originate from a box that had been broken up. I'm trying to remember for certain, but I think I picked it up around Christmas 1981.

Chip Madinger
www.8-arms.com

 

What must have happened is that there was some Sgt Pepper 1/2 mono 1/2 stereo pressings in 81. Some went into black boxes, red boxes, and individual. My black box has all mono.

 

I understand it was common practice to break the boxes up and sell the records individually since record store owners could make more that way. It's kind of interesting. They were originally sold as individual titles, then packaged together as a box set, then split back out to be sold as individual titles! Crazy, man, crazy!