The Beatles she's leaving home correct speed mono or stereo

Paul also wanted his vocals sped up for When I'm 64, which was recorded slower. It made him sound more youthful and, yes, perky, as was his wont. That's the reason for the speedup.

 

No, the question was which version, mono or stereo, is the correct speed. The answer is neither and both.

 

I actually agree. The alternative viewpoint though, is that the strings and vocals are both incorrect on the mono version, and are both correct on the stereo version.

 

With all the due respect (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the only relevant aspect arising from that question is how the sound quality of the final product may change between two scenarios: a. Singing over an altered-pitch backing track or b. Simply raising the whole thing (vocals included) almost one half step after recording everything in standard pitch. What else can be relevant about it? Maybe I'm missing something else (perhaps the "naturalness" of the voice?).

Several websites cite an article by Jim Irvin called "The Big Bang!" (Mojo magazine, March 2007) as the source for this.

 

Excellent job of summarizing what was most surly the case of what actually happened. Thus, the strings are at "natural" speed in the stereo mix and sped up in the mono; conversely, the vocals are at "natural" speed in the mono and slowed down in the stereo. The Beatles obviously made the artistic decision with the mono to speed up what to them probably sounded like a lethargic track prior to recording the vocals, and the same-day mono mix retained that speed.

For the later-accomplished stereo mix, I highly doubt the Beatles were present or even cared much how it was executed. Those responsible (Martin and Emerick I assume) either forgot that the track was supposed to be sped up at mixdown, or made their own "artistic decision" to mix the tape at the slower original speed that the string track was recorded at.

Personally, my preference is strongly for the mono version - always thought it sounded lethargic and sappy in stereo; whereas the mono strikes just the right note of both pathos and I think a bit of light satire...

 

Though I couldn't repeat it, what @slane said makes sense to me. Some of those little tricks with sped up/slowed down elements lend some of that other worldly sounds the Beatles got on their records. The little nuances of the shift in tonality from speed changes are just a little piece of the magic. My favorite Beatles track changes with some regularity, but She's Leaving Home is pretty much locked in at second place.

 

Yes.

 

The videos I have seen of Paul singing it live are the slow version so wouldn't that be the right one?

 

Maybe now because the official version since 87 around the world has been the stereo version.

 

How about a 3rd option? I find that the stereo playback speed makes Paul's & John's voices sound unnaturally slow, just like John's voice does on the final mix of "Strawberry Fields Forever" - however, I also think the mono playback speed is a tiny bit faster than the speed Paul's and John's vocals were recorded at (though the mono vocals sound a lot closer to natural). Another example of varispeed being used on Sgt. Pepper is "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds", where the mono version runs slower than the stereo, yet BOTH versions run faster than the speed John's voice was actually recorded at.

 

Only The Beatles...honestly!!

 

The "make Paul sound younger" thing is for When I'm 64.

I've read this entire thread and now I'm confused as hell.

 

It's all in the mind, y'know. I usually prefer mono Beatles, but the stereo SLH gets my vote as the better mix. The strings were given 2 tracks, so stereo panning makes the most of them. Also, it's kind of a sad story, so the slower feel fits better - it's like it's unfolding in slow motion in the narrator's memory. It even makes the next track, Mr Kite, sound even weirder when it kicks in after the drawn-out orchestral weeper of SLH.

 

The stereo SLH makes Paul sound like an old man and like he hasn't slept for a week!!

(John too)

 

Regardless did The Beatles listen to the stereo mix prior to release? And if not what did they think of the slower version?

 

Yes, it's possible that while most of the speeding up was probably done when recording the vocals, it was then given a little extra push for the mono mix.

 

Seems likely. I regularly work on pitch correcting voices (i know, autotune being the devils tool, but i promise i use it very "invisibly"). That work has made me very aware of the formants in voices (the effect that makes voices chipmonkish when sped up), and it does indeed sound to me as if the formants are a little high on on the mono version, and a little low on the stereo version when comparing to Pauls 67 voice. So to my ears it actually sounds as if Pauls vocals were recorded IN BETWEEN the pitches of the mono and stereo version. I have not tried it but lower the mono version pitch aprox a quarter step and the vocals should be at their correct speed.

 

not to me its sounds like Paul on helium, and whilst it is no doubt deliberate the distortion heard on less than perfect copies on the high notes like " Fiiiive " o'clock to me adds fuel to those of us who find the mono to be the less satisfactory variant.

 

no that we know of, the Beatles were mainly concerned with the format most people would be hearing the album in which in the UK in 67 was still Mono. I suspect that had they known/realised that the definitive version would swiftly become the stereo they may have been more interested in the stereo mix as well.

What is also interesting is that despite the mono mix being regarded as the go to mix not least apparently by John Lennon it contains some very unsatisfactory elements most noticeably the cut to the reprise. In mono this is awful and it jumps, in stereo it is seamless.

However the mono version of the reprise itself is longer and more interesting than the stereo, maybe that was the price they paid for the jump but i doubt it. I suspect had they heard the stereo before the mono they would have gone back to the mono to fix it.

 

to be honest the official version has been the stereo since around 1969/70 when the mono was discontinued, for all those who bought/first heard Pepper from 1969 were more likely to have heard the stereo version and were/are quite unfamiliar with the mono.

 

Further speculation:
"She's Leaving Home" stereo speed...a mistake? »

Which is the correct pitch for The Beatles' She's Leaving Home? »

She's Leaving Home mono/stereo speed differences »

Question about the Beatle's "She's Leaving Home" and "I'm Looking Through You" »

In short: stereo / mono / nobody knows

 

Stereo on the whole for me; but I do appreciate the Mono version. It's a maudlin song and the slowness accentuates this. That's why I like it.

 

I bought a mono Pepper on vinyl in 1986 at a mall in US (state of West Virginia) not sure how long it had been sitting there but I thought I read that mono reprints were being issued in 81

 

yes thats absolutely right they were but they were very much for a niche market back then.

 

So the real speed is somewhere in-between?