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

Lol yeah probably.
Usually I get stuff like that but I was at work reading inbetween customers

 

Though I grew up with the stereo version, I now prefer the mono which was mixed the way Paul wanted it.

 

If you slow down the stereo version of Within You, Without You by 5 point 61 per cent it drops one complete semi-tone and matches the instrumental track released on Anthology 2. George's vocal sounds more natural, too.

 

I wonder if George Martin ever did get around to writing a score for "She's Leaving Home" (and recording it)? That would be interesting to hear, if it exists.

 

Bump

 

I highly doubt it. He actually said it was a competent job, but that he was a bit hurt that Paul didn't wait for him.

 

I'd like to think that he may have a recording in the vaults, meant for one of his instrumental LPs , to be released one day!

 

That makes that lyric all the more moving. It's as if the mother's voice is cracking under the emotion of loss. Always gets me.

 

I grew up with stereo version as a kid. I used to wonder who sang When I'm 64 because it didn't sound like John or Paul. But when I listened to SLH it was clearly Paul.

A couple of decades later I heard about varispeed and discovered why Paul's voice sounded strange on 64. Sometime after 2009 I also heard the mono mix for the first time. Gosh Pauul's voice has been sped up again!

So I do not subscribe to the theory that the 'correct' version is the one you heard first. Yes I heard stereo first, but the vocals always sounded like Paul in stereo. You can easily hear when varispeed has been used and I dont hear it.

And for those who say that the mono version is the 'authentic' version and thats how they wanted it - well I think most agree that they stuffed up the transition from GMGM to Reprise in mono, and fixed it up on the stereo mix.

For the record - always sounded like John doing the ahhhs on ADITL, to me.

 

Paul's and John's voices are about 4% below the speed they were recorded at on the stereo mix and about 1% above the speed they were recorded at on the mono mix of "She's Leaving Home".

 

I don't know which version is "correct," but I'll say that I like the overall sound and feel of the mono version. And Paul's sped up vocal is one of my favorite things about When I'm 64. Studio experimentation done tastefully and fits the song like a glove IMO. In fact, I can't think of a vocal effect the Beatles employed in 66/67 that I do not like. As opposed to other things, vocals are one of the areas of experimenting that the Beatles always seemed to get right.

 

I doubt it. That would be an expensive and time consuming "just because" project. Would certainly have loved to hear it though! This is one of the tracks I'd love to hear a stripped down mix of. No string arrangement, really spare—just Paul on acoustic guitar and he and John's final vocals. I wonder if they can mix that for the 50th release...Was a guitar or piano part recorded as a guide before the strings were added?

 

if i could tick this up 3 times i would thats exactly my views too...

 

In summary, neither version is at the "correct" speed as the stereo mix features slowed down vocals and the mono mix features (slightly) sped up vocals. However, the backing track is at the recorded speed on the stereo mix as they neglected to varispeed the track to get the vocals back to the speed they were recorded at. My guess is that they felt the track dragged at the speed the instrumental backing was recorded at and therefore sped it up by nearly a semitone when Paul and John recorded their vocals.

 

"It's a pity we can't have the two of them together"

For the apocryphal forthcoming Sgt Pepper remix, it would be nice if they found a happy medium. The voices sound too slow on the original stereo, but probably a bit too fast on the original mono. Strings probably sound best in the original stereo.

So, for the possible remix, I think they should either:

A. Run the remixed track (presumably in stereo) at a speed somewhere in between the old stereo and mono mixes-- but closer to the mono.
or
B.
1. Start with the following two seeds:
- original speed strings (as found in the original stereo mix)
- vocals at speed as originally sung
2. Put the vocals through a program like Melodyne to shift them down to the musical key required to match the original speed strings and also use time expansion so they match the tempo of the strings (the same Melodyne-type program may also do this in one shot). Using this sort of technology can change the pitch/tempo of a vocal without also changing the timbre, so you could have the correct key/tempo of Paul's voice without him sounding like a chipmunk or drunk. True, maybe the Beatles had intended to employ some recording studio trickery here to make things sound 'different' as they had been tending to do in that phase. But they didn't make their intentions clear and definitive, considering the difference of the original stereo and mono releases, and I would submit that musically/emotionally this is a song that you want to sound like a regular human is singing it with traditional orchestral instruments, and not to be wowed by zany studio experimentation. Since the Beatles arguably did not get it right, the new definitive version should be what works best musically-- au naturale, methinks.

 

You seem to be very definite about this. There have been a lot of opinions in this th read, including mine, because no-one knows for sure. Except you. What is your source for this statement?

 

If you speed up the stereo version of "SLH" by 4.73% it will be lifted up 8/10ths of a semitone and will more or less correlate with the mono version.
It would be great if we could get a "SPLHCB...Naked" remix with all of the varispeeded bits and pieces restored to natural recording speed.....

 

There's no need to pitch shift between instruments and vocals, as the pitches already match on the four-track tapes. If they run the four-track tape(s) at the normal speed, they get the stereo pitch. They would need to run it faster to get the mono speed/pitch.

Beyond the question of the "natural" speed of the vocals, I think the possibly more relevant question is the "intended" speed of the mix. I would contend that this would be represented by the mono mix, as that mix was done the same day that the vocals were recorded, with all the principals present, 20-Mar-1967. If there are remixes coming for this song, I would hope they use the speed of the mono mix.

I suspect the speed of the stereo mix was a mistake. Lewisohn lists Ken Scott as the second engineer for the mono mix, but Richard Lush for the stereo mix on 17-Apr. Wouldn't the second engineer be the tape operator responsible for the speed of the machines?

Here is the recording sheet for the stereo mix session:


I wonder why the false starts 1,2,3 before RS4 and 5 before RS6? And what could be the meaning of the REMARKS "4T15", "4T9", etc.?

 

I think you may have missed the precondition of my point. I really should have quoted this post by slane which I took as a premise, and upon which, built my proposal:

I agree with slane.

Do you see how simply changing the speed of the overall recording likely cannot produce a mix result where both vocals and strings are heard as sung and as played? Only way would be with some pitch shifting and time compression/expansion. Fortunately the modern tools allow this with results that sound very natural. I'm sure it was done all over the place on LOVE, so Giles should be comfortable with it. I do tend to doubt they would actually do this on the upcoming anniversary release, even though I think the result would be very pleasing to many.

 

So do I.

 

I think you still don't get it then. Sure, the pitches match in their present state on the released mixes, and on the original session tape. If they didn't you'd have a very discordant, unmusical mess. But currently you either have to choose to have Paul sounding drugged, or alternatively, strings that sound artificially sped up.

Sure I could have said "I prefer the mono! It's authentic!" That's a defensible view, sure. I used to feel that way myself. It's also a view that's probably been uttered multiple times per day for 50 years, so personally I might not have bothered to reply if that was the entirety of what I felt. Others have covered that view multiple times on the preceding pages of the thread.

I feel like when I share a unique or provocative idea around here (the kind I like to share), often the only reply that comes in serves to shoot down my idea without any display of grappling with or understanding of the essence of the idea. I could accept posts that reject my ideas much more easily if it seemed like such responses gave indication that my ideas was understood and considered before rejected.

 

At the extreme risk of sounding like a cocky bugger, my ears. I have been a musician for 37 years and my hearing is very attuned to unnatural pitch changes (auto tune drives me up the wall). I guess I should have added the usual "IMO" as I suppose without documented proof it's too bold a statement. That said, if you tried the speed changes I mentioned earlier in Goldwave (or your favourite wave editor) you may agree with me (or not).

At least we can choose which way we like it.

 

But it doesn't make sense to pitch shift anything. Just play the four-track tapes at the desired speed. The pitch and tempo between the strings and vocals will always match.

I think most of us agree on something close to this:

• The strings were recorded on Friday, 17-Mar-1967 to four-track tape at normal speed.
• A four-track to four-track reduction mix was done, with four tracks mixed to two tracks, with both machines running at normal speed. This freed up two tracks for vocals.
• Vocal overdubs were done, on Monday, 20-Mar. This means the strings were playing from two tracks while Paul and John were singing along, with the microphone going to the third track, and then again to the fourth track. One four-track machine, playing and recording. The speed of the tape machine here is the key question (to put it mildly).
• The mono mix was made (also on 20-Mar) from the four-track to a mono tape machine, with the four-track machine running fast (about 5%) but the mono machine running at normal speed.
• The stereo mix was made on 17-April, with the four-speed running at normal speed, mixed to a stereo machine also running at normal speed.

 

You seem to be saying that you are not convinced that the tape machine was run fast while the vocals were being recorded. If I am reading between the lines correctly, that seems to be the basis for your rejecting my idea. I wish you would have said that you disagree with that premise, rather than replying in a manner that suggests that my idea is totally irrational.

One point of correction, I don't believe most agree with your fourth bullet point that the four-track was run about 5% fast during the mono mix. I think many of us believe that it was run only about 1% fast then, and that the rest of the relative speed-up was achieved by running the strings tape about 4% fast when the vocal overdubs were done.

I agree with this premise espoused by Drifter. I too am a musician of about that many years.

 

We don't know if the four-track was running fast when the vocals were recorded. That is the entire crux of this discussion. My personal opinion is that it was running near or at the same speed as when the mono mix was made. My only basis for this is that I think the vocals on the mono mix sound natural. And this opinion was formed after having heard only the stereo mix for decades.

This doesn't make sense. How would the stereo mix then be explained, being from the same four-track tape?