Could mono have lasted longer?

Yes, it's a lot to do with perception about what's 'new' and better. In the film world things have got better (VHS to DVD to Blu Ray) but in music it's got worse (vinyl to CD to MP3's).

 

If labels had instead phased out stereo and produced only mono, yet continued to place the word "stereo" on the sleeves and labels, 99% of listeners would not have known the difference.

 

Agree!

Because the excellent stereo recordings contributed to the reduced demand for mono.

For you - but many others strongly prefer one over the other.

 

Stereo was the current modern technology of the day and was preferred by consumers - who wants backwards technology? - it's old fashioned!
Just like most current consumers prefer an electronic file over having a CD.

 

And as we all know, Tom is in denial

 

I don't think 10 huge picture of Tom Cruise was called for. It's early, lets be reasonable.

 

Pet Sounds & SGT Pepper in Mono would suggest yes it should of lasted longer. Superb sounding LP's

 

But that's not how most pop records were made in the 60s.

 

So, a handful of isolated examples of live recording to 3-track, dating back to the late '50s, contributed to the reduced demand for mono in the late '60s. Seems pretty far fetched.

 

Columbia wasn't at the head of the pack in the transition to stereo-only pressings, other labels like Capitol stopped pressing mono LPs in December 1967 (maybe January 1968), Columbia took a bit longer, their last mono LP was around August of 1968. They were even more behind in pressing stereo 45s, there were some experimental stereo mixes from other labels in 1968, Capitol, Decca and RCA went stereo in the spring of 1969, Columbia waited until around March of 1970.

 

Not true. Mono finally went away because in August 1967, the major labels increased the wholesale cost of mono LP's to match stereo LP's. Retailers balked at the price increase since this would have meant raising retail prices of mono LP's to equal the stereo version, or taking a loss on each mono LP sold if they wanted to hold to the standard "dollar more for stereo" pricing. The fact this price increase happened in August was probably not coincidental: the majors were gearing up for what looked to be a record Christmas selling season and pressed accordingly, apparently never dreaming of the backlash that wound up occurring.

It was such a big deal, the Department of Justice looked into the matter as a possible case of price fixing by the labels. (Google it: Billboard magazine's archives on Google Books is a fascinating read on the subject.) Retailers hated the dual inventory anyway, and as a result, refused to order mono LP's anymore except maybe for special orders. This effectively killed the mono LP format.

I was once told by two separate retailers that didn't know each other that Capitol Records were stuck with so many mono LP's in their warehouses after this disastrous move, they offered retailers deals that if they ordered mono LP's of any given artist, they would guarantee at least two mono Beatles' LP's thrown in "free" with the order.

It's funny how after this all played out the industry suddenly and officially deemed "modern" mono equipment compatible with stereo discs and you no longer had to be paranoid about ruining a stereo LP if you played it on a mono record player.

Bottom line: it's always about $$$.

 

Interesting but saying the format went away because the price was increased to match the stereo counterpart still feels like consumers ultimately made the choice. I would think retailers didn't want to charge a dollar more for mono because it wouldn't sell.

Meaning when both options were available for the same price, stereo was the consumers choice. An industry or company can only influence format to a certain extent, just ask Sony or RCA.

 

We were still doing mono mixes in the mid 70s. They were generally for singles and spme singles were double sided, with the mono mix backed with a stereo mix. These were mainly aimed at radio.

Back then AM radio still played top 40 music, and many people who listened to FM had mono FM radios.

The thought was it was better to provide a true mono mix as opposed to having the radio station fold down your stereo mix. Yes, that happened and we also tried our single mixes in mono just to see how they would sound when folded down. Sometimes we made adjustments which made the fold downs sound better while trying to retain as much of the stereo as possible.

 

And of course the standard equipment for most cars until the mid-'80s was just an AM radio!

 

That is exactly what was happening in the mid 70's. Records said "stereo" on the label but were 16 or 24 tracks all panned at 12'oclock. Prime example: "Born to Run". Also the Jimmy Ienner produced sides by The Raspberries.

 

With the price increase retailers had no reason to continue the double inventory. I can't stress enough how much retailers HATED the double inventory. It was bad enough they had to carry different mediums for albums (records, reel tapes, 8-track tapes, and 4-track tapes) but to have to carry two different formats within one medium drove them crazy. It was strictly the lower price differential they passed on to consumers that kept them selling mono. As much as retailers balked about the price change, it was a godsend excuse for finally ditching the format like they always wished. They finally had what they always wanted: one inventory for LP's. It had nothing to do with consumers. It was all about their convenience.

But that's just it, the consumers were NOT given the choice. The equal price mono and stereo LP's didn't happen, it never got to the retail level. The backlash from retailers was that quick, and that complete. Stores sold off what remaining mono inventory they had and never refilled.

Consumers were just told "stereo only" even when LP's were clearly marked as having a mono version. Maybe a special customer could get a store to order the mono version but the average record buyer? As much as we may not like to admit it, 95% of the record buying public back then didn't care. They bought mono only because it was cheaper. When retailers refused to stock mono anymore because of the wholesale cost increase (which was something buyers were probably 99% unaware of anyway) the public shrugged and bought the stereo version. All they wanted was the music.

 

As a side note, Becker and Fagen wanted to mix one of their albums into mono but Roger Nichols wouldn't let them.

 

The only reason to stock any inventory is to sell it and make a profit. Convenience only enters into the matter if it impacts the profit margin in a negative way. For the most part, if someone wanted Mono, it was because it was a cheaper option. Kind of like leaded gas back in the day.

Consumer demand and industry manipulation aside, the fact is that it was the recording technology that changed. Why did that change? Presumably because people prefer the way it sounded and it translated to sales. A lot of people dig black and white movies but they did stop making them not because it was cheaper but because that's what sold more tickets. Stereo and mono is kind of the same deal.

 

I don't get the whole mono vs. stereo debate. Yes, mono is preferable to a bad stereo mix. Otherwise, I consider it less preferable, just like wide screen video is more preferable than 4:3, provided that the source material was captured with that in mind.

So, in answer to the question -- yes, it could have lasted longer, but why should it? Technology advances, sometime for better, sometimes for worse. But the widening of the audio spectrum into 2 channels IMO was an improvement. Beyond that, I'm not convinced that quad or 5.1 enhances music as it does a movie soundscape.

 

The only mono recordings I own are early Beatles, because they really do sound punchier and better than stereo made from 2 or 4 track recordings.

But if I played "Electric Ladyland" and all that beautifully gimmicky "psychedelic" stereo panning was gone, I'd be most unhappy! I suspect most other fans of that album would feel the same way. Bottom line is that I love a "panoramic" sound, and I don't care if that isn't an accurate representation of music. Really, is any recorded sound truly accurate? No, it's a matter of choose-your-illusion.

Today I'm into 5.1 albums, and I'm truly mystified that most other people aren't. Even for stereo, I keep my amp set to "5-ch" all the time. I couldn't care less if audio snobs think that's an abomination.

 

Not Electric Ladyland, but Axis:Bold As Love has some distinct stereo effects too. Since I've discovered the mono mix of this album I don't think I've listened to the stereo once. It's incredible hearing the power a unified mono mix has.

 

Maybe people preferred stereo because of the novelty of it. I certainly think when recording advanced, stereo did make more sense and most people would prefer a well done stereo mix. But I think for a lot of people the excitement for the same type of stereo mixes that were around when mono was being pushed out - the hard panned drums, vocals, etc., that really would have waned had stereo mixes stayed in the same place. As it is, I think early stereo was popular just because it was fun and different, not because in the long run a bunch of people would have thought it was better.