Mono White Album - Beatles' Involvement and Intent

Did George fly to the States to oversee mastering? I thought that was a myth.
Either way , the post you are answering actually answers the "what he doesn't buy" part.
Reselling the same record in a million different formats was a product of the 80's music machine. It wasn't part of the "game" in the 60's.

 

Think it was standard procedure up to the white album for mixes to have a mono precedent as stylus couldn't track stereo records and it cost more for stereo stylus or something. Although I prefer the Mono mix the stereo is gorgeous on this album, so some time was spent mixing the white album in stereo, but after doing the mono first.

 

Been a casual listner for a long time, recently i've FINALLY become obsessed with the fab four. Possibly due to inferior mastering, (i'm comparing the 80s stereo CD to the 2009 mono CD, because the 2009 stereo remasters are a travesty) the stereo mix of The Beatles really does nothing for me. I heard the album, in mono, for the first time, a week or two ago and have been swapping between the two constantly since. I noticed that the tracks that Paul drummed on really lack the balls and punch they have on the mono. Could be the so so 80s mastering though.
Oh, and i find the stereo mix of Ob-La-Di to be pretty wack. Those handclaps at the beginning really bug me, and for some reason Paul's vocal is allll the way in the right channel? Yucky. I'm definatley in the minority, and the youngest listener here but i think the mono slays the stereo by a longshot.

 

This album sounds fantastic in all incarnations to me. The original mono, stereo and the remix offer a different flavor.

 

The stereo remix remidies a few of my complaints of the original stereo mix, but there's no way it will ever replace the original. I just wish that we get an SACD someday