The Beatles mono recordings

If the mono versions are better then why are they OOP? How come EMI/Apple/Parlophone aren't selling the versions that are recognised as being the best by fans and collectors? I don't understand it. Why should I have to hunt down expensive older versions because the powers that be only sell the bad stuff?

If Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper etc sound inferior in stereo then why are they the only versions you can buy new? Why don't the record companies give us what they know we want. It makes no sense to me.

I've started buying Beatles vinyl to replace my '87 CDs. I have the White album, Revolver, Pepper and Abbey Road in stereo whilst Rubber Soul is the only mono variant I have. It was the only one I could find that cost the same as a stereo version. I wanted Revolver and Pepper in mono too but I refuse to pay way over the odds for this stuff just because it's OOP.

 

I think the main reason is that they don't see these as being the versions that will ensure the bands appeal continues to new generations.

The new mixes are more likely to sound more contemporary on streaming services, radio etc. and so are probably more likely to get played.

There's other reasons also, but that's what I would suggest is a main reason.

 

Why though if they're supposedly the best sounding versions? I understand the remix route and why they are going down that road but for the time being they should also keep the best known original version in print. Besides, we only have two modern remixes to date.

 

Casual buyers want the stereo. Stereo fans want the stereo. They likely outnumber mono fans and people worried about original intent.

 

You can get it all on the cd set that ain't out of print for the vinyl. they were sourced directly from the original analog master tapes. NO DIGITAL STEPS WERE TAKEN!! so every time they made a new stamper the quality of each tape degraded slightly. Apple said they were only pressing a limited amount and the number that has been thrown around is 10k copies and they are no longer pressing them.

 

I keep reading that the earlier recordings sound rubbish in stereo with all the hard panning and non-centralised drums/vocals etc. So again I'm asking why keep inferior versions in print? According to this forum only Abbey Road and Let It Be sound good as proper stereo albums, with the White album getting a pass as being 50/50 with its mono counterpart.

 

The stereo remixes for sale currently are not the original stereo mixes from the 1960s.

 

The mono mixes, whilst technically the best (in my opinion), are not necessarily the ones that will appeal to more casual music fans and future generations.

There are only 2 remixed albums for now, but more WILL be on the way.

I put my thoughts in to a possible vision of what might happen over the next few years in to this video recently....


(Just out of curiosity, where in the greatest county in the world do you live?)

 

No, I get that but they're still inferior to mono according to these forums.

 

I agree with you that the mono albums should never go out of print. I wish I had bought MMT when it was still available.

I was just talking about the market forces that promote the stereo versions.

For some reason no one can ever get a straight answer out of EMI about whether the mono versions will ever be repressed.

 

Theres no such thing as inferior. Its all in the listeners taste. I like both stereo and mono mixes (the monos are not 'recordings').

 

Waaaayyyy back in the late 60s and early 70s, mono was seen as old technology, so it was pretty much thrown out. Without regard to the unique mixes, tapes were thrown away, erased, and literally cut up with band saws by short-sighted record executives trying to save money storage space. They figured that since stereo was newer, no one would want mono, again, totally ignorant of the fact that the mono mixes were different than the stereo mixes in almost every way.

Fast forward to 1988, when the labels started getting feedback from collectors that the mono mixes were the real deal, so, they started reissuing mono here and there. But, we now had a couple of generations who were accustomed to stereo and no one outside of collectors saw the value in those mono mixes. And, since many tapes were usually mishandled/lost/ destroyed, it was hard to recover them for CD release. The flunkies at the labels didn't have time for that, so they kept issuing stereo, even if the stereo were wrong mixes. Only when some reissue producers and collectors begged and pleaded on hands and knees did labels issue mono.

But, back to your initial question: why is mono so expensive or hard to find? The younger generations that only understand stereo are seen as the only way to make money.

As for The Beatles in mono is concerned, you could probably still find the mono vinyl boxed sets still around, as you can the mono CDs. The time to have bought the Beatles mono was when they were released.

 

And, unfortunately, the stereo and remix crowd yell the loudest. That, and Giles Martin didn't grow up with mono.

 

I used 'recordings' to mean albums ie mono versions of their recordings...
Yeah I get that it's down to personal preference but the way I see it, everyone (*I assume) prefers stereo over mono but with older recordings mono is often the best way to listen to them. Who can say that fake stereo or vocals coming out of one speaker and drums coming out of the other is preferential? Rubber Soul especially gets slammed for this panning business.

 

But he doesn't live in Lancs though

 

I wasn't collecting vinyl at that time. New people come into this game all the time.

(*I have 'liked' the rest of your unedited post)

 

Pretty sure there aren’t any fake stereo releases from the reissue series.

 

The vinyl was actually cut from the original tapes. The Mono cuts on vinyl were stated up front as a limited release. This release wasn't even expected to happen as AAA. They pressed what they said they would. This includes box sets and the individual album releases. This isn't an issue of they don't want to keep the vinyl in print. This is an issue of tapes that over 50 years old. They digitized the titles. They likely did the analog remastered when they transferred the digital releases to reduce handling of the original masters. They aren't taking their chances with the master tapes again. If you want a copy, you'll have to pay for it. I would not doubt another release of mono vinyl records will happen. They are likely putting some time between the next issue. But, it don't expect a AAA release. It will be AAD. And I would not expect a box, just the individual records.

 

Leeds. Not exactly the most scenic part of the county...

 

The mono's you want are available in several formats and pressings. They're not albms that barely sold - quite the opposite actually. If you shop enough you should be able to snag 'em at a price in the range you hope to pay. Sometimes scuffed up originals will play really nice after a cleaning. You live in a country where they should come up. Here in the US, we have to pay a bit for postage for things shipped from the UK -- on top of the purchase!

 

Same as me!

 

People here are weird
No one buys mono now ...except for us
The painful truth
Stereo sounds better to the average person
Stereo equals money
Mono equals dinosaurs or senior citizens

 

Surprised to hear the mono vinyl isn’t still widely available for cheap over there in the Beatles’ own country in the peaceful heartland of the European Union.

 

They sound good on speakers, especially the first album.

 

The loudest contingent of this forum may say so, but you must take that with a rather large grain of salt. Appreciating the stereo is a dog bites man comment. Saying stereo is crap and mono is king falls more into the realm of man bites dog. It's just more interesting and people get to play armchair engineer.