Clunky Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Sound quality is very good on the Mono set, Beatles for Sale is way beefier than I ever remember it. I've not heard it for years but used to hear my brother copy a lot. It was never one of my favourite but this mastering/mix make it a more satisfying listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 One other question on the difference between Mono and Stereo versions, specifically regarding Rubber Soul. I am planning to buy the Mono Box set, while also purchasing some of the individual stereo versions (Abbey Road, Let it Be, The White Album, Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour), not the entire Stereo box set. I also want the Stereo version of Rubber Soul, but I thought I saw that the stereo version was included in the Mono Box set (along with the Mono version). Is this true? If it was, I am assuming it would be redundant for me to purchase the individual stereo version of Rubber Soul? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Bev, I think the differences in these releases would make it worth your time to at least pick up a couple of the individual stereo remasters. Thanks, World B3. I mentioned a few posts back that I'd reneged on my earlier decision not to partake and have gone the whole hog for the stereo box. I'm particularly looking forward to getting to 'The White Album' which I've always found muddy on CD (never heard it on LP). Watching a TV doc last Saturday I was again reminded of just how good Lennon and McCartney were at handling unusual (for roc'n roll based pop) modulations. I still find the opening of 'If I Fell' miraculous. I've always been a sucker for the unexpected key change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) One other question on the difference between Mono and Stereo versions, specifically regarding Rubber Soul. I am planning to buy the Mono Box set, while also purchasing some of the individual stereo versions (Abbey Road, Let it Be, The White Album, Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour), not the entire Stereo box set. I also want the Stereo version of Rubber Soul, but I thought I saw that the stereo version was included in the Mono Box set (along with the Mono version). Is this true? If it was, I am assuming it would be redundant for me to purchase the individual stereo version of Rubber Soul? The stereo versions of both Help! and Rubber Soul in the Mono box (which are added to the mono CDs) have the original 1965 mixes, while the individual remasters and the ones in the Stereo box have the 1986 mixes that were used on the 1987 CDs. Long story... There are hundreds of threads (well, at least it looks that way ) about everything concerning these Beatles remasters on the Steve Hoffman forum. Edited September 11, 2009 by J.A.W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunky Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I'm wondeirng if you have been able to compare the "Past Masters" CDs of each set against one another. I know that there are a few track variations on the second disc but aside from that I'm wondering if there are other differences (mono vs. stereo). I read somewhere in this thread that there are mono versions of some songs even on the Stereo version of Past Masters. Can you (or anybody) clear this up? Thanks, Norm PM mono not on Stereo: Only A Northern Song
 All Together Now Hey Bulldog
 It's All Too Much
 PM stereo not on Mono: Ballad of John and Yoko Old Brown Shoe PM Mono on the Stereo: Love Me Do She Loves You I'll Get You You Know My Name (look up the #) Let it be is also not on the Mono Masters set Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 One other question on the difference between Mono and Stereo versions, specifically regarding Rubber Soul. I am planning to buy the Mono Box set, while also purchasing some of the individual stereo versions (Abbey Road, Let it Be, The White Album, Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour), not the entire Stereo box set. I also want the Stereo version of Rubber Soul, but I thought I saw that the stereo version was included in the Mono Box set (along with the Mono version). Is this true? If it was, I am assuming it would be redundant for me to purchase the individual stereo version of Rubber Soul? The stereo versions of both Help! and Rubber Soul in the Mono box (which are added to the mono CDs) have the original 1965 mixes, while the individual remasters and the ones in the Stereo box have the 1987 mixes. Long story... There are hundreds of threads (well, at least it looks that way ) about everything concerning these Beatles remasters on the Steve Hoffman forum. Yeah, but some of us don't want to go there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ayers Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 One other question on the difference between Mono and Stereo versions, specifically regarding Rubber Soul. I am planning to buy the Mono Box set, while also purchasing some of the individual stereo versions (Abbey Road, Let it Be, The White Album, Sgt. Peppers, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour), not the entire Stereo box set. I also want the Stereo version of Rubber Soul, but I thought I saw that the stereo version was included in the Mono Box set (along with the Mono version). Is this true? If it was, I am assuming it would be redundant for me to purchase the individual stereo version of Rubber Soul? The stereo versions of both Help! and Rubber Soul in the Mono box (which are added to the mono CDs) have the original 1965 mixes, while the individual remasters and the ones in the Stereo box have the 1987 mixes. Long story... There are hundreds of threads (well, at least it looks that way ) about everything concerning these Beatles remasters on the Steve Hoffman forum. Yeah, but some of us don't want to go there! My thoughts exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Started with 'Please Please Me' this evening. I've never had this LP. They sound very raw, the lyrics make your toes curl and the songs don't seem up to much. Though 'I Saw Her Standing There' sounds fantastic, both as a song and in performance. And 'There's a Place'...which I don't ever recall having heard...has some hints of the unusual shapes their tunes would soon take. Not intended as a criticism - first recording, new to songwriting, rapid session etc. As far as I can tell, the sound is as clear as a bell. What a distance they travelled in such a short time in the following couple of years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDK Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 What a distance they travelled in such a short time in the following couple of years! Indeed! I actually think that's one of the reasons why the Beatles are so revered. From their relatively short career - what, eight years or so? - the incredible progression of their musical style perfectly captured the cultural arc of the decade. Their musical growth was tremendous - and their ratio of classics-to-clunkers is, imo, unsurpassed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) From their relatively short career - what, eight years or so? That's just as a recording band. Let's not forget that by 1962 they were already well on their way to becoming a well-seasoned club band, with all the seasoning and appreciation of nuance that either brings to the for or else totally numbs among those who get there. Reminds me of a club I went to in Birmingham, Alabama...I was playing the Hilton in a "show band", hours ran from 9-1. Across the alley was a basement club that had a live band all night. Their hours? 8 PM - 6 PM. Yeah, a 10 hour gig (with, I'm told, an hour off for dinner). These guys must've known every pop song imaginable...somebody yelled out "Play me some Tams!!!" Well hell, all I knew by the Tams was "What Kind Of Fool Do You Think I Am?" These mutherphukkers did 20 minutes of Tams material w/o missing a beat. The Beatles had developed a similar "encyclopedic" sense of their musical world, and unlike the band in Birmingham (as far as I could tell) they had three guys who had the impulse to take it all in and, not just put it back out, but re-form it and put it back out. I'm of the mind that they had the advantage of being "veterans" in the real world before they were seen as "rookies" in the marketplace. All I'm saying is that, yeah, the arc was incredible, but it's not like they were starting from scratch in 1962. That's just when the arc went public. It had begun long before that. Edited September 11, 2009 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Their hours? 8 PM - 6 PM. Actually, that's like a 22 hour gig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 And so it is....8 PM - 6 AM, obviously. That's nuts enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) The Beatles had developed a similar "encyclopedic" sense of their musical world, and unlike the band in Birmingham (as far as I could tell) they had three guys who had the impulse to take it all in and, not just put it back out, but re-form it and put it back out. I'm of the mind that they had the advantage of being "veterans" in the real world before they were seen as "rookies" in the marketplace. I was really struck by that sense back when the Beatles BBC set came out. That was like the rosetta stone in some ways, showing their ties to/knowledge of what had come before them. That set and the early Cliff Richard & The Shadows and Johnny Kidd & The Pirates stuff (which I discovered even later - and could Hank Marvin and Mick Green ever play guitar!), were the missing links for me between 50's R&R and "Please Please Me". People in Great Britain probably knew this already, but I didn't! Edited September 11, 2009 by felser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 All I'm saying is that, yeah, the arc was incredible, but it's not like they were starting from scratch in 1962. That's just when the arc went public. It had begun long before that. It has often been said that while the Beatles were formed in Liverpool, they were MADE in the clubs of Hamburg. Night after night of gruelingly long sets turned them from a group of amateurs into seasoned pros in a surprisingly short time. Nevertheless, Jim is right. The public face of the Beatles was only a part of a story that goes back to 1957 or 58. To me, the reason the Beatles are so remarkable is not just the amazingly rapid growth, but the fact that for whatever reason (inexperience with this sort of music or this level of success), their corporate overlords didn't bat an eye while the Beatles continued to mess with a winning formula. While it took two or three singles for them to top the charts (which is still amazing), it's important to remember that they pretty much started with a winning formula. Any other record company would have told them, "Stop right there, guys! Don't change a thing! Let's ride this gravy-train until it runs out of steam!" But while the Beatles grew and changed with every release ("Please, Please Me" to "Revolver" was less than THREE YEARS), I've never read anything where EMI tried to intervene and protect their cash cow. Somehow, they TRUSTED the Beatles artistic instincts. And it never steered them wrong. Imagine if the Jonas Brothers told their record company that they wanted to stop touring and spend all their time in the studio making artsy concept albums. I would think that SOMEBODY would try to convince them not to change. I do believe that if they had been signed to Decca and put into the hands of a more "experienced" rock producer, the story of the Beatles would have been very, very different... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danasgoodstuff Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 They should've thanked their lucky stars that Decca turned them down and that they ended up on EMI's subsidurary Parlaphone label with George Martin as producer, HE trusted/liked them and was willing and able to use his own considerable musical skills to further their vision(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vajerzy Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Looked all over- can't find a box set anywhere. I want to get the Mono set- gotta find out where.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Looked all over- can't find a box set anywhere. I want to get the Mono set- gotta find out where.... It's still available at Amazon for $230. Gonna take a couple of weeks for them to get it back in stock, but that's about the best price you're going to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 The rock era of 1964-1970(?) was due mainly to the fact that the industry didn't have a clue what the kids were up to and didn't dare try to control for fear of mssing out on the next big thing. For all the off-the-wall brilliance that found its way onto way during those years, there's stories to be be told of innumerable quantities of pure nothing that sat beside it on store shelves. It seemed like damn near anything and everybody could get some kind of a deal with somebody. And why not? People who had careers befre Beatlemania, like the Beach boys, fell prey to the old ways. Nut post-Beatlemania, for a few years, there were no rules. Now The Beatles did hit a lull going in 1965. Beatlemania was over, the singles came out one at a time, other bands & styles were peeping up, but...The Beatles had made such a huge impact here - and across the world - in 1964 that they became the de facto face of the "youth revolution", which was what the industry was trying to get a grip on. So whatever the Beatles did, it was ok. So that means that a mediocre album like Beatles For Sale could be turned into two less than stellar albums in the states, a movie that was ok but nowhere near the masterpiece its predecessor was could be allowed a free pass, and becuase they kept putting out some really great singles and becuase youth all over the world were riding the still-cresting wave that Beatlmania had triggered, 1965 turned out ok for The Beatles. 1966 could have been the year they lost it, but instead, they bumped it up a notch or two, as did the world. And itr wasn't just rock either...I've heard it posited that The Beatles and the Coltrane quartet were riding parallel paths in paralle dimensions. Kinda out there in one way, but not in another... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Looked all over- can't find a box set anywhere. I want to get the Mono set- gotta find out where.... Why not go peruse the Hoffman classifieds? Lot of those folks covered their bases and put in multiple orders --seems like there's a box an hour being offered up for sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinuta Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 The rock era of 1964-1970(?) was due mainly to the fact that the industry didn't have a clue what the kids were up to and didn't dare try to control for fear of mssing out on the next big thing. For all the off-the-wall brilliance that found its way onto way during those years, there's stories to be be told of innumerable quantities of pure nothing that sat beside it on store shelves. It seemed like damn near anything and everybody could get some kind of a deal with somebody. And why not? People who had careers befre Beatlemania, like the Beach boys, fell prey to the old ways. Nut post-Beatlemania, for a few years, there were no rules. Now The Beatles did hit a lull going in 1965. Beatlemania was over, the singles came out one at a time, other bands & styles were peeping up, but...The Beatles had made such a huge impact here - and across the world - in 1964 that they became the de facto face of the "youth revolution", which was what the industry was trying to get a grip on. So whatever the Beatles did, it was ok. So that means that a mediocre album like Beatles For Sale could be turned into two less than stellar albums in the states, a movie that was ok but nowhere near the masterpiece its predecessor was could be allowed a free pass, and becuase they kept putting out some really great singles and becuase youth all over the world were riding the still-cresting wave that Beatlmania had triggered, 1965 turned out ok for The Beatles. 1966 could have been the year they lost it, but instead, they bumped it up a notch or two, as did the world. And itr wasn't just rock either...I've heard it posited that The Beatles and the Coltrane quartet were riding parallel paths in paralle dimensions. Kinda out there in one way, but not in another... Beatles For Sale, mediocre ? No Reply,I'm A Loser, Baby's In Black,Eight Days A Week, I'll Follow The Sun, Every Little Thing are mediocre ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Relative to their own work, compared to what came before and after, I think so, yeah. And understandably so. They were tired. Who wouldn't be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Looked all over- can't find a box set anywhere. I want to get the Mono set- gotta find out where.... It's still available at Amazon for $230. Gonna take a couple of weeks for them to get it back in stock, but that's about the best price you're going to find. After reading all the comments here, I succumbed and ordered the mono box from Amazon. I think delivery time is three weeks minimum. This will be on top of the seven stereo ones I purchased yesterday so it will be interesting to compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 my beef is i dont really know how i feel about mono sound translating out to the digital format: i am just so used to associating mono with the RIAA curve, that i dont understand how i would like mono with the full spectrum of digital. dont get me started on hdcd, ive never heard one (but i want to) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Garrett Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Looked all over- can't find a box set anywhere. I want to get the Mono set- gotta find out where.... Why not go peruse the Hoffman classifieds? Lot of those folks covered their bases and put in multiple orders --seems like there's a box an hour being offered up for sale. You can't access the Hoffman classifieds until you've been a member for a certain period of time and have made at least 50 posts to the forums. Not saying this is the case with the OP, but I've seen confusion in the past when someone who hasn't met those requirements gets referred to the classifieds and their response is "what classifieds?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 The rock era of 1964-1970(?) was due mainly to the fact that the industry didn't have a clue what the kids were up to and didn't dare try to control for fear of mssing out on the next big thing. For all the off-the-wall brilliance that found its way onto way during those years, there's stories to be be told of innumerable quantities of pure nothing that sat beside it on store shelves. It seemed like damn near anything and everybody could get some kind of a deal with somebody. And why not? People who had careers befre Beatlemania, like the Beach boys, fell prey to the old ways. Nut post-Beatlemania, for a few years, there were no rules. Now The Beatles did hit a lull going in 1965. Beatlemania was over, the singles came out one at a time, other bands & styles were peeping up, but...The Beatles had made such a huge impact here - and across the world - in 1964 that they became the de facto face of the "youth revolution", which was what the industry was trying to get a grip on. So whatever the Beatles did, it was ok. So that means that a mediocre album like Beatles For Sale could be turned into two less than stellar albums in the states, a movie that was ok but nowhere near the masterpiece its predecessor was could be allowed a free pass, and becuase they kept putting out some really great singles and becuase youth all over the world were riding the still-cresting wave that Beatlmania had triggered, 1965 turned out ok for The Beatles. 1966 could have been the year they lost it, but instead, they bumped it up a notch or two, as did the world. And itr wasn't just rock either...I've heard it posited that The Beatles and the Coltrane quartet were riding parallel paths in paralle dimensions. Kinda out there in one way, but not in another... Beatles For Sale, mediocre ? No Reply,I'm A Loser, Baby's In Black,Eight Days A Week, I'll Follow The Sun, Every Little Thing are mediocre ? I'm just going from memory but isn't Mr. Moonlight on that album. Not to mention Kansas City (my first exposure to that song). Not mediocre to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.