Littlebear

I prefer mono over stereo even with headphones. The thing is that stereo mixes done after the original takes sound mainly artificial with pretty much every band of the sixties prior to original stereo mixes done around the end of this decade.

First, if there's a topic on this guy already, sorry, I was too lazy to search.

Now: doesn't he remind you of the early Wilco, Westerberg, Frank Black (and Daniel Johnston for the vocals)?

This, at any rate, is really good:

Anyone purchased a CD yet? Please share your thoughts.

So... everything I read says "the first four records are making their debut in stereo" which would mean... Please Please Me, With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, and Beatles for Sale. That can't be true, can it? PPM to AHDN, maybe, but I'm listening to "No Reply" right now and that sure sounds stereo to me.

"the first four records are making their *CD* debut in stereo"

So the question is: are you listening to the 1987 CD version of "No Reply"?

A nice write up on Pitchfork.

Thanks. It was a good reading.

Anyone read the four albums reviews? Once again, reading the With the Beatles review, it ends saying "it doesn't flow as well as Please Please Me" - and I just can't get this point, since it's the absolute opposite to my ears. Actually With the Beatles has the best flow by a mile. Please Please Me doesn't even have a flow at all, if you ask me!

I don't read Pitchfork. Last time I checked their home site, I didn't know (even hadn't heard of) most of the bands and artists mentionned in their best-rated list, and it just discouraged me. There is too much music out there. I can't listen to everything.

Is the love of music only motivated by what's best, or what deserves highest ratings? No way for me.

now playing: Neko Case, Middle Cyclone. It's beautiful and don't care what Pitchfork has to say about it. Really.

When I discovered The Beatles records my favourites were With the Beatles and Beatles for Sale. I didn't read the press then. After, I've read that critics usually take them as their weakest albums. It always pissed me off.

As for my experience with critical praises of albums I didn't *get* first (or still don't get now), it seems that pretty much every record was deserving it. It just took me some time (and musical culture) to get it. I'm more wise now in that department. On the other hand, I still think a lot of people listen to praised records by principle, without necessarily understanding them. They follow as much as they trust, and don't enough learn to judge by themselves. I totally understand people refusing to believe the hype for that reason. You need to get it, not to follow.

When we'll all have our copies, we'll have to make a thread as to know which versions we prefer between the mono and stereo remasters. At least I'm interested to know about it.

Television - Marquee Moon

Pixies - Doolittle

Love - Forever Changes

Nick Drake - Five Leaves Left

Bob Dylan - Highway 61 Revisited

But not older than me; I was already a teenager.

 

There is no question that the Beatles albums are better than alot of stuff today, but then again they were better than alot of stuff back then. That's why the Beatles remain so popular and they can remix and resell this stuff over and over.

 

LouieB

Also, they had cute haircut and all the girls were crying.

When I was 20, and I spent a couple nights in the hoosegow, I killed time by walking in a circle in my cell and singing (in my head) the White Album, beginning to end, several times over, with all the clicks and pops from my parents' vinyl present.

There's a very difficult one to sing: the Cry Baby Cry outro (by Paul). I fail everytime.

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but come on. These Beatles albums are still better than anything and everything that has ever been put out by anyone.

Except The Velvet Underground.

to each his own buddy!

The "awful choir" of Spector on LIB concerns three songs, "Across the Universe", "I Me Mine" and "The Long & Winding Road" (out of ten, not counting two bits of other ones). It's only awful for the third. It's rather fine for the first. All the rest is quite live.

In my opinion, that naked version must please Paul McCartney who never liked Spector's production of his "Long & Winding Road" song. But I'm afraid to say it's as boring naked as heavy on strings. I suspect Spector didn't know what to do with that "long and whining one".

Sincerely, about mono and stereo stuff: suffice to listen to many Rhino reissues faithfull to original mono recordings compared to average stereo mixed versions from other labels to hear a HUGE difference.

Most of the sixties music, at least before 1967, is only great in mono, because it was made in mono, for mono gear. All was conceived for mono impact.

Stereo was born with artists like Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix, using the possibility of stereo effects.

Velvet Underground - Foggy Notion

Stooges - TV Eye

Gun Club - Sex Beat

Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone

Rolling Stones - Midnight Rambler

Flamin Groovies - Teenage Head

Dr Feelgood - She Does it Right

Mink DeVille - Cadillac Walk

Lucinda Williams - Can't Let Go

Modern Lovers - Roadrunner

Jackie De Shannon -

Any other double album someone forgot to mention?

(Can: Tago Mago)

I'm getting both, since I'm a Beatles nerd, but if you only have the money to get one of the box sets, I would make it the Stereo version, if for no other reason than the fact that you'll get all original albums in one set. Also, I happen to like stereo better, so I'll probably listen to the stereo box more often.

Original albums are the mono ones. The best choice is the mono box set, and the original stereo ones apart.

Then, with money and curiosity, you can buy the other stereo CDs on a whim.

There are French rock magazines?

Yes. Their usual mistake is to miss the good music of their own country.

Paul wrote the bridge to 'in my life'.

 

Paul said he wrote the complete music of that song. Not that I really care, since I never was crazy about this one. I prefer "Girl" by a wide marge.

I love the Beatles, but I must say that as a singer, Lennon always touched me much more than Paul.

We also have to remind that a lot of songs that sound written and composed by John alone in the Beatles catalog owe a lot to Paul musically. Such as "Help!" and many others.

But there are some songs that owe nothing to Paul, such as "Across the Universe", and it's definitely one of the best songs of the Beatles catalog.

("catalog" will be the word of this captivating post)

If your talking about the 1987 cd versions

I am.

That's a shame, really. They should have went original all the way.

Well, at this point, I wonder what's original and what's not.

Let's take a real trip back in the sixties. Damn, I was born in January 1969, at the time the Fab Four were struggling in the Let It Be sessions.

So the CDs I have are all I need. Got it.

Honestly, they suck. Especially the White Album.

by that time they'll have a release date for the mono discs as seperate purchases

I don't think they'll release the mono discs separately.

http://www.beatlesnews.com/news/the-beatles/200908151922/details-of-beatles-remasters-summarized-in-chicago.html

I was aware of everything said in this link, except for this: "The primary version of each album is the stereo version."

I'm not sure what it means.

I don't like music the way I used to either. I like it way better now. And probably will better tomorrow. And maybe better again after my death.