Synthesizer Patel

it's a great album. i tried to plug it last month, but only PopTodd took the bait. i keep having to ask myself, concidering i've only liked a very few albums this year - "who did finger rock n roll"? that song goes through my head every time hear something i don't like - it's like they've brainwashed me, it's a bit like writing a timeless christmas song, it'll always have a place somewhere in your head.

then i'd say it's not, and paul mccartney needs to stop jibber jabbering. what is heavy metal about the subject matter or the general sound, other than the fact that it's loud?

yes. so, does that mean i win then?

http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/wgo.htm that website shows all the sloppy mistakes of the stereo versions. that "blisters on my fingers" comment is one of my least favourite additions to the stereo versions - it's funny how people seem to miss it in the mono versions. it extends the song too much, and is self-indulgent. whereas the mono one has that super-fast cut, drum roll, and then quick fade - which sounds very modern. also, if it's supposed to be a proto-punk song, which people claim - the stereo version's got way too much bass to get that harsh treble in your face sound - that is punkish

i've found a promo of some of the tracks selling on ebay here if you can get it, it's great - acoustic too. i'd love to hear it again.

whilst you can turn something into mono by merging the channels - you can't actually make it sound good, for many many reasons. this has also been talked about way back near the start of this thread. also in europe, and japan the mono was the standard - having the stereo version should really be for comic book completists, apart from for americans/canadians - and most of the albums aren't even the tracklists you got in the first place.

i think it's previously noted everywhere. does anyone know whether the beatles were present during the mastering of the stereo Tomorrow Never Knows - because it's my understanding that that they, all four of them, were the ones fading in all the different sound effects, and if they didn't do it on the stereo one - that's a bit like the engineer playing bass for Paperback Writer. i wonder how many other overdubs done during the mono mastering that the beatles did themselves, which then were done by other people in the stereo too. there must be a website on this . . .

i used to have a bootleg of the black crowes live at ronnie scott's jazz club from way back (it might have even been before southern harmony), and it was great - have you heard or got that? i bought it years ago (basically around the time it was made), back before the internet and then somehow swaped it for something else or lost it, and i seem to remember it being really great. NP.

i wouldn't say 'enjoy' - 'tolerate' is perhaps a better word.

i don't really know how to explain what i mean exactly - i just think that when you get to jimi hendrix, you have to turn around and come back again.

yeah, personally i think that everything before rubber soul is actually ok to be listened to in stereo, because - whilst it has terrible seperation - the way they recorded them meant that it still had a solid sound to them. however, everything after rubber soul, up to and including the white album, just sounds like a broken jigsaw puzzle (if i jigsaw puzzle could sound instead of look) - the mono versions are that puzzle put together.

i don't think he's over-rated, as such, but liking him is no guarantee to having any musical nouse, i think that's because his music is pretty much a dead-end. liking jimi hendrix doesn't open-up any musical doors to anywhere; well not any that shouldn't be locked with warning signs placed on them, anyway. fav jimi song: burning of the midnight lamp

trouble is, that faggot would probably be stealing the job from his spastic kid - so, maybe he has a point! does anyone here actually care what neil young thinks beyond what he says on his good songs? it's not like he's jurisdiction over anyone.

i downloaded the stream and had a listen, and i don't think i'm going to be liking this album at all. it just sounds like music to get a headache by.

i wonder if there is an american version without it, and then a british one with it. cos i saw it with back in the 1980s so it was being aired in the uncut version in the uk then, but also have seen it on tv without it - so maybe they are us and uk prints, and the re-release put it back in. there must be an internet page somewhere about this, surely?

hang on, so they put it back in for the remastered version a few years ago? i seem to remember that they might have taken it out in the 1980s because kids seemed to be getting mauled on a regular basis by dogs such as bulldogs - although i could have dreamed this reason. anyone got any more details?

it's the dog's bollocks, for sure! damn, you beat me to it!

wasn't it cut out of the film? i know i've got a copy recorded from tv with the section in it, but i've also seen it without that section too. my favourite "obscure" beatles song is also my favourite song too: Baby, You're A Rich Man (mono of course )

i just watched this on youtube, and i'd like to ask what the buggery-muffin is ungracious, or even slightly wrong, with what he said? i'm not saying it was the greatest speach i've ever heard, but there was nothing wrong with it. in fact it was actually quite good to hear a speach that didn't involve a turgid blanket-bombing of inane love-spunk.

no, it's not weird at all. on the first few albums geroge martin actually recorded on 2 tracks which he used for the stereo, but he also put them together for the mono mixes, which made them have a slight stereo effect. and obviously with later albums the way they bounced down the tracks and then mixed on 4 tracks etc... meant that the final mix had the depth of stereo without actually being stereo. this is all slightly different from how phil spector or atlantic records etc... got their mono sound - they would only record on 1 track, with everything live in the studio. and, for example, whe

yeah, but Stereo through headphones isn't proper stereo either really. You're getting the left only in your left ear and the right only in your right, whereas in real life (people with normal hearing hear things in stereo) we hear the sound in both ears still. So stereo through speakers means you still get the left channel in your right ear, and vice versa - which you don't get when you have headphones on. Therefore the mono mix through headphones is still the most accurate mix - as nobody mixes music, even now, with headphones on - so the stereo sound you get when you play the music in this m

i wouldn't compare the pet sounds stereo mix with the beatles stereo mixes. whilst i'd still say pet sounds works best in mono, the stereo version is very well mixed by brian wilson himself, and neither suffers from the panning issues or rushed approach that the beatles albums in stereo suffer from.

if the sound went anywhere else it would miss your head entirely. plus, your brain is in the middle of your head - so that seems like the logical place for the sound to want go. all joking aside, i ... hmmm ... actually i give up!

yeah, i don't really know about apple lossless, but i asssumed that judging it's apple you'd probably have to pay for the software to convert it to that. converting it to wav is pretty stupid for an ipod, i admit, so i don't even know why i said it