Beatles in Mono. - Page 13

Scott and others-

I've been reading this thread on and off. I read one of your comments about For No One. That is one of my favorite songs from that album. It reminded me of an incident in College back in 1979. We had a text book in the Literature class. One of the poems we were to study and discuss was Eleanaor Rigby. Pretty heavy stuff for a 24 year old McCartney at the time to compose!

I also discussed For No One in addition, but that song was far simpler to analyze. For grins, and I realize this is kind of off-topic, but I pulled out that literature book. It asks some questions about Eleanor Rigby. Perhaps I've been doing Star Trek trivia too long, but it might be fun to see if you guys can answer some of the questions!

1. How does the first stanza establish Eleanor Rigby's Character?
2. What does the portrait of Father McKenzie contribute to our understanding of the theme of the lyric?
3. What significance has the juxtaposition of Father McKenzie's writing "a sermon that no one will hear" and "darning his socks in the night" (stanza 3)?
4. What was the significance of Eleanor Rigby's dying in a church? Why was no one saved?
5. What answers, if any, does the poem suggest to the questions in the last stanza?

Thank you for indulging me and my flashback to college....

The mono versions of some of the songs I've heard is pretty fun! I'm Only Sleeping is kind of cool, the way some instruments that were suppressed before are now right in front and center!

Scott-

Wow, I don't think the High School I went to was as progressive to bring in a discussion of Eleanor Rigby! Or maybe I didn't have a Literature class in High School. One's life experiences and background surely will influence their perceptions of the lyrics. For example, I was reading yesterday a wiki entry on Eleanor Rigby and it mentions that she was someone who cleans up after weddings at a church. I didn't know there was such a person who did that! I just thought she was picking up the rice at a church after a wedding as one does who may have been sad and lonely and wished she had that life.

I listened to A Hard Days Night, Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour last night. The changes and the way the songs are mixed for the most part don't sound too different from the older stereo set. But I can hear the subtle to not so subtle differences when they are there. And from a different point of view, I really like them. I like them because it's like hearing it for the first time in a way. The extended fade out or the more forward sounds of a vocal or particular instrument is a great surprise. I did note one song, and I didn't make note of the title, the bass line at one point was not as strong as it was before on the older CD release, and it was one of the elements of the song I liked. Sad to see it lost. It is cool to have this set as the alternate versions.

Regarding "Your Mother Should Know", yes, it sounded awful! The vocal sound okay, but the rest sounded like it was under water. On a release of this caliber, one wonders if it was intended.

Given how good the stereo version of YMSK sounds [and despite being a different mix they worked from largely the same individual tracks to create the mono and stereo mixes], I'm going out on a limb and say it wasn't intentional in the sense that The Beatles wanted it to sound like it's "under water" (which I agree it does on the mono album).

Rather, since the people who worked on this were adamant that they were only remastering the best available master tapes and not going back to the original instrument tracks to create an entirely new mix (or attempt to faithfully recreate the mixes forty years later) I'm going to guess that the best mono master they had of that track was simply not in good condition and they did the best with it that they could, and we got the result.

 

I can't imagine they worked on the catalog as long and as diligently as they did only to royally mess up that track. I'm guessing the original master they worked didn't survive the test of time very well.

i have a question regarding We Can Work It Out: at the 25 second mark, when it gets to
"think of what you're saying  / you can get it wrong and still you think that it's alright "
there's a muddled word at the same time as right, is there a story behind this?

At 25 seconds there is an oddity:
 Left side, acoustic guitar hits a loud dodgy note on the word "right". Sounds like an open 'B' string caught when changing between the D and C chords. Happens more subtly in many other places in anticipation of each chord change.

not sure if that answers your question, but this was the only odd thing documented at that point in the song.

Man!  This thread reads, at times, like a Star Wars thread.

Not that that's a bad thing...  

okay thanks for the answer (though i still think it sounds like Ringo )
i think i posted a similar question here regarding the whisper at the 1:07 mark in Let It Be a couple years a ago. 

If you are referring to the single/45 version of LIB, there is a note about the 1:07 mark in the song:
1:07 (PM/Blue Album, not LIB)
After the words "For though they may be parted," there is a whisper, possibly "Stop, John/It". Rumour has it that it's "Excuse me", as a result of John having just parted.

Yeah, I have to agree. I considered getting one or the other, but when it came down to it, I had to get both. (Thumbs up to Amazon for being cool about a few things: When I complained that their shipping the Mono box in a padded envelope resulted in a ding and a crease in the box, they refunded me 20%; when I complained that my copy of Hard Day's Night in the Stereo box didn't come with a booklet, they refunded me 20% - which I used a portion of to re-buy HDN; I will give the disc sans booklet to a friend.)

I haven't had a chance to compare the Sgt. Pepper booklet to the one from '87. Were there changes? Other than Paul's '08 note, it looks very much the same.

I think I prefer most of the albums in mono, although there are some exceptions - which is probably due to my history of how I listened to them. I haven't had a chance to listen with headphones yet; when I do, it will likely mean I will notice even more subtleties.

I also like how the stereo box stands tall and looks like the monolith from 2001.

Congratulations Scott! I am rushing out to pick-up Star Trek TOS S2 on blu ray this morning, so I hope they might have some restocking of the Stereo box set!

The other day, I had left the box set sitting on the floor. I put my 8-month old son down on the blanket nearby while I went to get something. I came back a minute or so later and found him holding himself up with his arms, staring at the back of the box (with the album thumbnails), completely quiet. He was in silent awe! That's what made me think of the monolith. (Fortunately, I got a few pictures of him and the box.)

Today on my ride to work, I listened to some of the stereo mixes of the early singles (on Past Masters). Not nearly as good as the mono mixes. And I'm not even a mono purist. As I have mentioned, I am looking forward to what I see as the inevitable release of 5.1 mixes, along the lines of what was done for Love.

Scott, by all means, pick up the Anthology DVDs. Besides the great documentary footage, you will hear the music sound better than it ever has.

BTW, I also recently picked up the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame Live DVD set (I know, I know, most expensive month ever) which has a lot of Beatle moments, including Mick Jagger's induction of them, George and Ringo's acceptance, Paul's induction of John, and Paul's (eventual) acceptance of his own induction. Many of them are featured in the performance segments, which appear unedited for the first time. The jams were terrific in the Hall's early years, such as Jagger and Springsteen dueting on I Saw Her Standing There.

And "because Daddy's crazy" isn't an acceptable answer? j/k

Hey, Scott -- YOU NEVER BOUGHT THE ANTHOLOGY??!! I had to check twice to make sure it was YOU I'd been reading! 

Seriously now - you must remedy that, my friend.

Yes, one of the really cool aspects of Anthology is seeing and hearing The Beatles themselves recount the particular song or instance or situation they are covering in that disc. I like the chronological way it's presented, so it's cool to hear them break down the touring situation of  1965 and how John went nuts, or the incident in Philippines, or how the Sgt Pepper project evolved.

Recordings of this broadcast have been floating around for years: 

http://www.bootlegzone.com/album.php?name=post&section=1
http://www.bootlegzone.com/album.php?name=yd035&section=1

And I've mentioned this before but I'll do so again now that everyone is enjoying their discs:
Usenet Guide to Beatle Recording Variations - http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/

-paul

I hear you.  I debated it myself but since it's only an informational site, and not selling/offering downloads I figured it's safe enough.

(of course, if I'm wrong, I have no problem with the links being removed)

 I'm working my way thru the mono set- I've listened to Mono Masters, Sgt. Pepper, Revolver, and am listening to Rubber Soul now.

Sgt. Pepper was not the revelation I expected, but I think I prefer the mono version of 'she's leaving home' to the stereo version.
When I got my first Sgt. Pepper LP back in the late 1980's, my first thought was that it was Ringo on lead vocals on that song- I soon realized it was Paul, but on the mono version there could be no mistaking the lead vocal for anyone but Paul.

My general impression so far is that the vocals aren't quite as up front as on the stereo versions, the percussion seems to be more emphasized. I especially noticed this on 'taxman' (more cowbell!) ;-)

As I said earlier, I'm very glad that I bought both the stereo and the mono set. With a some exceptions, with songs mostly in the Help! album and later, I prefer the mono mixes to the stereo "gimmicky" mixes. Don't get me wrong, some of the stereo mixes are done quite well, the only thing I refer to as gimmicky are those where they shoved instruments and vocals completely to either the left or right side.

One thing I don't like about the mono mixes is how there is apparently a limitation with the mono source material as far as frequency response. There is almost no information above 16kHz, whereas there is on the stereo mixes of the exact same songs. I noticed it first via my ears, where I just felt the stereo mixes had more audible high-end information. I listened to quite a few tracks across all of the mono/stereo albums and perceived the same thing.

So last night I used Apple's Soundtrack Pro (part of the new Logic Studio suite I bought last month) to look at the spectral information. Sure enough, on the stereo mixes when I analyze the sound spectrum, there is plenty of information present up to, and sometimes past 20kHz. The mono mixes frequency information in general stopped well short of that (some songs capped at 16-17kHz, some significantly lower, I think I recall seeing one that was capped at 13-14kHz!).

Anyone hazard a guess as to why this phenomenon is occurring? A limitation of the mono master sources? I really wish they could go back to the original instrument/vocal stems and restore those, and then recreate both the stereo and mono mixes, preferably while Sir George Martin and Paul McCartney are still alive.

I can try to screencap some of this tonight and post to this thread.

Oh, just release the 27-minute Helter Skelter, already.

While it would be a noble idea for both Paul and George Martin to go back into the studio and wade through hundreds of hours of recordings to create the exact takes and overdubs for every Beatles recording, I doubt that would happen. Paul is still a creative force in his mind, he is not at the point in his career where he can't do anything but relive past glories and pour over Beatles recordings when he is thinking of new songs to record.  More power to him to have the drive to create new material.  IMO, the Beatles recordings are good enough for him. He had almost nothing to do with Let It Be Naked except put his stamp of approval on it.  George Martin is now retired, and is no longer an employee at Abbey Road Studios.  EMI owns the recordings of the Beatles, Fab Four do not. It would be nice of EMI to invite them in to do something like that, but why mess up history? The existing mixes were created back in the 60s and that's how they did it. One can argue forever the merits of remixing an old recording by people who were not involved in the original process to make it "sound better", but the creative process of mixing their recordings, to create what they did with the limited technology they had in the studio is the magic of recordings.  The story of Sgt. Pepper being created with 4 track tape machines will now go out the door, if you go back take every original track and put it on 128 track digital to recreate the same recordings? How much of it do you make the same? How much different? Center the vocals on all the songs?  Frankly, knowing Paul, he would be glad to work on all of his songs, but won't bother with John or Geroge's songs. To keep things in balance, might as well listen to its warts and all as it was, and not try to revise history.  Maybe when they have all died, EMI will go in and remix them for a new generation, like they did with "1".  Sorry if this went on for so long, wanted to go over what are the pragmatic details of task such as remixing the entire Beatles catalog.

I certainly agree that if the parties involved don't want to do it, they shouldn't be made to do it.

However just from what little I know of how the Beatles recording sessions went, I believe there are copious notes about which takes were used for the mix (as evidenced by the numerous notes saying "this was take 13, guitar solo from take 11, etc.), and I would wager there are probably good notes on how the mixing went.

 

I certainly don't want to rewrite history, and if the notes aren't there no one should be made to go through the thousands of hours of recorded material to backward-engineer the original mixes. Simply stated, if the original stems exist, and the original mixing and mastering notes are still there, it would be cool to see someone go back (whether it's any of the surviving talent or some up-and-coming young bucks who want to make a name for themselves by taking on this project) and recreate the best possible sounding version of the original stereo and mono mixes.

I did an interesting experiment last night using Soundtrack Pro and created my own mono mix from a stereo remaster. It sounded pretty darn good if I do say so myself.