Beatles Remasters: Mono vs. Stereo Debate Thread

Abruce, i always enjoy room-filling sound. my particular room is quite lively and allows lots of bloom and detail. there is an engagement and immersive aspect to the Stereo versions which i like. OTOH from a performance standpoint the Monos are more 'believable' as performances.

heart verses head so to speak. and music is first emotional to me.

of course; i only have the Stereo vinyl versions. maybe if i owned the mono Lp versions my viewpoint might be different.

"the Monos are more 'believable' as performances"

Ever hear The BEatles "Live at the BBC" package?

That set has actual live performances that really present the raw musical talents of those whacky BEatles perhaps better than any of their studio cuts, which obviously stand on their own artistic merits as well.

Mapman, The BBC package is excellent, but the performances were done during the early stages of their career, so there is no way to compare their later work.

"but the performances were done during the early stages of their career, so there is no way to compare their later work. "

YEs, the early and later work are two different beasts and largely represent the transition from "rock and roll" created largely for the purpose of dancing as it became established in America in the 50's to "rock" and all its derivations, which is what became popular after the BEatles and though occasionally danceable, covers a much wider array of artistic purpose and intent.

Early and later BEatles are two different things and their transition is a microcosm of the transition that rock and pop music itself underwent during their tenure, FWIW.

Its also noteworthy that rock and roll had its roots in prior uniquely American music forms created and popularized largely by African Americans, prior to Elvis, in the middle 1950's. Rock and Roll music actually faded from popularity then in the late 50's after many of the big names of the time (Elvis, Chuck BErry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly + co) stopped performing for various reasons. The BEatles took this and presented it as a stylish British import fueled by their raw talent back to AMerica several years later and then introduced their own artistic variations.

Fascinating stuff!

Mapman, yes, i've got all the whole Anthology set and 'Live at the BBC' too. i've not gone thru them in years. when i find the time i'll go thru them and listen to the relevant cuts.....thanks for the suggestion.

personally; i value a simple pure recording....live to 2-track.....in stereo. i have a (15 ips 1/4") master dub of the Count Basie Band doing a New Years Eve party in 1961. they set up 2 mics, the band played for an hour (there are 2 reels) and there was no EQ or anything. it's magnificent.

i have many Jazz Lps (from the 50's and 60's) which are recorded and mixed mimimally where the purity and simplicity of the recording process is certainly part of the magic.

OTOH some of my most loved music (like the Beatles) is heavily layered and manipulated. so there is no right or wrong to it; it's art and sometimes the engineering and mixing is part of the art.

would i love to have the whole Beatles catalog 'live to 2-track'? sure; but it would be a different creature than what we have. the Beatles music is 'power pop' and 'pop' music is intended for 'everyman'.....so the focus of it's mix is to sound good on the lowest commom denominator gear of it's era. the artist's vision for the sound can be all over the place.