So, What is the Verdict on the Beatles Box Sets?

Wireless, I don't disagree with your conclusion about the the mono/stereo Beatles' mixes, but your logic is flawed. If it's not, then anybody listening to Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, etc. on their home stereos have deviated from the artists' intent. They never envisioned their music not being played in proper concert halls.

The original artist's intent is not always the standard. Even Dylan admits Hendrix's version of "All Along the Watchtower" is THE version. Same with Aretha doing Otis' "Respect". For much of Miles Davis' recorded output the band played and left the studio while Teo Macero compiled and edited the tapes into finished songs. Besides, wasn't George Martin the 5th Beatle?

Onhwy61,
Don't you think there is a big differance between artists who were not even alive when recorded music was first introduced and a group who practicly set standards in how recordings are done.
The Beatles and George Martin as well say that the mono's are what they feel are the best recordings. Not the stereo version even for SPLHCB and The White Album, they still prefered mono. They have not to my recollection ever said anything differant. So I agree with Wireless the artist intent is the standard.

The living Beatles approved the remasterings.

I think they could have gotten them pressed on purple vinyl in mono if they felt that was the only proper way to hear them. They probably will be reissued on vinyl in mono at some point as well as other formats.

So, if the cd remasters sound good to you, they sound good to Paul and Ringo too, so go ahead and enjoy the hell out of them!

Approval doesn't necessarily mean they prefer them to the Mono versions. I'm sure they're being told the recordings need to be louder, punchier to compete with "modern" recordings (and to sell better to that target group). What do they know at their age what kids want? They don't want to be thought of as old fogeys out of touch with what's current. Besides the stereo remasters aren't *that* bad. They could've been a lot worse so it's not a case of total loss of artistic integrity.

With regard to the old classical masters, of course we'd all rather hear them as intended in the large concert hall. But we don't have the opportunity very often. OTOH we do have the opportunity to hear the Beatles mono masters anywhere and as they were intended to sound.

As far as intent goes, sure there are better remakes. I prefer Mannfred Mann's version of _Blinded by the Light_ and 3-Dog-Night's version of _Try a Little Tenderness_ over the originals. The difference is they reinterperated the orginal into something new. They didn't take the orignal and try to copy it but with improved recording techniques. I think there's a difference. The Beatles remasters weren't remastered to create something new, but only improve the sound quality. I think they did that with the Monos and remained faithful to the artists' vision of how it should sound. The stereo remasters have a different audience. They just don't know any better. :)

Wireless, I hope that making posts like yours give you great enjoyment because you seem to be missing the point of listening to music. It is to enjoy the music. Not because you own a "better" version than other people, but because the music moves you.

There is no one pressing or one playback system that is the only "right" one to listen to.

I'm also pretty sure that you never discussed with any of the Beatles which version of their albums they thought the best. I think that they would probably have different opinions about which was the best if they cared about such a thing at all.