terminal-boredom.com
Terminal Boardumb => Music Shit => Topic started by: Jared on September 02, 2006, 08:41:39 PM
-
I want to buy the tripple-LP version of Villiage Green Preservation Society but I noticed that it is MONO and no stereo version is available. Somebody please breakdown the benefits of MONO to me.
Also, the new Pet Sounds reissue is a double-LP, one being stereo, the other being MONO. Why would anyone want both?
-
alot of 60s records were very poorly mixed to stereo. there were alot of tricks used and often the mono mix is superior to the stereo one. something to remember is that a mono mix isnt just the stereo one played in mono, in fact, often the stereo mix is just the mono version with some reverb added to one of the speakers. another thing they would do is pan the drums all the way to one side and the vocals all the way to the other, which almost always sounded like shit. one example of clearly superior mono mixes is the early kinks.
-
Thanks!
-
Officer Brad is kinda right. The 60s recordings you are thinking of were not recorded in mono, in that they were not one track recordings (there are exception of course, those being a lot of the Back to the Grave bands). From about 63 on most rock & roll on major labels and bigger indies was recorded on 4 tracks. Where Officer Brad is right is that those four tracks were mixed to mono. Early rock & roll stereo mixes usually were different from the mono in that they would hard pan a or a couple instrument to the left or right channel. That practice still continues but it was really primitive then. (One record you can really hear it is in Funhouse, where the sax is in the left channel and the rest of the band in the right.) Sometimes the stereo versions sound better than the mono (Between the Buttons is great in stereo). Sometimes the mono is better. On records like the Zombies' Odessy & Oracle and Beach Boys' Pet Sounds both versions are good and a bit different. The thing to stay away from is Electronically Rechanneled stereo mixes. Those are the ones that Officer Brad is thinking of when he mentions the monos run through a reverb. And sometimes it is even worse than that: One channel is clean and the other sounds like it was recorded in a distant room. Just horrible. Stay away. Also to confuse things even more, there are a few records in which the stereo and mono versions have different songs. The most famous of which is the Yardbirds' Roger the Engineer (bother versions are worth getting). The UK stereo version of Village Green has 15 songs. The Euro & US mono has 12 songs. Related are US and UK mixes. A lot of 70s punk & new wave (and Roxy Music albums) was mastered much hotter in the UK so it sounds louder. US record companies didnt think American ears could handle punch versions of the Jam & Elvis Costello. It is worth tracking down UK pressings of that stuff.
Anyway with all of these early stereo records it is worth doing the research and not to assume that mono is better. In a lot, if not most cases, it is. But there are very notable exceptions.
As far as that triple Village Green LP, I think has both mono & stereo versions as well as alt mixes and unreleased stuff.
-
Wreckless Eric discusses this in his book.
It's been awhile since I read it so, if I fuck up the story, please forgive:
He was drunk the first time he heard Sgt. Pepper's but thought it was one of the greatest things he'd ever heard. He rushed out to buy it but when he brought it home, he listened to it and thought it was shitty-ass -- ???!? Turns out, he'd originally heard it in mono but bought a stereo copy. He swears they're two completely different albums.
-
They definitely are...
I think Beatles stereo mixes are probably the worst stereo mixes in the world. The Paperback Writer 45 is a unbelievable example -- the stereo mix makes the song sound so weak but the 45 tears your head off.
Now, 5.1 surround is another story...
-
A couple of months ago, there was an Earmark sale and I bought a dozen albums including three Kinks albums. I had never heard a proper Kinks album before and it really was love on first hear (uhm... sorry for my crappy English as far as expressions go) and I bought 4 more Kinks albums. The Earmark albums are truly wonderful, all have gatefold sleeves and great liner notes! Maybe the Earmark sale is still going on.
http://www.forcedexposure.com/bin/search.pl?search_string=the+kinks&searchfield=artist
-
That all certainly helps and was definitely what I was looking for.
-
One has stuff coming at you from different sides and the other is right down the middle.
You're welcome,
-Scrod
-
I think Beatles stereo mixes are probably the worst stereo mixes in the world.
Holy shit the Beatles in stereo is next to worthless and I'm a die hard Beatles fan. Just listen to Revolver or Rubber Soul in stereo. When you want it to bang it just sounds limp as hell. Especially tracks like Taxman and The Word. Yuck.
-
I have a stereo copy of Rubber Soul that I bought years ago. I think I've listened to it twice, and I LOVE that LP. That crappy sound just ruins it though.
-
It's so hard to find LP's that should be heard in mono, in mono. They're usually way expensive cuz everybody wanted the new fangled stereo jobs so the monos didn't get the same amt. at pressing time.
-
Sad but true. It's really hard to find a decent, cheap copy of the Beatles/Kinks/Stones/Who in mono. I do have an 80's repress of the first who LP in mono, and it sounds way better than the stereo one I used to have. Weren't a bunch of the Beatles' LPs reissued around the time that Beatles Anthology came out about ten years ago? Were those stereo or mono? I'd like to get all of the Beatles LPs up to and including "Revolver" on mono LP.
-
Actually Beatles is a crazed bunch, if you discount the american versions, which are a mixed bag of fake and true stereo, it's better to get the first four in stereo, japanese bootleg (way superior to the shitty mono official CDs), the rest, except for Abbey Road, was mixed in both mono and stereo, and both versions are of interest, due to the differences (some takes differs etc).
Just avoid Anthology and their new, shit, stereo mixes (it's just George Martin destroying his past with Pro Tools and getting the nod from the survivors due to them being tone deaf after years of touring/playing), or any new Beatles product anyway.
The Beatles were one of the more popular band ever, but their back catalogue will forever, never being represented in a good light, due to a bunch of several factors. Any self respecting Beatles fan should just check the original releases, or a japanese official boots, in both stereo and mono, all about a 1000th superior to anything they reissued on CD, or will reissue, ever.
The MFSL stereo vinyl box cost your arm and leg, but it's so far the best ever issue of their back catalogue in stereo. There are so many different mono, you will go crazy trying to sort out it out haha check this page
http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/
-
One has stuff coming at you from different sides and the other is right down the middle.
You're welcome,
-Scrod
Why Todd, I can't thank you enough for your ever most helpful post. Yours being the most helpful of all in fact seeing as how I did not whatsoever ask what the differences between the two were. Apparently your old eyes are not quite what they used to be with you getting up in years, 'cause what I really asked was on the same level as "why would I want to read a normal comic book when I could read the very same comic in 3-D?," me not realizing the benefits of the non-3-D comic. Thanks for playing and good luck next time.
-
Were you going to take the time to break down Eip Eiteews' joke post as well? We're all waiting.
-
No because that was actually funny. ...and who's "we all?"
-
The whole board. They all think you overreacted.