Beatles mono albums significantly different than their stereo counterparts

[brentspeak]

I've recently heard some of the out-of-print mono versions of some later Beatles' albums. "She's Leaving Home" in mono sounds speeded-up, but that's only because the familiar stereo version was incorrectly slowed down. We've been listening to the "mistake" version all these years. "I Am the Walrus" has drum beats deliberately "wiped out" in certain places. The song "Help!" is an entirely different take of the song altogether, with a different set of lyrics. And two-thirds of "The White Album" is fundamentally different from the stereo (for instance, no "I got blisters on my fingers!").

[Tikki]

1. My first Beatles vinyl is mono...

A compo with an Australian singer named Ifield. Though, somewhat, of a rare album...we were told that the stereo version of this album Jolly What!!Frank Ifield/The Beatles on VeeJay...is worth almost twice as much as the mono because stereo was still relatively new, at that time, and that the Beatles were known for working toward perfecting stereo; both technically and esthetically.

The Tikkis

[johnnie]

2. I downloaded St Pepper's mono version a few years back

I have yet to listen to it because i am lazy, but after reading your thread I found it and am burning a disc to listen to it.
I have heard good things about the mono version and although I am a pretty big fan of The Beatles, I haven't heard the mono version before.

[Kali]

3. heh! - I thought for sure this was some kind of copy cat thread

but could see the "original" Turns out you weren't being lame at all.

[Ivan Sputnik]

4. So which do you prefer?

"I've got blisters on my fingers" is one of my favorite WA moments.

[brentspeak]

5. The stereo, only because it's the one I grew up on

But lately I've only been listening to the mono version. It's like hearing the album for the first time. One of these years, I hope Capital/EMI/Apple will release the rest of the Beatles albums in their alternate formats, remastered (like they did with the American versions of the early Beatle records this year).

[DancingBear]

6. That was pretty much a function of the country of release

especially for the first four LP's.

Here in the States, "Stereo" was being pushed really hard from '63 on, which is why Capitol released Meet The Beatles, The Beatles Second Album, Something New, and Beatles '65 in both Mono and Stereo. The recently released Capitol 4 CD set, has the entire albums in BOTH mono and stereo. Some of the latter day tunes sound better in stereo, the earlier ones better in mono.

BTW, it was quite common for songs (like "Help!") to be vastly different from mono to stereo, since stereo allowed the mixing boards of the time (literally) more channels to play with.

[leftofthedial]

7. you have to be so careful with mono though

it's highly contagious

[Zorro]

8. I actually preferred the mono sound vs. stereo back then

I used to buy the mono versions because the stereo versions sounded too artificial -- individual vocals and instruments tended to be isolated to one channel or the other, so the sound was unbalanced. Stereo albums were about a buck more expensive, too ($3.98 vs $2.98), so I couldn't see any reason to spring for stereo.

Stereo mixing also got a bit more sophisticated towards the late 60's/early 70's, and monoraul sound disappeared around that time.