|
|
Posted by Runnnerr on 11/23/05 02:08
Dr. Winston O'Boogie wrote:
> Runnnerr wrote:
>
> > I agree with you about mono/stereo. I prefer mono myself, but your post
> > made me think about all of the fans of the American albums who were
> > having orgrams all over themselves last year when they were finally
> > released. Ugh! They still sound like shit. I can't understand why
> > anyone would listen to them in lieu of the British albums.
>
> Why not both? Take them for what they are. The American" versions were
> what "Americans" were given to listen to during those awesome days of
> Beatlemania. Maybe we like them because that's what we heard way back
> when. Mono has it's place as well, but you can't honestly say the
> stereo versions are any less exciting to hear than the mono. My first
> brush with Beatle music came from a mono AM radio, and that was all
> just dandy in those days, but the stereo version added a new dimension
> to the equation, so I say both are equally as important.
>
> DWOB
There's nothing wrong with stereo per se. I happen to enjoy music from
that era in mono though. Mono was pretty much the standard until the
late 1960s. If you read Mark Lewisohn's book, you'll see that a lot
more time was put into the mono mixes.
Fake stereo on the other hand, which was how the early American Beatles
albums were presented, just sucks. It's fake and it sounds like crap.
It's too bad that so many fans HAVE to have these crappy sounding
recordings as the British ones, both mono and stereo are far superior.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|