Quote
Jan Richards
G'd evening.


Too many jou-jou people around here and not very many collectors and I don't want to start a new topic for this so I just keep going on here. Coz this is something that may interest collectors of UK vinyls only.

Anyone ever been wondering why Big Hits and Satanic UK pressings has blue labels for mono and green labels for stereo?
Definition as per Decca management in the 60's
Red mono and blues stereo label LP's = second level raw material vinyl, may partly be reused vinyl. Used for rubbish modern pop music
Blue mono and green stereo label LP's = virgin high quality vinyl used for classical real music.

This info is directly from a person who used to work at the Decca pressing plant in the 60's....

Another mystery solved

Whoa!

That is very interesting Jan, thanks for sharing that. I had always wondered.

Now, I think this opens up a whole other can of worms or at least series of questions.

While I may be able to see DECCA, with this logic, go to the virgin vinyl for the greatest hits set (they were selling well so you'd want to put good product out for your high profile artists), why would they revert back to red/blue labels for Aftermath and Between the Buttons, only to go back to the virgin vinyl for Majesties, and then back to 2nd rate vinyl for Beggar's and Let it Bleed?

That doesn't make sense to me. Maybe there's a good reason for that hopping back and forth but unless there is, I can't see why they would bother.

Has anyone else heard this?

What about the way they did their catalogue numbering...it changed for those for these albums as well...why did they do that? That's never made sense to me either. Is that directly related to the labels?

The funniest thing is, I'd always considered those DECCA's as the highwater mark for all the vinyl ever released in the Stones catalogue, anywhere, so it would be interesting if what they actually used was 'second rate vinyl'.

Even if it turns out to be true, that it was second rate vinyl, it must have been damn good second rate vinyl, because those records have really stood the test of time incredibly well...far superior to the US pressings of the same time period.

I got a rather long mail from the gentleman who used to work at the record plant. I will just pick a few points from his message, rewritten with my own comments added, his words inside “quotation marks”

There was absolutely no interest from Decca management to issue pop music in good quality. It was just kids music so there was no need to put in the quality in them. “as Deccas stance at the time was strictly ‘pop records are good enough in Mono only’. And it wasn’t until 1967 that they bothers to release Stereos for ‘pop bands’.”

“Whereas Classical music especially in stereo had high demand even in the early 1960s, ‘pop’ records had almost no demand at all”. There was only one reason why a limited amount of blue label Stereo LP’s were issued in the mid 60’s and that was because EMI had put out Beatles in stereo. If only Beatles mono records had been put out, then we would not have had any early Stones stereo LP’s either.

“However – in 1966 Decca introduced the ‘luxury’ line for their ‘pop’ LPs – the ‘TXS’ series. They cost a bit more than the ‘SKL’ series – usually having better and more interesting cover designs, and a more interesting label.” The TXL-TXS series had actually only two LP’s during the whole of the 60’s. That was Big Hits TXS101 and Satanic TXS103. No TXS102 LP was ever released. The next TXS104 came as late as September 1971 and that was a Sawoy Brown LP.
“And here is one major point in this series. One LP I do know about was ‘Satanic Majesties’ on the TXS series. This one was pressed like a classical music LP. ‘Virgin vinyl’ was used – mainly because this LP was full of effects and detail. Thus it was thought important.”
The probable reason why TSX101 Big Hits was issued on the TXS series is that it was a collection of great hits from the commercially most successful pop orchestra that was on Decca Records

Then the vinyl used for pop records. The quality was not as good as for classical records. However this does not mean that the vinyl was of poor quality. The vinyl used by Decca in UK in the 60’s is extremely good and I am also of the opinion that Deccas are far superior in sound to any US pressed Stones London Records LP from the 60’s.

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

@ Jan Richards

Thank you so much for sharing these informations with us and bringing some enlightening in our collector`s hearts. Like treaclefingers I was always wondering about these DECCA-labels.

Thanks again,

Tom

Quote
electricmud
@ Jan Richards

Thank you so much for sharing these informations with us and bringing some enlightening in our collector`s hearts. Like treaclefingers I was always wondering about these DECCA-labels.

Thanks again,

Tom

Yes, I'd like to add my hearty thanks as well Jan...fantastic, thank you for the details.

Interesting that for Satanic they wanted the stereo and better vinyl because of the effects and detail. Interesting because the Mono version is still the definitive and original version, just like Sgt. Pepper.

Thanks again for that, a very big mystery cleared, to my mind anyway.

Quote
treaclefingers


Interesting that for Satanic they wanted the stereo and better vinyl because of the effects and detail. Interesting because the Mono version is still the definitive and original version, just like Sgt. Pepper.

Meaning the stones were part of the original mono mix, but had no hand in the stereo mix? Jagger was critical of the stereo mix after it was released.

The stereo version is better for hearing the many overdubs more clearly. Some instruments are kinda lost on the original mono mix and the 2nd version mono mix (stereo fold down).

Same with Between The Buttons. Some tracks suit mono others not so much. Cool, Calm, Collected sounds better in stereo to me, the balance between the instruments seems a bit wonky on the mono version. Brian's electric dulcimer part is quieter on the mono mix for example.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-18 00:21 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
treaclefingers


Interesting that for Satanic they wanted the stereo and better vinyl because of the effects and detail. Interesting because the Mono version is still the definitive and original version, just like Sgt. Pepper.

Meaning the stones were part of the original mono mix, but had no hand in the stereo mix? Jagger was critical of the stereo mix after it was released.

The stereo version is better for hearing the many overdubs more clearly. Some instruments are kinda lost on the original mono mix and the 2nd version mono mix (stereo fold down).

Same with Between The Buttons. Some tracks suit mono others not so much. Cool, Calm, Collected sounds better in stereo to me, the balance between the instruments seems a bit wonky on the mono version. Brian's electric dulcimer part is quieter on the mono mix for example.

I'm not positive about that but I believe it to be the case.

Quote
treaclefingers


I'm not positive about that but I believe it to be the case.

Were mono and stereo versions released at same time?

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
treaclefingers


I'm not positive about that but I believe it to be the case.

Were mono and stereo versions released at same time?

I'm pretty sure they were. What I don't understand is the rationale behind the stereo fold-down to mono version of the mono that came later.

How much time had passed before they decided to do that, an why would they bother doing that? Did something happen to the original mono master?

Interesting and hmmm.

Over to the master of Stones on Decca.

Jan Richards
G'd evening.

Too many jou-jou people around here and not very many collectors.


What does the term "jou - jou" mean and from what country ?

Quote
Horseswild
Jan Richards
G'd evening.

Too many jou-jou people around here and not very many collectors.


What does the term "jou - jou" mean and from what country ?

Haha, well that was my own invention of a word. I’m from Finland and we do have an expression like "joo-joo miehiä" here. That basically means a person talking this and that about everything but really do not know anything substantial.... but you know, sorry for that, I can change my text if it is a problem

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

About the mono – stereo situation on early-mid 60’s Decca vinyls. This is somewhat a mess I think. I have never got into investigating the actual recordings, like which songs were recorded in stereo or in mono and how did they end up on the final product, the vinyl. Some songs were for sure recorded in stereo but ended up as mono on the vinyl. Original stereo versions then appeared much later on compilation albums like Hot Rocks.
As Decca was not really interested in doing pop music in stereo, they did not put in much effort in the few stereo LP’s made in the mid 60’s. Basically it was enough if some of the noise (read music) came from the left side speaker and a bit of a different noise came from the right side speaker, ah then you had stereo sound.
Some songs were recorded in true stereo but the master was cut in mono and other songs were recorded in mono but probably cut in stereo. I leave this investigation to other people with better ears than me. I am more interested in the manufacturing process of the LP’s, not that much into the recording and mixing side of the noise

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Quote
Jan Richards
About the mono – stereo situation on early-mid 60’s Decca vinyls. This is somewhat a mess I think. I have never got into investigating the actual recordings, like which songs were recorded in stereo or in mono and how did they end up on the final product, the vinyl. Some songs were for sure recorded in stereo but ended up as mono on the vinyl. Original stereo versions then appeared much later on compilation albums like Hot Rocks.
As Decca was not really interested in doing pop music in stereo, they did not put in much effort in the few stereo LP’s made in the mid 60’s. Basically it was enough if some of the noise (read music) came from the left side speaker and a bit of a different noise came from the right side speaker, ah then you had stereo sound.
Some songs were recorded in true stereo but the master was cut in mono and other songs were recorded in mono but probably cut in stereo. I leave this investigation to other people with better ears than me. I am more interested in the manufacturing process of the LP’s, not that much into the recording and mixing side of the noise

An interesting side-discussion here might be round he US versions of the early albums, which were also released in Stereo at the time, very shortly thereafter.

I have stereo versions of 12x5, Now and OOOH all with the blue label, 'open' London writing on the label, denoting early renditions

The Americans presumably had market in Stereo ahead of the UK when it came to this.

I believe the first original Stereo DECCA I have is Aftermath, and I must say it is in stellar condition. Is it correct to presume that is the first on Stereo, or rather, second after BIG HITS?

Quote
Jan Richards
About the mono – stereo situation on early-mid 60’s Decca vinyls. This is somewhat a mess I think. I have never got into investigating the actual recordings, like which songs were recorded in stereo or in mono and how did they end up on the final product, the vinyl. Some songs were for sure recorded in stereo but ended up as mono on the vinyl. Original stereo versions then appeared much later on compilation albums like Hot Rocks.
As Decca was not really interested in doing pop music in stereo, they did not put in much effort in the few stereo LP’s made in the mid 60’s. Basically it was enough if some of the noise (read music) came from the left side speaker and a bit of a different noise came from the right side speaker, ah then you had stereo sound.
Some songs were recorded in true stereo but the master was cut in mono and other songs were recorded in mono but probably cut in stereo. I leave this investigation to other people with better ears than me. I am more interested in the manufacturing process of the LP’s, not that much into the recording and mixing side of the noise

When you say recording are you meaning at actual recording sessions where instruments are played or mixing and recording mixes to master tapes?


Essentially anything they recorded at the recording sessions using more than one mono track machine could be mixed to mono or stereo.

Quote
Jan Richards
About the mono – stereo situation on early-mid 60’s Decca vinyls. This is somewhat a mess I think. I have never got into investigating the actual recordings [...]

Because you don't have the talent. You never had. Stick to the labels & flipbacks.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
Jan Richards
About the mono – stereo situation on early-mid 60’s Decca vinyls. This is somewhat a mess I think. I have never got into investigating the actual recordings, like which songs were recorded in stereo or in mono and how did they end up on the final product, the vinyl. Some songs were for sure recorded in stereo but ended up as mono on the vinyl. Original stereo versions then appeared much later on compilation albums like Hot Rocks.
As Decca was not really interested in doing pop music in stereo, they did not put in much effort in the few stereo LP’s made in the mid 60’s. Basically it was enough if some of the noise (read music) came from the left side speaker and a bit of a different noise came from the right side speaker, ah then you had stereo sound.
Some songs were recorded in true stereo but the master was cut in mono and other songs were recorded in mono but probably cut in stereo. I leave this investigation to other people with better ears than me. I am more interested in the manufacturing process of the LP’s, not that much into the recording and mixing side of the noise

When you say recording are you meaning at actual recording sessions where instruments are played or mixing and recording mixes to master tapes?


Essentially anything they recorded at the recording sessions using more than one mono track machine could be mixed to mono or stereo.

Meaning everything that takes place before the cutting head of the lathe machine is put on the blank lacquer disc

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Quote
Jan Richards
Meaning everything that takes place before the cutting head of the lathe machine is put on the blank lacquer disc

Ok, a stereo mix could be taken from any recording sessions where they used any multitrack, 2 track and upwards, tape machine.

dear Jan

thank you so much for your comments

djgab

Jan is the man.

Quote
RobberBride
Jan is the man.

I agree.

I also wanted to note that I love the unbridled enthusiasm in this thread...I don't recall anyone ever going negative which is pleasant and refreshing.

Quote
djgab
dear Jan

thank you so much for your comments

djgab

Thank You

I do not post that much here, only when I feel that I have something of value that I can contribute with. Been collecting UK Decca stuff for more than 20 years and usually when I get into something, I usually overdo it. I have a big stamp collection that goes into stupid details, like which different paper qualities were used in the 1890’s for this specific stamp…. I am into old US vintage cars, restoring them, used to trade with them, arranging car shows and car meeting, running the local US car club for the past 30 or so years… Same with Decca, got into the grooves as well and that resulted in direct first hand communication with people who worked at the pressing plant as well as at the cutting room in the 60’s…..
Well, you need to do something on the spare time that you don’t have anyhow

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Quote
Carster

Quote
Jan Richards
About the mono – stereo situation on early-mid 60’s Decca vinyls. This is somewhat a mess I think. I have never got into investigating the actual recordings [...]

Because you don't have the talent. You never had. Stick to the labels & flipbacks.

Ah Horseswild, this is what I mean with the "jou-jou man". This is a class example of that.

Jan Richards

[www.stonesondecca.com]

Your site is great, Janne!

I'm just a beginner when it comes to collecting, though. Recently, I started with the singles.

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Your site is great, Janne!

I'm just a beginner when it comes to collecting, though. Recently, I started with the singles.

You're in for trouble if you're a completest. I started with 45's, first US with picture sleeve, then UK, then albums US, then UK, then everything in a 'sealed condition' (that is challenging)...it just never ends.

copied from the Black and Blue thread:

Quote
Chris Fountain

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Chris Fountain
This album is a masterpeice!! Song election, order, is correct. It's a personal fav that does not get credit where due. I've listened to this album just as much as any other Stones' work. Please do not open the sealed album. That is a great personal asset!

Thanks Chris,

I would be remiss in not pointing out that it is an 80s ABKCO reissue, so my enthusiasm for it is qualified. Having said that I certainly wouldn't open it!

I've collected quite a few sealed. Some of the more interesting ones:


The Rolling Stones (debut album) on DECCA - I'm sure it's a reissue, but even still I don't know the last time they released this. I think it may be a 70s issue.

Out Of Our Heads US, on the LONDON label - it's in stereo but looks as though it's pasted over a mono sleeve.

Between The Buttons US, on London label in stereo

Beggar's Banquet US, on London label in stereo also the 2002 DSD remaster

Through The Past Darkly US, two of them, both on London label in stereo, both are octagonals (Love these)

GYYYO again US on London label

Sticky Fingers reissue, without working zipper

Hot Rocks with gold promo stamp London label...

Beyond that I have everything in still sealed stated after GHS.

I did a lot of collecting a few years ago. I'm feeling much better now.

Nice - Through the Past Darkly octangular album cover is awesome.

December's Children is not on the list. Any particular reason? BTW- the album cover pic is awesome! Not to mention the song list "I'm Free, "Blue Turns to Gray" Singer not the Song" etc..

Just never came across a sealed copy!

I've got a few other ABKCO reissues that I hadn't listed. The early sealed ones have gotten insanely expensive. Try even finding an original Let it Bleed or Sticky Fingers. I saw an original Exile sealed go for over $900 if my memory is serving me correctly, just crazy.

And those are the US albums. I'm sure any original DECCA's would go for a king's ransom. I've never even seen any listed on ebay before.

Can you imagine what an original debut album on DECCA in sealed condition would go for? I wonder if any even exist.

Actually, as we're quite far off topic, I'm going to sign off on this, and post this entire conversation to the Let's Talk Rare STONES vinyl thread.

Any sealed original Decca album would indeed be a rarity (or a fake) as, as far as I can remember, no albums were sealed or shrinkwrapped in the UK until around the mid-1970s. Apart from albums imported from the US, the first album I can remember buying that was sealed was Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here in 1975 (in black plastic). Didn't the Island label experiment with shrinkwraps in the early 1970s? Anyone else remember?

Quote
martinw
Any sealed original Decca album would indeed be a rarity (or a fake) as, as far as I can remember, no albums were sealed or shrinkwrapped in the UK until around the mid-1970s. Apart from albums imported from the US, the first album I can remember buying that was sealed was Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here in 1975 (in black plastic). Didn't the Island label experiment with shrinkwraps in the early 1970s? Anyone else remember?

I think you are on the right path here. Have never come across UK sealed ones of the early catalog. The US however is another matter.

Quote
RobberBride

Quote
martinw
Any sealed original Decca album would indeed be a rarity (or a fake) as, as far as I can remember, no albums were sealed or shrinkwrapped in the UK until around the mid-1970s. Apart from albums imported from the US, the first album I can remember buying that was sealed was Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here in 1975 (in black plastic). Didn't the Island label experiment with shrinkwraps in the early 1970s? Anyone else remember?

I think you are on the right path here. Have never come across UK sealed ones of the early catalog. The US however is another matter.

Yeah, that completely makes sense. I think even more recently the UK vinyls have been sold 'unsealed'. I recall getting a copy of Bridges that was placed in a resealable shrinkwrap, presumable for the North American market. Also, wasn't Voodoo Lounge, Stripped and Bridges, 'marketed by Caroline Records' in the states? I'd always presumed they received the records from the UK/EU and did the shrinkwraps.

Anyone else know for sure?

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Your site is great, Janne!

I'm just a beginner when it comes to collecting, though. Recently, I started with the singles.

I agree the site is great. I am a beginner too. I started about two years ago to collect vinyl, and my first LP was the first UK album from the Stones, a German mono issue. Then I looked for the original UK Lp and so on...

@ treaclefingers: Yes, you are right, once you start to collect, you are in trouble! - I try now to complete the sixties studio albums in mono. First only the UK lp's and later the US also.

Just got a shipment from Argentina .
Here's two examples .

Harlem Shuffle bw Winning Ugly , Argentinian promo .



LSTNT bw Ruby Tuesday , Argentinian plays @ 33 rpm



Also received .

Paint It Black bw Under The Boardwalk , Argentinian plays @ 33 rpm
Say You Will bw Say You Will , Argentinian promo
Let's Work bw Let's Work , Argentinian promo
Just Another Night bw She's The Boss , Argentinian promo