Hello!

Does anybody know if there are any specific differences
in the mono mixes of the post Aftermath sixties Stones
albums BTB SMR BB and LIB? Edits? Alts? I'm listening
to the German Decca versions of these, and besides
sounding flatter but perhaps more punchy,
I'm not so sure....................

Many thanks if you can advise, or refer me to another
group/ Website which might have more technical info on
the Stones discography?

PS By the way Bjornulf, if you are reading, I enjoyed
the Mar. 2007 IORR Journal, as usual. We can only
hope the rehearsals are back here in Toronto again,
so we meet all and sundry again. Probably not. But
no doubt the whole show will be closer for you this
time. Happy trails!

Davido

All of the titles you mentioned have GREAT UK Mono mixes. I prefer the US mono mix of Satanic, but ALL the others are better from the UK, although, there are no US monos for Beggars and Bleed. Buttons is Better in MONO, due to the super wide stereo mix. Beggars and Bleed are a must in Mono, as they are SO dark and bassy, and just slam you with that "wall of sound". Hope this helps.

JR

Hi stone-relics!

Have you noticed any differences in the Satanic mono mix, for example, the edits, mix,missing/added parts?

Many thanks!

2000 Light Years From Home sounds like it would be even better in mono.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-03-25 05:51 by it's_all_wrong.

I've heard Sing We All Together might be a different version too....

it's_all_wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2000 Light Years From Home sounds like it would be
> even better in mono.


The funny part about your comment is that when Newsweek magazine in the U.S. reviewed Satanic in 1967, the reviewer specifically said that Satanic was an album that must be heard in stereo, in particular for the spectacular stereo sound on 2000 Light Years.

Remember that in 1967, there were a lot more mono home audio systems than there were stereo systems, so the really great sound that mono could produce was, IMHO, taken for granted. Today, it's easier to understand that mono mixes of rock albums often are superior to the stereo...or at the very least, different.

A very interesting point!. We hear the fake stereo vinyl versions of the early Stones albums and cringe, but back then they were pretty cool, maybe even leading edge, for pop releases anyways. Then again, some mono albums, like the Beatles White Album or Sargeant Pepper for example, where also quite different than the stereo release; different guitar parts, edits, vocal tracking, special effects and so on. I wonder if the Stones SMR has any too?

i wonder that too,,,if someone cold compare,,,mono/stereo.
there is a list of beatles mono/stereo diff,,mix,,,and editings ,,e.t.c...

highanddry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's_all_wrong Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2000 Light Years From Home sounds like it would
> be
> > even better in mono.
>
>
> The funny part about your comment is that when
> Newsweek magazine in the U.S. reviewed Satanic in
> 1967, the reviewer specifically said that Satanic
> was an album that must be heard in stereo, in
> particular for the spectacular stereo sound on
> 2000 Light Years.
>
> Remember that in 1967, there were a lot more mono
> home audio systems than there were stereo systems,
> so the really great sound that mono could produce
> was, IMHO, taken for granted. Today, it's easier
> to understand that mono mixes of rock albums often
> are superior to the stereo...or at the very least,
> different.


I made that comment because on the SACD remaster, the mellotron is pushed to the right, and Mick's vocal is pushed to the left, and it kinda messes it up, dectracting from an otherwise excellent song.

And Mick said himself:

2000 Light Years... is my favorite (on the album), but it's lousy in stereo.
- Mick Jagger, 1968

Stereo mixes towards the end of the 60s were OK. By then the novelty had worn off. Engineers and artists had realised that the idea was to create a believable soundstage...not to create special effects for the sake of it.
We've witnessed the same thing in more recent years with the advent of multi channel surround sound...but I still think good quality stereo is the best format for recoded music.

I have a bootleg CD with the mono version of LIB (se picture below)




I can't hear any difference between the mono and the stereo version of the album, to me it sounds like the same mix has been used for both masters.

Does anybody know if there are real differences between the mono and stereo versions, and if so, what are they?

Well, at least the mono/stereo mixes sound different. The panning on the early stereo albums is quite extreme. As for different parts, song lenghts: I know that the mono version of Between The Buttons has a longer version of Yesterday's Papers (2.20)

Beatle fans are maniacal about the different stereo, mono mixes and alts,
pressings from different countries and so on. Much has been published on line and in hard print to catalogue and help folk collect these. Do any such sitesor publications exist for the Stones?

davido wrote

Beatle fans are maniacal about the different stereo, mono mixes and alts,
pressings from different countries and so on. Much has been published on line and in hard print to catalogue and help folk collect these. Do any such sitesor publications exist for the Stones?



if ??????,,,,stones stopped 1970 ca.. i guess ?????..

there would be more ,intrestings of that,? mono/stereo,because stones have younger fans..than the beatles...

the beatles cataloge was in stereo already in 1963...

the younger (stones fans)did not have stereo,,only mono player..some recordplayers just played one channel (if the record was in stereo)


but the stereo on chess june 1964,is in good stereo,,good mix too,,
not the song on one channel & instruments on the other,,,
and suprising is that the earlier recorded "DON'T LIE TO ME "is in true stereo..
(could this track be recorded in chess ???),,

Yeah those old stereo demo records, mostly space lounge and so on
were pretty funny. It was such a novelty. The later sixties stereo
titles usually started to get better, more even separation and sound,
but I often think the mono still sounded best. Mono was at it's apex,
totally state of the art, and then just all but disappeared. Too bad.
I can still listen to it, be it old Stones, Beatles or Who, and I've noticed
a lot of bootlegs starting to appear of these titles, either lost tiles or ones with bad cd mixes (Beatles.....). The Beatles got Doctor Ebbett to fix these up, but the Stones????

Well one can compare the mono single mixes on the "London Years" set of the singles from the late 60s, quite different in some cases - to their stereo album cut counterparts: SFM is explosive, and 'We Love You' and 'Dandelion' great (in both stereo/mono) and different, and then Paint It, Black is if I recall 20 or 30 seconds longer, Lets Spend The Night also sounds great in mono and has a different timing...JJF is a few seconds longer, Child of the Moon aslightly shorter...

Here is more about this subject: [www.iorr.org]

vancouver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> davido wrote
>

> there would be more ,intrestings of that,?
> mono/stereo,because stones have younger fans..than
> the beatles...
>

Does the Stones have younger fans than Beatles???
Eerrr? Not! Take a look at your children and young people and see who they prefer over and over...

davido Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beatle fans are maniacal about the different
> stereo, mono mixes and alts,
> pressings from different countries and so on. Much
> has been published on line and in hard print to
> catalogue and help folk collect these. Do any such
> sitesor publications exist for the Stones?

The mono versions I have of Sgt. Peppers and The White Album sound much better to me than the stero versions. The same goes for the mono pressings I have of Stones albums. I wish like hell I had a mono mix of Beggars and Let It Bleed. Stones-Relics, could you elaborate as to why do you prefer the UK mono mixes overall?

check musicangle.com, the Tracking Angle (zine) archives has a 1995-96 article by Michael Fremer, comparing various pressings, cd & vinyl, of Stones albums through 1995, when it was published