After reading Geoff Emericks book and hearing how they spent most of their time mixing the mono versions I was really super psyched to hear them.

For me the mono versions were very disappointing. It sucks that the rooms completely collapse in mono so you don't nearly get the sense of those gorgeous sounding rooms. I also was expecting some punchier bass but was not hearing it that way at all. After 40 plus years of hearing the stereo mixes what a bummer it was to hear what the great Geoff Emerick was clearly so much more proud of. I was sad!
Cameron

Once again this question is asked and once again it is answered by conjecture, lies and misinformation posted by people who were not involved and who are working with (at best) second-hand and in many cases, inaccurate information.
The fact is that virtually all Beatles records, not just the early ones, were not intended to be listened to in stereo.
The mono versions are the definitive mixes.
"Abbey Road" is the only record that was recorded with stereo in mind, which, for example, is the reason why you hear the drums in stereo for the first time.

The early Beatles recordings sound the way they do for several reasons:

1. The records were only ever intended for mono release.
2. The first ones were only recorded two track, so the backing had to be on one track and the vocals on the other.
3. When they adopted 4-track recording the concern was getting as many tracks down as possible, often by 4-track to 4-track reductions, which limited their options.
4. Even when they adopted 4-track recording the monitoring at the recording stage was always in mono, stereo was never a consideration.

Not sure about the last item, but the rest is exactly correct.
Without wishing to sound like an advert, I'd suggest that anyone interested in this subject reads Brian Kehew & Kevin Ryans book "Recording the Beatles". In this they analyse a few recordings and show the way 4-track to 4-track reductions were done. Once you see those you can understand more clearly how there was no regard for any final stereo mix, only gaining enough tracks so that further overdubs could be recorded.
Always remember that throughout the recording process all the monitoring was done in mono, using a single speaker.
I cannot emphasise this point enough, but it is something that is usually overlooked.
Wrong.
The first album was mono, but it was recorded two-track, four track recording was not adopted until later.
It's also worth noting that Abbey Road did not have any true two track machines. By this I mean a twin track recorder on which you could record independently on each track. All the two track machines were actually stereo (specifically the BTR3) which has a full width erase head. To make a "two track" recording they would first record the mono backing track onto one track of the BTR3. Then to "overdub" the vocals, the backing track would be copied to a second machine and the vocal tracks added to the second track. Thus, even on those early two track recordings, you are actually hearing the backing track as a second generation copy.
This is probably still a legacy of vinyl. Back in the days of disk it was quite easy to produce a mixed master tape that was difficult, if not impossible to cut. Things like a lot of bass on one channel or out of phase components of any kind made life difficult for the mastering engineer. We have probably become accustomed to hearing bass and vocals in the centre of the image, with the rest of the tracks distributed across the soundstage.
At Abbey Road nobody became a recording engineer without having spent time disk cutting. That way you could understand the requirements for a "good" mix tape, i.e. one that was easy to cut and did not contain any out of phase signals.
You left out JukeBoxes, but I think you get it!
In the UK our standard record player was called a "Dansette" which was mono, single speaker suitcase style. A couple of the cutting rooms actually had them as "reference players". If your (45rpm) test acetate could play on that it would play on anything!
No it wasn't. As I said previously, it was due to the limitations of the number of tracks.
We managed to create many stereo mixes from eight tracks using the REDD51, the desk wasn't a limitation.

Remind me again which of the Beatles sessions were you involved with?
I can look up the date of the Spanish Armada but it doesn't qualify me to talk about it.
Were you listening to the original vinyl cuts on a true mono system, with a mono pickup and a single channel amplifier and single speaker?
If you are listening to a digital 44.1Khz remaster on a "stereo" system then chances are there are enough phase errors in your playback system to completely negate any benefits. It may sound antiquated to say this, but those recordings were intended for vinyl, and with all due respect to those involved, some of the "remasters" have been subjected to treatment which I don't always think people are fully aware of the consequences of.

Thank you for your attention.
Best Regards,
Brian.

Mr. Gibson,
I shall remind you that the original question posted was "Why exactly was the panning of the first Beatles albums that way???". Since the Beatles recorded 12 albums and an EP of original music, the first Beatles albums may well be the first 6, in which case they would span until Rubber Soul. As you may already know, by the time this LP was recorded 4T-4T reductions were still fairly uncommon, there were still three years to come to get to the first 8T recordings and mixes, and the mixes were still done at faders 1, 2, 7, and 8. Hence, my answer was limited to these first albums.

Best regards.

All Beatles records were "Not intended to be listened in stereo" is somewhat speculative and incorrect as those records were released in stereo here in the USA. If anything, they were "intended" to be heard in stereo for the American listening audience. Yes, some of us (many in fact) had excellent stereo systems at that time that could take full advantage of the stereo mixes.

The panning of the bass and kick drum wasn't and still isn't a problem cutting laquers, the cutting amps always summed the low end to mono from 150 hz and down, a standard practice to "keep the needle in the groove".

This is why stereo Beatles records play fine, subjective opinions of stereo not withstanding.

You're wrong. If George Martin says that those original mono mixes we're the ones meant for release, then how can we disagree? HE should know.

The fact that Capitol released them also in stereo doesn't really change anything. There has been a LOT of stuff released in The Beatles name that wasnt meant for release. Start with those early stereo versions and end with Anthology etc.

Capitol did not release those versions. They had gotten copies of the twin tracks by telling EMI they needed to "remix them to American tastes" and then proceeded to high-pass, low-pass and then spit the results out as "stereo."

When I visited EMI in the late '60s my ears were burned for a half hour about what Capitol had done to the sound of the Beatles and how pissed off the staff was about it. I can relate to it because stereo Motown is also a pale imitation of the mono.

George Martin speaks for himself, he wasn't the Beatles, he was a producer. What did the band have to say about it, or were their opinions disregarded? If his opinion was that important, he wouldn't have been overruled by the record co.

What George didn't understand at that time was American audiences had far better playback gear than the Brits. How many Brits even had a stereo playback system in 1965? We had FM stereo radio too to play those discs.
I'm sure the band realized quickly that stereo records were the future and the other bands like Hendrix, etc. were doing all sorts of experimental panning techniques. I doubt the Beatles wanted their music in mono when everyone else was experimenting in wide stereo, they considered themselves leaders in pushing recording technology, to embrace mono makes little sense except to nostalgize about Sir George's intentions...

George Martin wasn't a producer, he was the producer. And he had the final say on those early records, not the band (that was to change around 3th LP) and he was working for EMI not Capitol.

The only interesting thing about those mono versions is that it represents what the artistic members in the studio we're hearing when leaving the studio. I dont really care what Capitol records thought as a good sound.

Besides i think most of the stereo versions sound better than those mono ones, but that's another story.

It doesnt make sense comparing the Hendrix (first LP 1967) and early Beatles. By the time they heard Hendrix they had already made 8 LP's.

I dont know how good stereo gear the Brits had in 1965 but they sure had better rock bands, but that another story too.

He also ran the record label!

Uuuugh.

Bet you say "nekkid" too. I had a grlfriend like that once. I liked her.

Oh well.don't feel so bad about not owning the mono remastered box set!
I grew up listening to either parents vinyl versions or the first cd's that you could listen to twice and get different versions depending on the balance pot heh!

But as for ,The Zombies oddessy &oracle ,I bought it after reading the excellent Recording The Beatles book but I much prefer the mono version! ( got a deluxe pack with both versions )

when some of these songs were played on FM radio, you could drive behind a mountain or something and lose one channel. I thought the DJ had discovered a rare 'instrumental' or 'a cappella' version of the song!

Brian said:[QUOTE]Were you listening to the original vinyl cuts on a true mono system, with a mono pickup and a single channel amplifier and single speaker?
If you are listening to a digital 44.1Khz remaster on a "stereo" system then chances are there are enough phase errors in your playback system to completely negate any benefits. It may sound antiquated to say this, but those recordings were intended for vinyl, and with all due respect to those involved, some of the "remasters" have been subjected to treatment which I don't always think people are fully aware of the consequences of.

Well, I was listening to a sampling of the rereleased CD's with a high end custom made D/A converter feeding an api legacy feeding 20 year old Genelec Darth Vader 1022A ribbon speakers that put all but a handful of todays generic monitors to shame. Yes there were two of them with all of there phantom imaging and stuff.

It's interesting because I grew up listening to those stereo Beatles albums on my moms Macitosh/tandberg/pioneer system that we bought in 1970. It was among the best systems money could buy then, within a few years of the making of the last of the Beatles albums. I don't ever recall any "decent" systems having only one speaker, even back then. I am sure folks had them, but I wouldn't have called them "decent" comparably by then. Luckily music listening was a big part of family life then. I just soaked those records up and still do.

I might suggest that the disappearing of the rooms in mono is much more a result of cancelation of multiple miced sources being summed to mono. Even if instruments didn't disappear, certainly the sound of the rooms did and personally I miss that. Are you saying I won't hear the rooms disappear so much if I can find an original mono pressing (pre remaster) and listen on one speaker? I doubt it.
Cameron

In 1970, no, but in 1963 virtually all but the really high-end was mono. More important, popular music radio was all mono prior to 1967-68.

I did some research and used my brain to draw the sensible conclusion. You're correct, I had no right to do that.

-Kirk

OK I'm looking at my copy of Recording The Beatles, and here on page 364, in a discussion of mono vs. stereo in 1963 and it says RIGHT HERE that the stereo mix of the UK Please Please Me LP came out a month after the mono one did.

And RIGHT THERE is a quote from George Martin, saying he didn't even know there was a stereo mix until "after he left in 1965". Well I'm calling bullsh... er, revisionism. The producer. The head of the record label. And the act that propelled his tiny record label into the stratosphere. And he didn't know there was a stereo mix.

Sorry, ain't buying it.

Yes I can buy the idea that the stereo versions were the red-headed stepchildren, and they were tracked with mono mixes in mind. But going so far as to say they were "never meant to be listened to in stereo" and trying to pretend that the stereo mixes were done at some unspecified later time by unknown ninjas is just completely bogus.

My OPINION, for what it's worth (squat) is that because the stereo mixes (which are my favorite artifacts in all human culture) don't hold up stereo-field-wise to, say contemporaneous stuff like Roy Orbison or Byrds singles, which managed to get the vocals in the middle and the instruments sensibly placed around the sides, those responsible tend to shade the truth a bit when asked what happened.

Here's what really happened - you guys missed the trend and didn't see what was coming, and for years you neglected to think ahead and get appropriately stereo-capable multitracks, even when it became obvious that you had the biggest-selling act in history on your hands. You kind of blew it in this one specific area, while recording the best rock and roll records anyone ever made.

And by the way, the mono mixes, while possessing a certain chunky charm, are fuzzy, and lack detail and sound stage, and I can't hear all the parts. And that's based on the current remasters (both versions), as well as ownership of every album in pretty much all formats in both mono and stereo versions going back all the way to the black-and-yellow-label Parlophone copies I bought in the late '60's, as well as Dr. Ebbetts mono and stereo needle drops (I skipped 8-track).

Yes I am a goddam fanatic.

-Kirk

Is 'Recording The Beatles' the absolute bible?

Having spoken (albeit some time ago) to several of the 'fab' people involved in the original sessions, it's clear to me no one can quite remember exactly what happened, when and where, or why some decisions were made. Typically Sir George says one thing, Paul another, and Geoff Emerick something else.
I know some of the people involved don't think there has been a true representation of the original recordings, since the original vinyl was released, and that includes the celebrated remastered CD's.

Classic GS. ITs not really about the Beatles, panning, or music, or any
of that crap.

Its all about being right and feeling superior.

The smug is really thick here.

No, but if I find the same album release dates in RTB and Lewison, I'm going with it.

-Kirk

Double ugh (ugh)

Have you ever spoken to any of the people involved in person?
They are almost to a man sincere, sensitive, deep thinking people who pride themselves on their standard of work.
But to you they 'blew it' and are now shading the truth to cover it up???????

The release dates have nothing to do with whether Martin knew about stereo mixes or not.
Your talking about different labels serving different markets (Capitol and EMI)
These were the days before fax machines, the internet and transatlantic phone calls were fuzzy and expensive.
The backrooms at Abbey Road were also often chaotic.

And, looking further, Mark Lewisohn, in The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, working from Abbey Road logs, gives particulars of mono and stereo mixes for many of the songs on Please Please Me... on the same days.

In fact, looking at page 28, it is obvious that both the mono and the stereo mixes for most of the Please Please Me LP were done on one day - Feb 25, 1963.

-Kirk

I'm sure they are. And I think the standard of their work is terrifically high. But facts are facts, and there were no separate surprise later UK mixes. That's supported in highly-considered books by guys who have done the research.

Geez read that page in Recording The Beatles if yo can get your hands on a copy. Those guys say exactly what I'm saying, in slightly more polite language. Slightly.

Well here's the quote, after saying the stereo mixes were done on Feb. 25, 1963, "with Smith and Martin in attendance" - p.364: "How the producer could have been shocked to later learn of the existence of the stereo mixes is unclear."

-Kirk

I'm saying there's no room in your thesis for "I forgot", like Martin genuinely thought there was no stereo mix because he didn't deem it an important detail at the time. He's 'bull****ting' in your view.
I asked a Beatle engineer what mic he used on a particular drum and his reply was "can't remember".
The early albums were all in a day's work and never perceived to be ground breaking future historical recordings.

This is the famous interview with George Martin, by Allan Kozinn, from 1987. Also listed on the bibliography page of Recording the Beatles. Martin thought the stereo mixes were done in 1965, being unaware that he himself had supervised the stereo mixing of The Beatles early LPs before each release. He also talks a bit about the original multi-track arrangement of drums and bass on track 1 (panned left), guitars on track 2 (panned right), and vocals on tracks 3 and 4 (panned almost to the centre).

Regards.

I'm currently working on some music about the first family to settle in my home town, in Moab, Utah. They had some amazing, important, tragic things happen to them, and I've read a lot of accounts and even talked to a few old people who knew them.

Every freaking account is different. The ones written 70 years ago differ from each other. The accounts I personally got from old guys who heard it first-hand from the people in the stories are wildly different.

So now I don't put much stock in what somebody remembers, especially when it doesn't make sense. I do tend to believe somebody who looked up the original paperwork, like Lewisohn did.

I do not believe Geoff Emerick when he says Blackbird was recorded outside and the bird noises you hear were from the real birds outside that day. I don't think that makes him a bad or unreliable person.

I do believe he was one king hell of an engineer because I can hear the results with my own ears.

So yes it's quite possible that George Martin doesn't remember ever doing a stereo mix until, what, 1968? simply because he doesn't remember.

So maybe I'm being hard on him. But using his statements to support a Beatles-in-mono-only case is wrong and weird because it doesn't make any sense and is not supported by the historical record.

And I don't appreciate Barry Gibb or whoever he is telling me I can't use my brain because I wasn't an EMI employee in 1963. So yeah I'm going off and making an asshole out of myself here because I'm a little annoyed. Also it's late and I'm tired and I don't want to go to bed.

I do think that Gearslutz in general should use their heads instead of parroting the last crap they read - on those rare occasions when that happens, of course


-Kirk

There are videos online available of blackbird being recorded, in studio. There's a lot of folk lore when it comes to record creation. After all, we are the music makers; the dreamers of the dream.

Love you all. Take care.

Thanks, I'm reading it right now!

-Kirk

Frank Daniels's article "The Beatles in Stereo" offers a different opinion on the subject.

Regards.