Curious:
Joey,
I grew up listening to my older cousins original Beatles albums (Meet the Beatles, Beatles 65 and A Hard Day's Night)....
Is it mono for you or stereo?
I like the mono stuff: those rhythm guitars, harmonies etc.. just sound so big
In stereo, i lose something.
I know the mono is avaliable on one of the box sets...

Ronnie Richards wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 4:48am:


As soon as Yoko Ono came into his life, his interest in The Beatles was zilch, & she came into his life around that time they were recording The White Album.

I have the Mono and the Stereo box sets. I haven't gotten to the Mono box yet, but the Stereo is a thing of beauty. There are all kinds of things I'm hearing for the first time. The music sounds much better than the 1987 discs.

Didnt buy 'em in the end due to the cost and the fact I couldnt choose between both sets, so I downloaded them (in lossless format) from demonoid.

Even though my ears aren't what they were 10-20 years ago, its quite apparent that they're absolutely wonderful. Have to say I actually prefer the mono releases, because for most of the Beatles' career, thats the way that were recorded (the White Album was the first new release to be issued in stereo, and that was only in the US)

I've honestly no interest in the Stones remasters. I've bought some of these albums about four times already and without bonus tracks or some significant sonic improvement, I won't be doing so again. I've listened to them on Spotify and that'll suffice.

" Lennon was hardly "driving" the band while recording the White Album..  "

Concur .

I was referring to the 1964 - 1966 time period before John ' acquiesced ' leadership of the band to MACCA .

I remain ..................... FOREVER !!!!!! ............ your ' kins .


Joeykins , Est. 1999 and loved by Everybody

"  Time was when a home video of Keith cutting
his toenails could have shifted more copies than that.  "

< -------- Christ , that is postin' on loan from GOD right there !!!

I purchased the Beatles stereo box set. I've only listened to a few discs, but they sound amazing.

Haven't budged towards the Stones "remasters". No real point if there aren't any extras. At one point I was interested in IORR, just to see if some of the muffled sound was glossed. Virgins will do for me.

I'd like to go back to Gazza mentioning the horrible sales of these remasters...what can we factor this down to? Illegal downloading or just an uncanny disinterest in the Stones (or maybe people just have them already and aren't buying them...kind of like me)? I got into the Stones when I was around 17 or 18 years of age. I went out and I bought all of the cds that were in store that I could find. I bought all of the good, decent vinyl I could...and you know what, I was like the only person I knew (except for a few college colleagues) that even liked the Stones. The Stones may seem to saturate the market, but realistically I think they're music is very UNDERRATED. A select few of their songs are played to death on radio, but Zeppelin, Sabbath, AC/DC--these are the classic bands the young ones are gunning for. The "classic rock" bands that get airplay on the rock stations that play more of a modern heavier rock. I don't really think the Stones are lumped into that--as far as I know they are usually on classic rock stations (or "oldies").

Honestly, I think illegal downloading may be the big factor here. But I also believe the Stones don't appeal to some. That's fine by me. I just have the belief that the person has to find the Stones, not the other way around. I found them. And I'm proud of that!

" ...  belief that the person has to find the Stones,
not the other way around. I found them. And I'm proud of that ! "

Boomy ......................................


You are much loved by Joey


Joeykins ( He only knows how to love ) .

" However, important factors are mediocre marketing and the fact that pretty much everyone by now who wants to buy a Stones CD has had ample opportunity to do so - so this isn't going to entice anyone but completists. Marketing hasnt done the Beatles' sales any harm - the sales for these remasters immediately exceeded demand and new copies had to be pressed. Their '1' album - released in 2000 - was also the biggest selling album of the last decade (over 30 million). Not bad for a collection of songs that were 30-40 years old and released several times before.

Its also a knock-on effect of the Stones' own greed in the concert market. They've all but cut off new ticket buyers because their prices are too prohibitive - the upshot of that is that a potential generation of fans are not only excluded from their shows, but aren't going to bother discovering their recorded music either.  "


I really ,  REALLY miss John Lennon !!!!!!!!!


Shot in the BACK !!!!!!  ... Four Friggin TIMES  !!!!!  ... right in front of his apartment . Why ?!

*** WHY ?! ****




Joey Lennon ™

2000monkey wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 10:43pm:


I hate when that happens, No Stones Slot. I've had that happen it seems quite alot in my Life. No Stones Slot now, Shit. 
Jerry Lee Slot Was my first Disappointment at the Woolworths

Mickboy's stuff is generally pretty good and maybe another reason for not buying the Universal remasters.

His upgrade of Goats Head Soup was absolutely the best of the lot - partly because the mix of the original album was so mediocre. I heard the album with new ears after listening to 'Dancing so Free'.

Overall, do you think the Universal remasters are any better than his efforts, though?

eric wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 7:25am:



Agree on all of that. That said, if the Stones albums hadnt been remastered since the time CBS first released them on CD in the mid 80s, I think much more of a fuss would have been made. When it comes to marketing their recorded work, the difference in both acts is like night and day - which is even more galling when you consider the Beatles haven't made a proper record in four decades.

A band that used to take out full page ads urging fans not to buy 'inferior' Decca product in the early 70s has now transformed into a band who in the last five years has a) authorised the release of a live album that none of them could be bothered to listen to in advance (as evidenced by the fuck up on Live Licks, a flaw noticed by EVERYONE who heard it and which is STILL uncorrected on re-pressings),  b) allowed guitar technicians to overdub parts of a live DVD (see the credits of 'Biggest Bang' and c) appear to have abdicated all artistic control over the abomination that was 'Rarities' (ie, half the songs chosen weren't rarities at all and the sleevenotes were thrown together by an incompetent idiot).

The quality control department at Stones HQ appears to have committed a mass hari-kiri in the last few years.