I agree. Considering how lucrative alternate mixes are on the black market, EMI should recognize the marketing potential of releasing the original mono mixes with improved sound as well as their stereo counterparts, nicely tweaked. There's a lot more on those masters than the CD issues would suggest. I grew up with stereo mixes of the first four albums, as have most American listeners. And yet, the very stuff that the Beatles themselves have said were truly created for mono (notably, Revolver & Pepper) have not yet been issued officially. Rubber Soul sounds superb in mono, especially "Drive My Car', which has an R&B Stax/Volt punch missing from all stereo mixes. Remixing would be great, but there are a lot of fetishists out there who decry such practices as heretical. I say that any chance to hear some of our favorite music in a new way is a good thing. Amen, Bob. On 10/14/04 3:36 AM, "bob_hutton@standardlife.com" wrote: > > > > > Thanks to Chris Coyle for all the interesting info. on the Beatles US > mixes. Fascinating. I'll prob. end up buying this set. > > However, what the Beatles catalogue really needs is for someone to dive in > and create fresh modern stereo mixes of as much of their material as > possible (like the work done on Yellow Submarine songtrack) and ALSO to > remaster them using up to date technology. I have all the CD versions of > their albums and I find the sound on some of them incredibly thin and weedy > (Please Please Me, Beatles for Sale, Revolver). > > I had the Beach Boys 2-fers when they came out back around 1990, and > happened to pick up (cheaply) the remastered new (circa 2000) version of > Today/Summer Days. The newer one blows the earlier CD away TOTALLY in > respect of audio quality. The Beatles back catalogue deserves to be kept > up to date sonically in the same way. > > So, Apple, Parlophone, whatever ..... how about new versions of all the > Beatles albums, each containing remastered modern "true" stereo mixes PLUS > the original mono mixes (over which George Martin took so much care). Now > that would be something worth waiting for. > > > Bob >