Oliver Clothesoff

Yellow Submarine will be the original LP with the instrumentals. The "Songtrack" was released as a special thing when the DVD was released.

Supermallet

Good to know. Not that I ever listen to the instrumentals, but it's nice to have them. And in the original packaging, too.

TomOpus

This would be worth standing in line at a midnight release party.

Sean O'Hara

I blame Jobs and the Woz -- if only they'd named their company Tangerine, Apple Music would be more willing to go digital.

(Of course, then Tangerine Dream would be pissed.)

aintnosin

If only they had known back in 70s they'd be in the music business. Too bad one of the couldn't have told them.

B5Erik

I worked at a record store as the original CD releases came out. It was a huge deal. We sold a lot of them, and played all of them in the store.

Yeah, the remasters are about 10 years overdue...

Gerry P.

The discs came out two per week and there was a ton of fanfare. I made a trip to the record store every tuesday to get these.

The Valeyard

These releases will be mine!!!!

MBoyd

I had most of the original CDs. Then an ex GF sort of kept them during college after the break-up and I fell away from listening to the Beatles. I bought LOVE a couple of years ago and really liked it and will probably buy at least one of these sets.

Eplicon

My only gripe is that the mono and stereo versions are separate releases, rather than combined. It's the only way to get the best of both worlds (e.g., the mono set having the original 1965 stereo mixes of Help! and Rubber Soul). It would've been nice if they restored the songs via the multi-track tapes as was done for the Yellow Submarine Songtrack and Love, but then purists would be in an uproar over the tampering of the original sound.

Nonetheless, I'll still get both.

Hokeyboy

I'll easily buy every last disc in the collection. And it's streeting the same day as The Beatles: Rock Band, which is a must purchase (along with the Beatle-inspired instruments). I might as well take that week off...

auto

Actually, you better work....maybe get some overtime!!

Spiderbite

I am not a huge purist so I am wondering what the attraction to getting both sets are? Why get the mono version? I kind of understand wanting the original version but if there is a better sounding stereo version available, why get the mono?

I am not criticizing but am honestly curious. It may change my perspective to just buy the stereo versions.

kurupt

Agreed. This will be a very expensive day.

Hokeyboy

Many fans/purists feel that the mono albums (up to and sometimes including Sgt. Pepper) sound better, more natural, tighter, whatever. Others feel that a natural stereo mix can be produced from the original masters. To be honest, I prefer the mono mixes but enjoy the stereo ones as well, which is why I'm psyched to have both.

cungar

What does a "tight" CD sound like? Is there such a thing as a loose sounding CD? Why would an album being in mono make it sound "tighter"?

Hokeyboy

Shhhh. Relax.

Many complain the stereo sounds too dispersed; that the reproduction sounds more artificial and less natural sounding than the mono. That the mono is a "better" reproduction of the material. YMMV.

Buttmunker

To me, it is like comparing the sound of A Hard Day's Night album (mono) to The White Album (stereo).

A Hard Day's Night stands out more - was a little louder and easier to listen to. If I mixed the two albums on one tape/CD mix, the songs from AHDN were louder than the White Album. If a song from the White album came on, I had to raise the volume in order to hear it.

That's what I think the difference is.

Rypro 525

Which albums weren't released in mono, the white album and Abby Roads? If these sound anything like the "Love" remixes, I will be a happy camper. These will be availible seperatly right? I only really want the 2 past masters, and everything past rubber soul, as to be honest, i am not the hugest fan of the really early Beatles.

to anwser the question, why mono, I have always hated the "fake" stereo sounds on Beatles albums (that, and they give me a headache when listening on headphones), since usually have the singing in one speaker and the instruments in the other, or a little mix here and there. Maybe they can fix that/make it sound better then the remaster

Eplicon

One thing about the mono mixes is that they weren't just fold-downs of the stereo counterparts. They were specifically mixed with a particular sound design in mind, which is why a lot of the Beatles songs differ quite a bit with the two versions. They often utilized different takes with alternate lead vocals or instrumentation, among other things. There are a bunch of these mono versions posted on Youtube; the difference is almost like night and day.

wm lopez

As long as no P. Diddy or other rapper is remixing these everything is cool!

Oliver Clothesoff

Not only that, but they would spend weeks on the mono mixes, often laboring over them, and the stereo mixes would be completed shortly after under much less time.

It's clear which versions they cared about most - at least through the White Album - it was the mono mix.

nazz

Yep. The Beatles themselves were very involved in the mono mixes and then left on holiday while someone else knocked off the stereo mixes without their input. The early stereo mixes were treated as if they were no more than a novelty.

DamingR

I hope you guys are right that these aren't going to be compressed. I'll believe it when I see the WAVs.

auto

Excellent contribution!