Acoustic Sounds
Lyra

The Beatles

The Beatles 1964 US Albums In Mono

Music

Sound

The Beatles 1964 US Albums in Mono

Label: UMe/Apple Corps Limited

Produced By: Executive Producer: Jeff Jones, Project Producer: Guy Hayden

Engineered By: Various

Mixed By: George Martin

Lacquers Cut By: Kevin Reeves

By: Michael Fremer

November 21st, 2024

Format:

Vinyl

"The Beatles 1964 US Albums In Mono"—A Complete Success?

I went in a cynic came out a believer—with a few minor caveats

If you were not expecting greatness from this set be prepared to be disappointed. The box set's producers understood that the high bar set by the all-analog 2014 The Beatles In Mono box set required this American follow up to be at least equally good, if not better, even though it covers but a single year in the life of The Beatles and the group's relationship with Capitol Records. But what a year it was! Filled with label competition, marketing intrigue, and a business backdrop most Beatles fans—even the most committed—to this day don't fully appreciate. They will after experiencing this box set.

Rather than providing an overview booklet covering the set, which includes Meet The Beatles!, The Beatles Second Album, the United Artists soundtrack album release A Hard Day's Night, Something New, Beatles '65, The Early Beatles and The Beatles Story, the producers wisely chose to have Beatles expert Bruce Spizer write enlightening annotation for each album included in a glossy full sized folded "one sheet" insert in each record that details the album-by-album history of how Capitol and its head of foreign product Dave Dexter of necessity sliced, diced and assembled these albums that mostly differ greatly from the British releases of that time. Spizer portrays Dexter as neither a hero nor a villain. Though most of us see Dexter as the latter, chances are good you'll come away with, if not a flattering opinion of him, a more respectful one. I came away with a far greater appreciation of Dexter's accomplishments, though of course he's also responsible for four times rejecting and not releasing The Beatles, so basically he caused all of his subsequent troubles!

But before getting to the story, consider the box and its production. The master tapes used to cut the originals back in 1964 were used here (yes, of course these master tapes are from copies sent to Capitol by George Martin at EMI), cut by Kevin Reeves on a lathe that originated in 1971 at Capitol Studios in Los Angeles that was later moved to Nashville. The Early Beatles tape appears to be a flat dub copy produced 5-21-71, based on the tape images provided for each record.

Reeves's name set off alarm bells for me and many others who did not appreciate his work cutting the Verve By Request series. Many, though not all of those records were cut at unacceptably low levels and sounded weak compared to streamed files, almost as if inexplicably cut at a fixed groove pitch. I heard complaints from many readers who'd bought some of the By Request records and found them to be defective.

Then, before listening to any of these records, I watched a video featuring UMe's Pat Kraus who I'd gotten to know when I toured UMe's Iron Mountain vault outside of Pittsburgh.

When Reeves talked about the process used to produce these mono records my concerns grew. At one point he described lacquer cutting issues including high cutting levels and vertical modulations that can cause both cutting and playback issues, but mono cuts are 100% lateral. There are no vertical modulations so why refer to those in this video?

My low expectations evaporated a few seconds into "I Want to Hold Your Hand", which was cut hot and with lots of energy even though the grooves looked kind of tame. This record should rock. It was aimed at teenagers who'd just suffered an assassination trauma! I'm not going to go record-by-record here because the sound was generally consistent throughout (with one exception) and yes, I compared these to my original monos. The overall sound is a bit brighter and harder on top than on the originals but that's similar to the differences between the U.K. original monos and the 2014 mono box also cut from tape. I ascribe those differences to perhaps cutting electronics or to the fact that Capitol's mono lathes in 1964 were, according to my sources, Scully, not Neumann. Different chain, different sound, but not fundamentally different as has long been the case with digitally remastered sound (it's getting more difficult to hear 'digital' as the sampling rates and bit depth increases—these tapes have a memo on each saying "digitized at 32 bit/192K"). Wouldn't it be interesting hear a record sourced from tape on one side and from that file on the other? The MPO pressed records are of exceptionally high quality: flat, concentric, quiet—all of them in the box I received. I hope yours are equally well-pressed.

If you're looking for a writer who's going to go track by track and compare to the originals, you've come to the wrong place. I don't see the point to that. I sat down and played through the entire box in one sitting and enjoyed almost all of it.

That says something to me because if it wasn't fully enjoyable sonically I couldn't have done that, but these transfers had the musical and sonic "flow" and transparency you're hoping to get. And the dynamics within the limitations of the compression applied in the original production and transfer. My only criticism is that I found Beatles 65 exceedingly bright, but at the time I figured it also could have been listener fatigue after a few hours of listening loud, sometimes singing, and often remembering where I was and what I was doing when I first heard the tunes all those years ago. It will take you back if you go back that far! But make no mistake: you can crank most of these records and the sound only gets better, not harsh and in your face. And the bottom end is not overly attenuated. It's appropriate to the tracks and varies between them. This was not a "cookie cutter" mastering job.

The next day (today) I listened to the box set's Beatles 65 and then to an original mono pressing and then to the same tracks on a U.K. copy of Beatles For Sale, which means all of side one minus "Kansas City". And yes, the new remastered Beatles 65 is excruciatingly bright compared to the original Capitol and especially to the U.K. original, which sounds a bit meek and polite. The U.K. needs cranking up to come to life, the box set Beatles 65 needs turning down to prevent ear-bleed and the American original sounds best, though somewhat teen-squashed. Look, these are not audiophile specials!

But now here's a bit of a shock—and I admit I didn't know this though perhaps some of you did—and kudos to the producers for divulging it on all of these records: for instance on Meet The Beatles! only tracks 1 and 3 on side one ("I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "This Boy") were true mono mixes sent by Martin/EMI to Capitol. The others are fold downs from the stereo tracks sent to Capitol "made by Capitol's Lee Minkler from stereo masters on December 19, 1963" (the original cutting engineers are credited for each record, which is a nice tribute). The mono version accounted for 90% of sales because mono record players are what kids had back then.

The source news improves on subsequent records: On The Beatles Second Album five of the eleven are true stereo. And on Something New and Beatles 65 all of the songs are sourced from true mono tapes. For The Early Beatles only "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You" were sourced from mono (most readers know there were no stereo mixes of those). The others were fold downs.

The goal here is to give you the experience of what kids (maybe you but maybe not) experienced when you first heard and bought these Beatles albums and that's what these records provide. They are louder and more American Pontiac GTO, less British Hillman Husky. The acetate backed tapes have held up extremely well for the most part, like the Scotch 111 that serves Blue Notes so well.

The "stereo" United Artists A Hard Day's Night featured fake stereo Beatles songs and real stereo George Martin instrumentals. The mono record features fold downs of everything so I suppose if you want the instrumentals in stereo you'll need a stereo original.

The packaging and annotation are meticulous and outstanding. The artwork reproduction is equally top quality as you'd hope for. There's a bit more blue in the faces on the reissue than on my early copy but colors varied back then.

No bar codes, and you get the original labels and even inner sleeves including for the United Artists A Hard Day's Night soundtrack album as well as full sized tape box images.

The producers give you the correct track listing on the UA album for "I'll Cry Instead", instead of this one:

And even the correct United Artists inner sleeve:

Why post a section of the UA inner sleeve showing the jazz titles? Because wouldn't you want copies of Undercurrent, Money Jungle, Brazil, Bossa Nova and Blues and Three Blind Mice? BTW: that Herbie Mann record has got grooves to die for and is highly recommended. But what's with BILLY HOLIDAY!!! Unfortunately my original A Hard Day's Night doesn't have the insert so I don't know if that's a mistake on the original inner.

There's even a case to be made here for the inclusion of The Beatles' Story. As the amazing Beatles year of 1964 came to a close Capitol had on its books: 3,650,000 copies sold of Meet The Beatles (the label estimated sales of 250,000), more than 2,000,000 copies sold of The Beatles Second Album, more than 1,000,000 copies sold of Something New (sales somewhat limited because side two duplicated tracks from UA's A Hard Day's Night soundtrack, which by the way sold 1,000,000 copies within four days of its release almost two months before the film hit theaters so UA could beat Capitol's Something New release, and eventually sold 4,000,000 copies!), and Beatles '65, which went gold by the end of '64. The Early Beatles wasn't released in 1964 but since it was a replacement for Vee-Jay's Introducing The Beatles released in 1964, fair enough to include it here. It didn't sell that well at first, but eventually sold 1,000,000. It was released March 22nd, 1964 two years to the day that Parlophone released Please, Please Me in the U.K.

The Vee-Jay saga, well summarized in the annotation for The Early Beatles is well worth reading. The label had the rights, then lost it when it ran into financial difficulties and couldn't pay royalties. Through lawsuits it won and lost release rights throughout the year and released the album using more than a few cover and title variants. The annotation covers the Swan and Tollie singles saga too. But it omits the greatest Vee-Jay variant of them all:

That's a joke record someone produced that I saw in a Detroit record store a few years ago, probably to parody The Beatles vs The Four Seasons which was an actual Vee-Jay release..

My point regarding The Beatles Story is that Capitol wanted to cap the amazing year with a Beatles live album for a holiday season release but The Beatles and George Martin blocked the release of the August 23rd, 1964 Hollywood Bowl concert because they didn't like the performance or the sound so Capitol hatched this plot and had it ready to release November 23, 1964 and it sold surprisingly well though it's almost 100% Beatles-free and was produced without input from the group or George Martin. (The only factual error I found in the set was in The Beatles Story annotation that claimed the live album would be the follow up to Something New when it should have been Beatles '65).

For Beatles cynics who don't like much of what Capitol did with the catalog, chopping it up and reinventing it for its own craven commercial purposes, this souvenir is a perfect end cap to a year of Beatles and teen exploitation and properly completes the box set!

Conclusion

In 1963, jazz fan and Capitol Records exec in charge of foreign projects Dave Dexter, Jr whiffed on The Beatles four times, leaving an opening for the small, indie label Vee-Jay to license content from EMI and release that year a series of poor selling singles: "Please Please Me", "From Me to You" and "She Loves You".

Due to its weak finances and an inability to pay timely royalties, the rights to the songs Vee-Jay had licensed would bounce back and forth, producing a cloud of legal confusion and records in and out of the bins. By the end of '63 the noise from England was too great to ignore and Capitol signed up, but only after agreeing to drop $40,000 to publicize the group after it already had stiffed on Vee-Jay.

By then EMI had released With The Beatles, the group's second album. Meanwhile by the fall of 1963 The Beatles and Brian Epstein were angling for a film deal and got one with United Artists, which figured while the movie would flop and not earn back its production costs, it could make up the money with record sales. Both United Artists and Capitol would get the rights to release songs from the "small" teen film.

Capitol released Meet The Beatles on January 11th 1964. The Beatles arrived in America and played on The Ed Sullivan Show first time on February 9th. Seventy three million people watched and all hell broke loose.

This box set attempts and succeeds at unraveling and explaining through "songs, pictures and stories of the Fabulous Beatles" to borrow a Vee-Jay phrase what the hell happened from there as the past present and future Beatles collided that one year,1964.

I thought I knew the story but I didn't. The producers of this box tell it effectively. As you listen to the music and read the annotation you're sure to have a new appreciation for how Capitol chopped, peeled, sliced and diced Ron Pompeil-like the songs they had on hand that required being turned into coherent albums—at at time when kids didn't really buy albums—and churned them out all in a year's work. It's an amazing story.

The star attraction of course are the records and the mastering and pressing are for the most part really good. Ironically, Capitol messed more with the stereo records that few at the time bought than with the mono ones, which were left nicely dry and direct. Beatles '65 was the only shrill sonic disappointment. It would have been nice had someone done a sidebar explaining the tape box numbers and information. But you can't have everything.

Of course it's your choice to spend $299.98 or not but I really think if you do, and you listen through and read as you go, when it's over you'll feel it was money well spent. And surely you'll listen to much of it more often. I already have.

Music Specifications

Catalog No: 0246571746

Comments

  • 2024-11-21 10:11:29 PM

    RickS wrote:

    Excellent and very timely review! One question, are this sets mono mixes the same that came extra with the Capitol CD Box sets minus Hard Days Night and The Beatles Story? Thanks!

    Rick

    • 2024-11-21 10:57:59 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      Since these are the original mixes and I don't think any new mono mixes were every attempted, they must be the same—assuming the CD box set sources were the original mono mixes....

  • 2024-11-21 10:13:01 PM

    RickS wrote:

    And yes, I’d rather hear the vinyl versions either way.

  • 2024-11-22 01:34:27 AM

    Paul Faughnan wrote:

    You should take this copy of Early Beatles and compare it with the original one and an original mono of Introducing the Beatles on VJ.

    • 2024-11-22 04:28:43 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      My original "Early Beatles" is stereo but I could "fold down" using mono switch!

      • 2024-11-22 06:30:26 PM

        Paul Faughnan wrote:

        You could use both the Fold and the stereo plays. (or use a mono cartridge)

        • 2024-11-25 09:04:58 PM

          bwb wrote:

          a true mono cartridge that only has lateral compliance will damage a stereo record. In any case even if it has vertical compliance, it won't mix the stereo channels and turn it into mono

  • 2024-11-22 03:01:38 PM

    MrRom92 wrote:

    One thing that isn’t made clear is whether Reeve’s mastering chain included a proper fulltrack mono head to play back the master tapes… something that is less common in modern mastering facilities than one would think.

    • 2024-11-22 04:27:45 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      True and I do not know. I do know that whatever Kevin Gray does with mono seems to work well. Few today use mono cutting heads either (ERC does).

      • 2024-11-23 11:42:14 AM

        Come on wrote:

        According to one of our most well known cutting engineers, the old mono cutter heads have much more distortion and a more narrow frequency band than modern stereo heads. I guess all this is audible in relation to possible advantages of the mono experience when a mono head is used for cutting. A direct comparison would certainly be interesting.

        • 2024-11-24 12:33:37 PM

          MrRom92 wrote:

          This is true, the SX-74 is perfectly capable of cutting mono when fed the correct mono signal, however you can’t get a good mono signal to the cutterhead if it doesn’t originate with proper tape playback to begin with.

          When you play a mono tape on a stereo head, this causes all sorts of problems. The “best” thing you can do in this scenario is choose one “side” of the playback and at least you are presented with a stable single channel of audio to work with, though this still has problems of its own. Worse SNR, low frequency response is off, tape defects are “magnified”, etc. you are ideally meant to play back a master tape with the head gap matching what it was recorded with. And this only became less and less common as studios did away with their dedicated mono gear in the stereo era.

          Listen to the first four 1987 Beatles CDs and you can hear phase issues and tape splices passing between channels. They transferred those mono tapes on a stereo machine and didn’t do a thing.

          • 2024-11-24 04:28:18 PM

            Come on wrote:

            I think what you say is correct, but my topic was independent of the tape topics relevant before disc cutting. My writing was related to the limitations of mono disc cutter heads alone, related to their possible benefit. Whatever mono signal was fed into them.

            • 2024-11-24 04:31:59 PM

              Come on wrote:

              And what you say (additionally to what I said) makes clear, that there is a lot to consider and compromise to be aware of with mono playback. But sometimes it’s worth it. It’s just a quite low percentage related to the cost of a parallel mono setup.

  • 2024-11-22 06:21:52 PM

    Paul Faughnan wrote:

    also, you could propose a contemporary mono set up to play them back with like HI Fi World did years ago with the semi- equivalent Parlophone box.

  • 2024-11-22 07:04:43 PM

    Daniel Castillo wrote:

    Now upload a full video shoot out containing sound wave comparisons of these reissues and other pressings you own

    • 2024-11-22 07:46:36 PM

      HiFiMark wrote:

      You better get busy Michael. You have a lot of assignments here :)

      So glad these sound good. Was definitely not up for the expense, crapshoot, and effort of finding "minty" originals.

  • 2024-11-22 09:35:24 PM

    Fred Morris wrote:

    So surprisingly gratifying when a major label gets something right! Based on a prior recommendation on this site, I have had good luck with late 70s/early 80s purple label stereo pressings of some of these titles.

  • 2024-11-23 03:45:04 PM

    Matt Gregory wrote:

    Great review Michael. I bought the albums individually. I saved an extra 100. But anyways I am a second generation Beatles fan. I grew up with the US albums. They did a wonderful job with the Captiol tapes they had from EMI . They sound hot and still sounds like AM radio! But I agree with you, Michael on Beatles 65 it sounds very bright and hot. It must be a 3rd generation tape. You still get the reverb on She’s a Woman. And I feel fine. I hope they release the rest of the mono albums. From the US catalog.

  • 2024-11-23 03:45:07 PM

    Matt Gregory wrote:

    Great review Michael. I bought the albums individually. I saved an extra 100. But anyways I am a second generation Beatles fan. I grew up with the US albums. They did a wonderful job with the Captiol tapes they had from EMI . They sound hot and still sounds like AM radio! But I agree with you, Michael on Beatles 65 it sounds very bright and hot. It must be a 3rd generation tape. You still get the reverb on She’s a Woman. And I feel fine. I hope they release the rest of the mono albums. From the US catalog.

  • 2024-11-23 03:45:08 PM

    Matt Gregory wrote:

    Great review Michael. I bought the albums individually. I saved an extra 100. But anyways I am a second generation Beatles fan. I grew up with the US albums. They did a wonderful job with the Captiol tapes they had from EMI . They sound hot and still sounds like AM radio! But I agree with you, Michael on Beatles 65 it sounds very bright and hot. It must be a 3rd generation tape. You still get the reverb on She’s a Woman. And I feel fine. I hope they release the rest of the mono albums. From the US catalog.

  • 2024-11-23 03:45:11 PM

    Matt Gregory wrote:

    Great review Michael. I bought the albums individually. I saved an extra 100. But anyways I am a second generation Beatles fan. I grew up with the US albums. They did a wonderful job with the Captiol tapes they had from EMI . They sound hot and still sounds like AM radio! But I agree with you, Michael on Beatles 65 it sounds very bright and hot. It must be a 3rd generation tape. You still get the reverb on She’s a Woman. And I feel fine. I hope they release the rest of the mono albums. From the US catalog.

  • 2024-11-23 03:45:14 PM

    Matt Gregory wrote:

    Great review Michael. I bought the albums individually. I saved an extra 100. But anyways I am a second generation Beatles fan. I grew up with the US albums. They did a wonderful job with the Captiol tapes they had from EMI . They sound hot and still sounds like AM radio! But I agree with you, Michael on Beatles 65 it sounds very bright and hot. It must be a 3rd generation tape. You still get the reverb on She’s a Woman. And I feel fine. I hope they release the rest of the mono albums. From the US catalog.

  • 2024-11-23 03:45:15 PM

    Matt Gregory wrote:

    Great review Michael. I bought the albums individually. I saved an extra 100. But anyways I am a second generation Beatles fan. I grew up with the US albums. They did a wonderful job with the Captiol tapes they had from EMI . They sound hot and still sounds like AM radio! But I agree with you, Michael on Beatles 65 it sounds very bright and hot. It must be a 3rd generation tape. You still get the reverb on She’s a Woman. And I feel fine. I hope they release the rest of the mono albums. From the US catalog.

  • 2024-11-23 04:55:22 PM

    James Phillips wrote:

    Quick question. Is the mastering analog or digital?

  • 2024-11-23 04:55:25 PM

    James Phillips wrote:

    Quick question. Is the mastering analog or digital?

    • 2024-11-23 10:52:19 PM

      Norman Maslov wrote:

      All analog. No digital

    • 2024-11-23 10:52:21 PM

      Norman Maslov wrote:

      All analog. No digital

  • 2024-11-23 05:39:07 PM

    Michael Kimsey wrote:

    Great assessment except for one part; I felt the covers looked like merely adequate scans as opposed to true original artwork. Small quibble but if you’re going to try and replicate the originals; go all the way.

  • 2024-11-24 08:29:34 AM

    Jennnifer Martin wrote:

    Excellent Michael, thank you. And your excitement and awe at seeing those tapes at the vault is akin to my excitement and awe at studying composers' manuscripts at the Library of Congress, the British Library, the Morgan Library, etc.

  • 2024-11-27 07:03:04 AM

    Bruce Nelson wrote:

    Michael:

    I just played my copy of the new "Beatles '65" this morning, and I agree that it's bright or hot. I sort of like hearing the string twangs emphasized, but overall the sound seems distorted when compared to the old "stereo" copy I have. I almost thought my cartridge was mis-tracking!

    You mention being able to recall when we first heard these records. I was 10 years old when I first heard "Beatles '65" at a friend's house, played on little record player in a gray clamshell case that I thought was very cool. I again live near that house, and lately, when I walk past it, I look up at the window of the room where I heard "Beatles '65" for the first time. The Beatles were something very special to be able to create such a vivid memory of listening to an album.

    The only Beatles albums I bought back then were "The Beatles Second Album" (mono), which was the second album I bought, after "Mr. Tamborine Man" by the Byrds, and the stereo "A Hard Day's Night" soundtrack. I recall that I paid $5 at a stationery store for "A Hard Day's Night." I would have bought a mono copy for $4, but they didn't have it.

    I still have the well-worn copy of "The Beatles Second Album," but I sold or traded the soundtrack for "A Hard Day's Night" after I bought the British version without the instrumentals in the early 1970s.

    FWIW, I didn't buy the $300 box set. I don't care about the box, or "The Beatles Story," or the "Hard Day's Night" soundtrack. I bought the five "good albums" for $150, a pretty good deal.

    One last memory: I still recall the frisson caused by hearing the opening chord of "A Hard Day's Night" at the local movie theatre, now long gone. Even playing that song on a record gives me a thrill. Every time!

  • 2024-11-27 02:42:52 PM

    rl1856 wrote:

    "The source news improves on subsequent records: On The Beatles Second Album five of the eleven are true stereo."

    Does this mean that 5 songs on this album are stereo ? Or were stereo tapes supplied, and Capital folded the mix down to mono ? The answer is important to listeners using a true mono cartridge.

  • 2024-11-27 07:10:04 PM

    Steve wrote:

    Perhaps I missed something. Why is there no SPARS code? It seems like the review alluded to this being a digital production, but I'm never sure. A major reason why I read your reviews is that you post the SPARS code.

    I remember when I bought the Parlophone stereo rerelease years ago, and I was really disappointed with the sound (not knowing it was not an all-analog recording) Everything sounded dead, lifeless, and involving Later, when I found out the set had digital in the chain, it made sense. The Parlophone mono set sounded a lot better to me. Or, rather, my foot started tapping, and that's what it's all about to me- a physical and emotional connection to the music.

    • 2024-11-29 07:50:48 PM

      Steve wrote:

      involving = noninvolving

  • 2024-12-02 02:04:39 AM

    Lemon Curry wrote:

    Some comments on MPO for the pressings.

    My knowledge of their work comes from the two Taylor Swift albums I have on vinyl: Folklore and Evermore. (These are two fairly decent albums, btw). Pressed at...MPO. Each a double LP, that's 4 chances to have a decent press, but each of those 4 disks has noise problems.

    Swift moved away from MPO recently. But then here comes The Beatles to replace her.

    I must say the 3 Capitols I bought are good. But I am reading of others having issues with non-fill.

    Why MPO? Why Revolver on GZ? Rhino High Fidelity, Acoustic Productions... these guys are doing it right.

    I'd really like to see future Beatles vinyl step up to the plants that are their equals in stature.

    • 2024-12-02 01:28:19 PM

      HiFiMark wrote:

      I purchased the "6" individually and they are all terrific pressings - clean, quiet, and flat. They are so good that I was, in fact, theorizing in my head that Capitol must have leaned hard on MPO to get them right.