Best sounding Pet Sounds mono?

[Jonas]

Ok, I can hear it. I was listening to the wrong part...dumb me.

Thanks for the clarification!

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

I think it was Bruce who said that Carl's attempt was taped at the end of a very long session when he was out of steam.  Brian redid that part at a later session, apparently on a different multi-track master, and it was edited in.  They have not been able to locate this.  Same kind of story with Mike's bridge on "WIBN", although that was corrected on the 2001 release (they either found that missing multi-rrack, or somehow transferred in the bridge from the mono mix while keeping the stereo sound).

Mark's technical notes seem to indicate that the parts were taped over, rather than sourced from seperate multi-track masters.  But it does seem like what is on the multi-tracks that exist would be the opposite of what you'd expect.  You'd think Mike would tape over Brian's guide, and Carl over Brian's guide, yet Brian's on the WIBN bridge multi, and Brian is on the final mono mix of GOK.

Certainly would seem to me that logically, we might be currently working from a seperate earlier multitrack...but I dunno.  I'll see if I can get Alan over here...

[Reverend Joshua Sloane]

I'm just popping in to say that I greatly prefer Carl's "tired" vocal at the end of GOK to Brian's vocal on that one line. Carl's sounded so lush (similar to the "I love you" from PLMW) whereas Brian's (and his vocal for the song on the other version) always sounded too forced.

[shelter]

I never understood and probably never will understand why people can be so obsessed about alternate mixes and remasters and stuff like that... It's all the same music...

(no offense, just my personal opinion)

[PMcC]

I can only tell you what interests ME about it. Alternate mixes (to a sound guy like myself) is a peek into the mixing process that either came close to what was wanted, but fell short, and from the alternate mix compared to the final mix, you can figure out what was going thru their mind, what direction they were going, and what settings it took to get there. Sometimes alternate mixes have instruments and arrangements that were wiped off of the final mix, and that is great stuff. Then other times you will be treated to an outtake, or a completely different take of the familiar song, all of which are fascinating to me. Remasters I get a little less excited about, but it is still the old takes , but heard in a different way, which creates a new listening experience. I'm just thinking out loud, and typing at the same time, so I hope this is making some sense.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Makes a lot of sense.

[Fire Wind]

I just ordered a copy of the DCC disc, which I'm really looking forward to hearing.  What's the differences between that and the more recent mono/stereo edition.  It was described above as more 'vinyl-sounding'.  Does that mean it's 'warmer', or what else?  I don't have a record player or would have purchased one on vinyl.  So I want the next best thing, but can't really go down the dvd-a route.

Paid quite a bit more than what it presumably was initially (I bought a Blonde on Blonde gold disc years ago that was £18.99).  How much is it really worth these days?  Or, rather, I guess, how much would you pay for a copy?

[JRauch]

It is a lot "warmer" and "vinyl-sounding". The bass is simply incredible. However, it´s not an option for me, since I prefer stereo over mono. If you like the mono-mix, you will LOVE the DCC-version.

[Fire Wind]

Excellent.  I do like the stereo a lot, but ultimately prefer the mono.  Cheers.

[wind chime]

I was blessed to find an origianl vinyl copy last year...bit scratchy...I have the 1990 CD and the 1999 2fer and I prefer the 1990 mono over the 1999 2fer mono as it has too much tape hiss.