This is just fantastic because it's the same way i felt as well. I bought an original us stereo about 8 years ago and last year i finally purchased an original us mono and i was floored at the difference. Not as direct and obvious why it sounds so different like the Beatles white album, but the feeling and emotion are very distant on the stereo pressing of blonde on blonde. It's a pretty dry and distant pressing when you compare the two.
I’m happy to hear you’ve experienced the same. I just think it is astounding how big the emotion of a record can change by a different mix/pressing even though they are presented as ‘the same’ album.
@Top 5 Records The voice's texture is really nicely detailed as well as the harmonica. Tambourine is so natural on Rainy Day Women. Tight on spot defined bass with Visions of Johanna, where also one gets all the organ fills at any level. Not all share the same dynamics. Overall I notice the songs differ in mix quality. Think that was the artist intention. More on the organic than on the airy side, sometimes missing low end definition , but its the 60ties. That suits the album well. Though I must admit you made me curious about the MoFi.
It is most likely the first double album. Immediately followed by the second double album, as Freak Out by Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention was released a week later.
@@top5records796 thanx for that data. I would have guessed that album was released much later. Well, it's really back in the day. Hard to keep the timelime in my head. I was 9 back then. But my sisters were teenagers. I remember them buying the 45rpm single Strawberry Fields that had Peny Lane as Side B, prior to the album release. That blew my mind. But that was almost a year later. I mentioned it because Blonde on Blonde was also my oldest sister's album. I was lucky enough to grow up listening to her choices. I left the country a couple of years later but she grew up to become a manager of some big shot artists and bands, always music-related. I love your analysis. And of course I susbscribed, as should. Congrats
The first time I heard it on vinyl was a via a 70s US repressing (the one with "Columbia" six times around the perimeter). Admittedly I don't recall the exact lacquers used or the pressing plant (probably Pitman, since I bought it here in NJ), but it was fine copy. But it was the stereo mix. I really need to hear a mono pressing.
Good question! The Sterling mono remaster (from 2010) is very good and the difference with the OG is not that big in my opinion. The UK mono sounds just a little bit fresher but the 2010 mono is a wonderful alternative.
Love your videos, you are in the top 3 VC people
Keep the stunning work up.
Rodger
Thank you! I’ll do my best!
This is just fantastic because it's the same way i felt as well. I bought an original us stereo about 8 years ago and last year i finally purchased an original us mono and i was floored at the difference. Not as direct and obvious why it sounds so different like the Beatles white album, but the feeling and emotion are very distant on the stereo pressing of blonde on blonde. It's a pretty dry and distant pressing when you compare the two.
I’m happy to hear you’ve experienced the same. I just think it is astounding how big the emotion of a record can change by a different mix/pressing even though they are presented as ‘the same’ album.
The Canadian stereo pressing which I own must be around the 70ties. It still got Claudia Cardinale insights. Worth a listen as well...
Thanks! How does it sound?
@Top 5 Records The voice's texture is really nicely detailed as well as the harmonica. Tambourine is so natural on Rainy Day Women. Tight on spot defined bass with Visions of Johanna, where also one gets all the organ fills at any level. Not all share the same dynamics. Overall I notice the songs differ in mix quality. Think that was the artist intention. More on the organic than on the airy side, sometimes missing low end definition , but its the 60ties. That suits the album well. Though I must admit you made me curious about the MoFi.
@@KS-yy2fu Thanks! I’m curious! If I find a Canadian pressing I’ll give it a go!
I'm old enough to have grown up listening to the original 1966 release. Mono. Must have been one of the first double albums in hisrory
It is most likely the first double album. Immediately followed by the second double album, as Freak Out by Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention was released a week later.
@@top5records796 thanx for that data. I would have guessed that album was released much later. Well, it's really back in the day. Hard to keep the timelime in my head. I was 9 back then. But my sisters were teenagers. I remember them buying the 45rpm single Strawberry Fields that had Peny Lane as Side B, prior to the album release. That blew my mind. But that was almost a year later. I mentioned it because Blonde on Blonde was also my oldest sister's album. I was lucky enough to grow up listening to her choices. I left the country a couple of years later but she grew up to become a manager of some big shot artists and bands, always music-related. I love your analysis. And of course I susbscribed, as should. Congrats
I Just bought the us pitman. And the first uk stereo. I am curious about the pitman version.
The first time I heard it on vinyl was a via a 70s US repressing (the one with "Columbia" six times around the perimeter). Admittedly I don't recall the exact lacquers used or the pressing plant (probably Pitman, since I bought it here in NJ), but it was fine copy. But it was the stereo mix. I really need to hear a mono pressing.
Nice! Do you still have that 70s pressing somewhere?
@@top5records796 Sadly not, as I was selling it for someone. I should've just bought it off him for myself, haha.
1k! I was subscriber 400
Yes! And thank you BilKojak! For being there all this time!
To answer your question in the title... "Thin, wild mercury music".
Thin, wild mercury music?
@@top5records796 Yep. That's how Bob described Blonde on Blonde. Playboy 1978 interview maybe.
How does the OG mono stack up against the recent mono remaster done at Sterling?
Good question! The Sterling mono remaster (from 2010) is very good and the difference with the OG is not that big in my opinion. The UK mono sounds just a little bit fresher but the 2010 mono is a wonderful alternative.
Nice video man, this 2010 version is the MOV version right? what do you think about this pressing? That's the one I have.
Thanks! It’s not the Music On Vinyl one but the one coming from the 2010 Columbia Legacy Mono box set. A really good box set!
@@top5records796 I read at Steve Hoffman Forum that they're the same versions, cut at the same time on the same room
I just checked discogs and indeed! That one is also mastered by Ryan K Smith. Really awesome! And a rather special release for MOV in that case!
@@top5records796 I want to get another press in Vinyl, I think I'll get a 80's UK stereo version
It's the stereo version by a whisker for me ... not for the voice, but for the music .. the instruments just have more room to breathe in the stereo.
An easy 10!