Kinks 10 CD boxset on the way

ultimateclassicrock.com

The Kinks’ ‘In Mono’ 10 CD box set is scheduled to arrive just in time for the holidays. All seven of The Kinks original British records, from 1964′s ‘Kinks’ through 1969′s ‘Arthur,’ will be released in the UK on Nov. 21. In addition, the set will include three extra CD’s collecting the EP’s and remaining mono material.

The CD’s are packaged in the digipak format and encased in a Dansette style box with a 32 page, pop annual style book with new notes, rare photos, memorabilia, a discography and more. The full list of albums includes: ‘Kinks,’ ‘Kinda Kinks,’ Kontroversy,’ Face To Face,’ ‘Something Else,’ Village Green Preservation Society’ and ‘Arthur.

The EP disc contains ‘Kinksize Session, ‘Kinksize Hits,’ Kweyt Kinks’ and ‘Dedicated Kinks.’ The other two discs are titled ‘The Kinks Mono Kollectables’ and contain various singles from around the world. A complete track listing can be viewed here.

In celebration of ‘In Mono,’ you can register to win a signed Ray Davies guitar on The Kinks official Facebook page. This page also features an image of the Dansette style box (a British manufacturer of a portable mono record player with a built-in speaker) which this writer didn’t find pictured elsewhere.

‘Father Christmas’ knows that he is expected to give The Kinks fans some money but at least this holiday, he’ll know how they intend to spend it.

Why mono?

I understand some people like mono, but the majority of people like stereo.

I'll pass.

Groovy Man said:

Why mono?

Click to expand...

I would guess for the same reason that some people prefer vinyl over epic quality CDs or other digital music, which is something else I'll never understand.

Didn't the Beatles release a bunch of mono stuff a few years back too, and by a bunch, I mean like almost their entire studio discography in mono, on CD.



I don't get it.

^ For the most part vinyl records, taking away the clicks, sound fuller...

Anyway, I understand a lot of albums were released in mono and stereo back in the 60's...

but again, the majority of people like stereo.

I'm sure some people will buy this box.

I'll buy it for sure. Mono just sounds better, the drums are louder in the mix, there's none of that echo when you have all the music on one speaker and the vocals on the other, the way they did then. At the time these songs were recorded mono was still the way most people listened to music, both on the records they purchased and on the radio. In the Beatles case it was the mono mix they cared about, the stereo mixes were an after thought. There were also differences between the stereo and mono versions. It's fun to have both and find them. I don't know if it was this way with the Kinks but I guess I'll find out this Christmas.

Lynch said:

I would guess for the same reason that some people prefer vinyl over epic quality CDs or other digital music, which is something else I'll never understand.

Click to expand...

Umm, I am one of those "vinyl buying hipsters" you're talking about. I haven't bought a cd in nearly two years and have no desire to buy one again. I buy vinyl on a weekly basis. Vinyl is cooler and that's a fact. People who complain about lousy quality vinyl that skips are people who either didn't take good care of their wax (I have Beatles and Zeppelin records released a decade before my birth that sound amazing) or something else.

I have been a DJ since the late 80's and I've listened to music on every pretty much every form imaginable and that includes reel-to-reel. I have vinyl that still looks like it did when it was first opened in the 70's and 80's, I've got CDs that look like I just bought them brand new last week. I know about taking care of the stuff.

I've compared CDs to LPs numerous times, side by side, one after the other. No way... no how ... I don't believe there's anyone out there that can convince me that LP sounds better than CD. I understand there are differences in preference. By that I compare it to viewing a movie in the theater vs at home. Some people would rather sit in the comfort of their own home and watch movies, others would rather go to the theater. Same movie, right? But the experience is different. So I understand some people want/desire the vinyl 'experience' so to speak, but to say that vinyl from the 1960's and 1970's sounds better than digital CDs is just ludicrous (to me). It's like saying VHS is better than DVD (or now blu-ray). Prefer it? Fine. Say it looks or sounds better? Ok... if you say so.

To each his own.

Mr. Bob Dobolina said:

I'll buy it for sure. Mono just sounds better, the drums are louder in the mix, there's none of that echo when you have all the music on one speaker and the vocals on the other, the way they did then. At the time these songs were recorded mono was still the way most people listened to music, both on the records they purchased and on the radio. In the Beatles case it was the mono mix they cared about, the stereo mixes were an after thought. There were also differences between the stereo and mono versions. It's fun to have both and find them. I don't know if it was this way with the Kinks but I guess I'll find out this Christmas.

Click to expand...

Spot on! Couldn't have said it any better. The Village Green Preservation Society CD (3 disc) I purchased a while back has both the stereo and mono mixes, and the mono stuff kicks it! Very strong drum and vocals mix.

Lynch said:

I have been a DJ since the late 80's and I've listened to music on every pretty much every form imaginable and that includes reel-to-reel. I have vinyl that still looks like it did when it was first opened in the 70's and 80's, I've got CDs that look like I just bought them brand new last week. I know about taking care of the stuff.

I've compared CDs to LPs numerous times, side by side, one after the other. No way... no how ... I don't believe there's anyone out there that can convince me that LP sounds better than CD. I understand there are differences in preference. By that I compare it to viewing a movie in the theater vs at home. Some people would rather sit in the comfort of their own home and watch movies, others would rather go to the theater. Same movie, right? But the experience is different. So I understand some people want/desire the vinyl 'experience' so to speak, but to say that vinyl from the 1960's and 1970's sounds better than digital CDs is just ludicrous (to me). It's like saying VHS is better than DVD (or now blu-ray). Prefer it? Fine. Say it looks or sounds better? Ok... if you say so.

To each his own.

Click to expand...

IMO CD's are useless in the era of digital files. They are so impersonal. I like mp3's and all, but if I'm going to OWN a copy of something, I'd prefer a copy on vinyl. There is a whole experience to a copy of something on vinyl that a 5 inch CD can't replicate, now that you can take an 80-160 gig ipod that can contain 20,000 songs on it, who needs a cd player in the car? I don't.

Plus, I am not the biggest fan of loudness wars, and most cd's pressed in the past 15 years suffer from that. Yet many people have actually stated that vinyl copies of some of the biggest "loudness war" culprits (like Metallica's Death Magnetic or Rush's Vapor Trails) said that the mix is clearer and better, and most remasters have been criticized for the whole loudness war thing. Of course, maybe I'm just a hipster who reads Pitchfork because I actually would rather own a vinyl copy compared to a CD version, including modern releases.

ANF said:

IMO CD's are useless in the era of digital files.

Click to expand...

Not true since most of the online "stores" that you buy digital songs from offer a VERY subpar sampled/bitrate. CD = lossless. iTunes store and other comparable sites offer garbage compared to lossless.

ANF said:

who needs a cd player in the car? I don't.

Click to expand...

well, most vehicles on the road do not have an mp3 player input, so ... who needs cd players? I would venture to say that most people 'need' them, or at least have them.

ANF said:

I'm just a hipster who reads Pitchfork

Click to expand...

That right there pretty much sums it up without further explanation. Being from Mpls, I'm aware of Pitchfork since I think they started out as a e-zine here (I think at the UofM but I could be wrong) or whatever term they called it back then.