You’re talking about OLD mono. If mono is the only version (originally recorded in mono) then it’s fine and it’s better to buy mono LP, right. You need only one speaker for those records and it’s OK.
But in the 70’s stereo is the way to go, I much prefer original stereo records (not fake stereo). I don’t know why do we need mono today if stereo is available? Who prefer to record in mono today and why?
Here is one instance where I see absolutely no use for stereo. . think Bob Dylan on his early records when it was him, guitar, and harp. When they put some of them out in stereo they panned the guitar one way and the harp the other with his voice in the middle. Completely unnatural and distracting, much better in mono
In the early days of stereo they tended to show it off by putting some instruments hard left , some hard right, and often left a hole in the middle. There are a lot of small group jazz recordings (trio, quartet) like that. Debatable which is preferable, but definitely not the best use of stereo.
One argument you hear for mono is it allows you to concentrate on the music because your brain doesn't have to process the stereo. Makes some sense.. at a live performance you seldom if ever get the sense of separation and the precise location of instruments in space that you get with a "well done" stereo recording. For most amplified concerts it is a wall of sound, there is no left and right. If the goal really is the proverbial "Absolute Sound" of recreating live performances most stereo falls far short in that regard.
So the question is.. do you prefer the music in stereo or is it the fun of listening to the soundstage they are creating, the unnatural soundstage in most cases. No right or wrong, but a perhaps a valid reason why some may prefer mono for recordings done in stereo.
.