Is 'Let it Be' DVD finally coming?

Not that it's always easy to pick out the "Get Back" dialog at other times, but the "lunch tape" is especially difficult. It was recorded with a hidden microphone. It was recorded in a lunch room at a busy film studio where other people are also eating. And to top it all off, it was recorded at 7.5 ips (the vast majority of the "Get Back" tapes were done at 15 ips) - the slower speed ostensibly used to capture the entirety of lunch since the stealth method didn't allow for a reel change. So there's the combination of lots of words being inaudible and the three Beatles sometimes tap dancing around delicate issues. It's certainly not the holy grail it might have been, partly because Paul and Ringo never tell John honestly why George is so upset (and John still doesn't get it, really).

 

I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think that's what is happening. These guys have/had a hard time really talking about their feelings at that time and maybe even now. They expressed in their music, not verbally because maybe they never had examples of that growing up.

 

Oh Good Kos, no one is watercressed by your lettuce jokes, so please stop.



I apologise.

 

No need. Thanks. I feel slight less ashamed now.

 

So...

Is it finally coming?

 

If monkeys on typewriters can eventually write Shakespeare, there is no reason why Hollywood can't stage another production of Let It Be. It won't be exactly the same, but it will at least be something.

 

If everyone has seen it, why not just release it then? The argument goes both ways.

 

Bored as hell = I'm strung out on heroin even though I'm supposedly with the new love of my life and I can't write a new song to save my ****.....

 

Don't forget "M" which became "GP" and, later, "PG". And it was "X", not "XXX".

 

How rude-icchio of you.

 

That's salad gold.

 

I think it might be relevant to mention here that if you read George's sworn affidavit that was read into the court record during the early 1971 trial when Pual went to court to have the partnership dissolved, that he swore in that testimony that he left the band during Let it Be due to a fight with Paul. He perjured himself.

Paul as plaintiff had a right of reply after the other 3 Beatles sworn affidavits were read into testimony to respond, with an affidavit of his own that was also read into the court record. You will find George, John and Ringo's affidavits on the internet just google. You will not find either of Paul's - there were two.

In his second he did set the story straight, he said that George left because of a flare up with John but that George was unhappy generally and he said (and he didn't have to) that he had contributed to that but nevertheless the event that immediately preceded George's departure was a fall out with John due to George not getting on with Yoko.

It's all in the record. The court transcript is there. In relation to the story of the Beatles, the truth went under the bus along time ago. No one is interested in addressing it anymore as it's not straightforward. Do Paul or Ringo really want to point out George perjured himself and do we really want to get into the motives? There are a lot of George fans in the world they're not ready for or interested in that aspect of George's personality and it's gone, past, over now not a single story written can be unwritten. I understand them letting it be.

You know in George's defence shortly before the trial and while he was finalising his affidavit and story, he did have a crisis of conscience, he did wonder if it was really worth doing but he did go ahead with it and you know people always think George disliked Paul for his supposed bossiness but I always thought it was more complex, I thought George couldn't ever make his peace with how he treated Paul and so it was easier to think of Paul as the bast**rd who deserved it but deep down I think he remained conflicted over it all for a long time, in my opinion.

Paul doesn't go there out of respect and affection for George, again in my opinion. In Paul's testimony in court he really didn't say anything unkind about the other Beatles. He was sad it came to pass as it did and even when it was all done and despite their very public derision towards him, he never stopped being really fond of them.

 

John or Paul: what does it matter? Both of them screwed George out of getting his recorded songs on albums in 1967 and 1968.

 

More than enough! That thing drives me wild. The main reason I can't listen to a lot of the Get Back tapes.

 

No, it's not. He clearly says "Leicester De Montfort Hall". That's what I heard it to be 40 years ago when I first saw the film

 

I'd say they were pretty generous letting Piggies make the cut. Ditto Love You Too in 66.

 

I'll take "Not Guilty" over:

"Obladiblada"
"Wild Honey Pie"
"Revolution 9"
"Why Don't We Do It In The Road"
"Bungalow Bill"
"Blackbird"
"Monkey"
"Cry Baby Cry" (the version that they released; prefer the Anthology version)

Including "Only A Northern Song" on Sgt. Pepper's is a no brainer with that great arrangement and psychedelic sounds (it's more psychedelic than anything that actually made the album!).

 

Saw the film when it was released in the US. It sucked. Saw it years later on the Internet. It still sucked. If rereleased it will still suck. Paul and Yoko must think it sucked too.
I couldn't care less if it's ever released.

 

In the movie-scene itself it's making sense; he's talking to John who's giving hardly any response being high on heroin or being fed up with anything his estranged partner has to say.

 

Do people believe this coming soon. Is that what has prompted all this discussion.Why now?

 

They needed to do some more takes, and finishing work, but quit on the project before that. I think they were adrift in the studio due to the nature of the film project, and could have used George Martin's help polishing up the album after the filming was done. He produced the Get Back and Let it Be singles. They should have used him on the rest of the songs, which were great in and of themselves.

 

Right, that's what I mean. It's not the same type of thing as when they were getting along, but it's something where because they can't express themselves, they have their own way of communicating their feelings.

 

Thanks for posting this. I'm honestly so baffled by Paul and George's relationship. This might be a dumb question, but why would George do that? Why did they go to such great lengths in general to keep John and George's fight a secret, even before the trial, and how do you know he had a crisis of conscience?

 

It's very interesting that several posters have noted John's 'boredom' and him 'staring into space' while Paul is speaking, but at no point in that scene with Paul speaking do we ever see John's face. He may be smiling or maintaining eye contact or something positive the whole time. Aside from the clip used in the movie, he does speak to Paul on the Nagras during this conversation.

 

Note what Paul actually says.
Whenever we talk about it we have certain rules like we ask George what do you want to do? No films, but that is wrong, very wrong. Because you don't know, what he says is no films. What he means is no "Help" or "Hard Days Night", and he's right. And I agree. But no films?, and this is a film and he now doesn't mind this. It's that type of thing. No TV shows. No audience. I mean see the thing coming from back from Hamburg and we did deMontfort Hall Leicester, wherever it was? Coventry? We played the ballroom, worst first night thing, we are all nervous and we played another the next night, better again, next night, we got over the hang up of an audience, there was no one there but it was a new kind of thing, some fella in the front watching what you are playing, you know and if you could have recorded those things, they were the greatest, it's like what Mal said, it's that "bounce" thing. We're good at that once we get over the nervousness, it's like the hurdle of that nervousness is there now, so the.... you know when the...we can't get over it now unless we really go to the Albert Hall and set it up like that and the only other alternative to that is we will never do it to an audience again, but if we intend to keep any type of contact on that scene, I mean I do understand George saying there's no point because we're Stravinsky and it's in the music and he doesn't get up and play his Joanna for them anymore.

I'm not sure what a 'black pack' is?