I don't mind this collection really, although I can't disagree with the shortcoming that many have pointed out here. (Actually I prefer much of this of the over the embellished Spectorized pieces). What I'll never understand though is why they didn't start out with original "Get Back" album, and then add from there. The rooftop concert, Twickenham rehearsals, alt. Apple Studio takes, etc. Talk about a missed opportunity.
Rosemary Woods definitely worked with inferior source material. I mean, look at this deck! Those tapes should definitely get the MOFI treatment.
There are an awful lot of stories that get accepted as a fact because they've been told and retold (sometimes by the Beatles themselves) for 40+ years. It doesn't necessarily make them true. I"m sure Lewisohn will have more on this many years in the future when Book 3 is out, but Peter Doggett's done quite a bit of digging and research as well, and that is available now. From Peter Doggett's book, You Never Give Me Your Money: When Spector's work was done, he rapidly assembled his mix of the Let It Be album, cut four acetate copies of the LP, and sent one apiece to each of the Beatles for their approval. The four musicians liaised with each other, and approved Spector's work. Only two weeks later, when the presses were already rolling, did Paul suddenly wake up and think, "Hang on a minute, I want to make some changes". But by then it was too late. During the research for my book, I came across the original letter that Spector sent to the four Beatles. Rather than the authoritarian rant I was expecting, his note turned out to be extremely friendly. "If there is anything you'd like done to the album, let me know and I'll be glad to help", he wrote. "Naturally little things are easy to change, big things might be a problem. If you wish, please call me about anything regarding the album tonight." That's definitely the voice of compromise, rather than a control freak. Spector finished mixing the album on April 2. The album was released in the UK on May 8. In the lawsuit breaking up the Beatles, Paul claimed that he never heard the album until it was released. (Lewisohn - Recording the Beatles) John and Phil Spector deny that, and Spector claimed to have a telegram from Paul approving the LP. In fact, Paul's own letter to Spector date April 14 proves he that he'd heard it before it was officially released (see image below). And rather than responding to Spector that night (or soon after) as Spector requested, Paul waited almost 2 weeks before responding. And even then, Paul never said to remove the orchestra or the choir from the mix, but just to lower them in volume and bring up the Beatles voices and instruments. The only thing he wanted removed was the harp, which is heard at the very end of the recording. Here is a copy of Paul's letter to Klein, with cc to Spector. You will notice it is dated on April 14. The UK release of the album ultimately was May 8, but it was originally scheduled to be released on April 28. (Release dates of McCartney LP, Ringo's Sentimental Journey, and Let it Be got moved around because of McCartney's insistance that his album go out on April 17.) Giving a mere 2 weeks notice before release to have LAWR remixed appears an unreasonable demand. Note: He also did this with Anthology 2 but that was years later when he was THE Paul McCartney, and soon to be knighted. He did end up delaying the Anthology 2 release.
Well keep in mind that McCartney never claimed not to have heard the album in his trial to dissolve the Beatles & Co partnership. This letter was submitted into evidence during the trial by Paul and his counsel to prove he'd requested changes after hearing it and they'd never been made. In the trial the argument that was made in relation to TLAWR was that McCartney had lost artistic control of his own work. He never argued he had not heard it. Let's keep in mind that when the release date for the McCartney album was first changed, Paul was not told. John Eastman found out from EMI quite by accident and Paul was annoyed and not having been consulted or even told. Then Allen Klein tried to argue that under the Beatles & Co partnership agreement McCartney was not entitled to release McCartney at all. However McCartney's lawyers argued that the partnership agreement only cover solo performances not recordings and so it was finally, after a protracted back and forth, agreed he could release it and on the original date. Then they decided to change it again and poor old Ringo was sent round but by then McCartney was already unhappy with what had happened previously and wasn't prepared to let them change it again. Also yes a copy of what had been done was sent to McCartney but the invitation was to call "tonight", there is no way to even be sure McCartney heard it within that time frame. Sending something out and then giving such a tight time frame for a response, isn't entirely reasonable really. Maybe if they'd sent a telegram to McCartney to tell him they were changing the song and to tell him when the session would be, they'd strengthen there case but they didn't. They changed his work without him knowing or having any input I agree with George Martin on this one, it was poor that they didn't tell him long before an acetate was going out. He could have fixed the bass for starters However at that time they were working very hard to ensure that they not only didn't tell Paul but they stopped Paul from accessing anything and finding out. We don't know when he heard it, where he was when it was sent to his home address but I think it's unreasonable to say responding within 2 weeks - if indeed Paul got his copy and letter at the same time the others did, which is the date Doggett is working from - doesn't entitle him to some artistic control over his own song. Finally, Ringo is quoted by Doggett as saying Paul said it was ok on the phone, but Ringo actually contradicts that in later comments on LIBN 'It's the de-Spectorised version,' said Ringo. 'Cleaned up a little. Same tracks, same people.' He emitted a confident, though slightly forced laugh. 'I've been listening to it, and it's really great. It fills my heart with joy to hear that band that I was a member of. They were just great.' At this point, I think I nodded vigorously, keen to make it clear that I too thought The Beatles were quite a tidy act. 'Paul was always totally opposed to Phil,' he went on, 'and I told him on the phone, "You're bloody right again: it sounds great without Phil." In my view, McCartney, any artist for that matter, would be 100% justified in being opposed to someone making changes to their work without consulting them and then ignoring their request for changes. He never signed off on the release of the song without the changes.
I don't disagree with much of what you say. Especially the part about an artist having control over his work. I am not arguing that Paul shouldn't have been upset or wanted to have a change. Perfectly within reason. I am stating that two pretty thorough researchers have stated things that do not support Paul's version of events. And in fact, we have evidence in Paul's own letter that he DID hear the album prior to release, even though he says he didn't (according to Lewisohn) So you can take your case up with Lewisohn: "Paul claims, still, that he was not given the opportunity to approve or disapprove of Spector's work, and the first time he heard the album was after its release." (Recording the Beatles, page 199) And you can argue with Doggett: "When he received an acetate copy of Let it Be from Phil Spector, Paul McCartney had grudgingly agreed to its release." (I'm paraphrasing here - upon repeated listening, Paul got more perturbed with what Spector had done to his song) "On Tuesday April 14, ten days or more after he had first heard the album, McCartney rang Apple and demanded to speak to Klein. When he was told Klein wasn't there, he insisted that Apple staff member take down a letter to the manager. The letter, which was to be copied to Spector and John Eastman, read: (letter quoted here). (You Never Give Me Your Money, pages 130-131) As for Ringo's statements plugging LIBN, I put very little stock in those. He was plugging a current album release. What did you expect him to say? Ringo is describing a time (spring 1970) when Paul wanted NOTHING to do with Apple, Klein, Spector, Ringo or the other Beatles. Of course he wouldn't have wanted Spector. Some of what I've read says he wasn't interested or involved in the release of the album or film, but the release of both was pushed by Klein, John and George.
Remember that Paul had quit the Beatles and was moving on with his solo album and arguing about release dates. I don't think he initially wanted to think about or cared about the release of Let It Be at this point, get it out and be over it. But I agree that after initially hearing it and being OK with it it he got increasingly aggravated over what Spector had done with his song and objected but too late.
Doggett isn't a researcher. He's a music journo and it's not a badly written story YNGMYM but it's not well researched, he doesn't provide detailed citations and it's riddled with errors. So I have no problem disputing it, it's not gospel and contains many uncorroborated stories, that have never been verified, almost all the Beatles books are the same. However to be fair I don't recall Doggett claiming Paul said he never heard the album at all before release? but I admit it's a while since I read it. The mistake by Lewisohn if I'm understanding you correctly, surprises me more. Although I know anyone can be fallible I'm more surprised he would claim McCartney said he never heard the album before release as I have the court transcript and the full judgment and Paul not only never argued that in court but he entered the letter,showing he'd heard it, into evidence. McCartney's assertion was always only that he was not consulted about the changes before they were made and that he lost artistic control of his own work because his request for changes was disregarded. It's in the court records which I would think Lewisohn would also have. There are also quite a few quotes from McCartney saying the same thing. I don't recall ever reading any quotes from McCartney in his many interviews claiming he never heard the album prior to release.
i like it as much as "LET IT BE" (regular Lp release 1970). It is just different way and mixes, like a new album in different way. "FLY ON WALL" bonus is also cool to hear, but I enjoy more the bootleg Lps I have for this.
LIBN.....Why dont we do it in the road....run it over with a truck. There isn't a lot of Beatles stuff that I don't like but LIBN is probably tops.
It sure beats me! I think possibly too many people are listening to it with their "studio sessions" logs/ books at close hand to bother them about what should / shouldn't have been included. If you are a Beatles neophyte and just listen with your ears without prejudice it's actually a very good album. I know absolutely nothing (and care even less) about the late era Beatles' politics and manoeuverings or their studio sessions. I think that is a blessing and a distinct advantage when listening to LIB / LIBN.
Personally, I felt like the Wall of Sound/reverb on Spector's original version added a certain "richness" to the sound of the rather thin and weedily-recorded songs on LIB. I was disappointed when they got rid of that sound on LIBN.
I enjoy it, though I miss the hi hat echo on Let It Be and the strings on Across the Universe. It makes The Long and Winding Road suck less.
To me, LIBN sounds like a great album has finally been rescued from the fog of overzealous production.
I love the original. It was an ok experiment to 'strip it down' but I never play it. It's been talked about for decades. To me it just shows that Spector did the best out of it. It was also too late now that rock and roll is dead. You can't reheat a souffle, like McCartney once said.
"The Albums That Never Were" website does a good job of reconstructing Let It Be, mainly using Naked source material but reinstating a lot of John's ad libs and making it feel more "live" and spontaneous than Naked. It's the best of both worlds for me.
Rescued? Not likely. While the remixing made for a great sounding alternate to the original, at least three of the songs are composites of more than one take. In some ways that's even more bundled up than the Spector album
Yes, rescued. Funny, I went back to the first page of this thread because it sounded vaguely familiar and, sure enough, there was a post I wrote about the album back in July of 2014. Geez, I've been hanging around this place for 2 years? ... Anyway, sometimes when I stumble onto my old posts, I reread them and think, "Who the hell wrote that?" But in this case, I happen to still agree with what I wrote nearly two years ago about LIB Naked. LIB Naked continues to rule.
I don't mind Naked but i think it would have be much cooler to release the Gyn Johns Get Back album. Cover and content.
Hell, they could have included the Johns version as a bonus disc instead of that useless "Fly on the wall" thing. I guess they've got to save something for later. . .
