It's not the opinions themselves but rather the reasons for them that I have referred to as being somewhat misguided. For instance, I don't care if a member hates LIBN but prefers the original. It's that he can't admit to himself the reason why is because he grew up with the original mix. It's a nuance that I think some people are missing in spite of my efforts to elaborate greatly on that point. I don't see anything great in what Spector did. To call it a tour de force is an eyebrow-arching comment for sure. The Beatles would have reached #1 with a record of them blowing their nose for 60 min so I don't take that as a basis for solidifying what I find to be rather shoddy work on the part of Spector. There are some people whom I'm sure their preference for Spector's version is genuine and not affected by nostalgia whatsoever. But it's hard to differentiate when so few people seem willing to admit their bias clouds their ability to properly judge Naked on its own merit.
It sounds like you're adding a lot of your own spin on what the intention was with the album to begin with. Please find me a pre-2000 quote from any Beatle specifically stating they wanted minimal overdubs and editing when they were about to record the original. You'll read stuff like they wanted to get back to basics but that stuff can be misinterpreted by any which way which is what appears to be the case here. I took it to mean they didn't wish to drench their work in convoluted arrangements using orchestras and strange instruments/sounds from around the world. More of a straight R&R record and nothing more. And I took Naked as meaning they've removed all of those fancy arrangements Spector injected on some of the tunes. Granted, other takes were used and some creative editing was done but the end result does not feature any instrument, sound, or arrangement that is out of place with what the original intent was. And again, I believe the intent is where the disconnect is for you in terms of this album. This also means the audience would get to hear the tracks on Naked for the first time, not the originals and then the reimagined ones after. If nobody had heard these works and the originals didn't exist, there's no doubt it would have been a great success anyway. But because you're aware of bootlegs, takes, the technology, history, and your own personal interpretation of what the original intent was, your ability to enjoy it is inherently compromised. If I play this for my father who is in the dark and couldn't care less about all of the implications and contexts, he just taps his foot and says that it sounds great. The music is something he responds to. THAT is the ultimate test and that reimagining passes it with flying colors.
Only affects fans who are aware of takes, history, context, the technology, etc. To the fan who couldn't be bothered with any of that, they just listen to the final result and judge it on its own merit... something a lot of people in this thread seem incapable of doing. For the record, you are incorrect. George gave his approval for the project before his death. Only John (for obvious reasons) was not aware of the project. That's 3/4 Beatles and Yoko gave her blessing.
I do get you and I think not on this thread, but in general, less and less do people admit bias or don't really care if they have said bias in any category-not just music. But you know how music feels personal and then all those feelings get wrapped up and tangled into the artist and output. I also find that attempting objectivity is difficult for a lot of people is any area. Like that song "Man in the Mirror" by MJ, we have a hard time admitting possible bias opinions. Me included. For me, I just look at it from a historical sense. Let's say the Beatles really did just split Sept. 20, 1969 and never released Let It Be. Then Let It Be..Naked comes out 33 years later-can you imagine the reception for the Beatles long lost album? It would be like the reaction of Let It Be the movie if that was released in 2003 instead of the album...Naked. A big cheer. The reception is just affected by the context and it's hard to take that frame off of the portrait. Me personally, I have no issue with either album, but that Fly on the Wall disc is a horrible teaser for the fans that know the entire recording sessions are on boots. I desperately wanted many of those tracks released in 2003, and I felt so disappointed-and the movie we were told about-the rumors started that Paul was still uncomfortable releasing something that might bring back bad memories for himself and fans. It felt selfish from an outsider's point of view...and for me a hardcore fan, but I know my passion for the Beatles made me feel it was selfish. Paul has every right to do what he wants/wanted if Ringo is willing to agree, and the estates. EDIT: Oh I see George knew-thank you.
I don't "hate" the mixes in general I just hate the stupid quick fades and the over-mixing of the drums (Ringo) and bass guitar (Paul). Those could easily be fixed in a 2.0 remix. The relatively clean sound is actually closer to the real sound of the multi-track anyways. As clean as it is compared to "Let It Be" it still has lots of added reverb.
There is one prevailing theory I have trouble with. We hold so tight to the fact that the album says 'as originally intended' or 'as nature intended' and the whole 'Get Back' concept, that we do forget that these 4 guys were way different than they were 18 months earlier when they decided to do that. These 4 guys just months later were willing to work with Martin, use orchestration, use modern approaches to recording including synths for Abbey Road. Look at Ringo's use of orchestration on Sentimental Journey. The Ringo who wanted straight rock in Jan '69 let Spector put the orchestration on in (what was it March?) March 1970. This was no longer 'Get Back' but Let It Be for a reason. After a little over a year, all 4 had used major orchestral parts on their solo albums. So that concept was created in Nov or Dec. 1968 and was over by spring 1969 when recording sessions began again. I think some fans are kind of drilling the "as nature intended" point home more than the Beatles themselves cared. They changed their minds within a year. We're still frustrated with it 45 years later.
My own spin? Not at all. Seriously, you need to dig out contemporary interviews from 1969 and 1970. Then read or listen to interviews from the principles involved in 2002. The original intent for both projects was to get back to nature. That meant releasing material that was recorded as a BAND, with few overdubs and little in the way of editing. Of course this was problematic because it had been years since the Beatles worked like this. Instead of getting a good backing track and building a song from that foundation up, they tried to perfect a song by playing an singing together. A take could be ruined by a bum note, or missed snare hit... or more likely, some missing dynamics between the four guys (five when Billy Preston joined). The original Get Back album was intended to show the Beatles as they were. There's NO overdubbing on that album whatsoever. Now it's true when it came to actually releasing material that editing and some overdubbing DID take place. George Martin added a coda to the Get Back single from a different take (different day too). Don't Let Me Down had some vocal overdubs too. But they didn't go back and overdub new instruments to plush out the sound, or add effects. A year later, after Abbey Road, the aim probably changed a bit more. John hated the Glyn John's compilations and all of them probably thought some work needed to be done to issue a successful and decent album. In the New Year, brass, cellos, new guitar solo, bass AND backing vocals were added to Let It Be. No question, a deliberate attempt at poshing up the track. The arrangement works nicely. A few days later George re-recorded his lead vocal and added some new guitar to For You Blue as well. So yes, the original aim had changed. However, the aim for the Let It Be... Naked album was to return to the original intent. Not to mention Paul wanting to "set the record straight" even though the four tracks that he most objected to had already been released on Anthology 3. Check out the interviews Guy Massey gave in 2002 and 2003. He says they were given the task to return to the main focus of the Get Back sessions, not to make a revised album for today's fan. Ron
Very true. Once small addition: The song "Let It Be" did receive a new guitar solo overdub by George Harrison on April 30, 1969. This was the solo used for the eventual single 45 version of "Let It Be" produced by George Martin. And, as you mentioned, Harrison recorded ANOTHER guitar solo overdub in early January 1970, which Phil Spector used for the version of the song included on the LET IT BE album.
Strangely, enough, it was George Harrison who broke the no-overdubbing rule the most! He added two different guitar overdubs to "Let It Be" (recorded in April 1969 and Jan 1970), he redid vocals and some guitar for "For You Blue" (also in Jan 1970), and he recorded all of "I Me Mine" from scratch in Jan 1970. And he thought Paul was the perfectionist!!
The technology applied is distracting. The sound on the original is among the finest of any of their recordings.....aside from the heavily doctored stuff like Across the Universe.
I seem to be one of the minority fans of the Naked release. Yes, it does have its flaws (which have only become more apparent since I've joined this forum) but overall, it is a good addition to the catalog. Could it have been better? Of course! But that doesn't mean I hate it in its current form. What do I like? Much better track order, addition of Don't Let Me Down, better mixes IMO, better clarity in the instruments, more aligned to the original album intent (compared to the 1970b release). What I don't like? No coda on Get Back (same as 1970 album), quick fade outs on some tracks, lack of "air" around the recording (thanks for NR usage), lack of backing vocals/instrumentation on Across The Universe, absolutely terrible bonus disc & cover art. I am not as bothered by the Frankenstein edits on tracks like I've Got A Feeling & Let It Be. Yes, they were not necessarily and actually detract from the concept but they don't lessen my listening experience. The NR does annoy me a bit now than it used to when I first got it. To give some background, I started my LIB journey via Anthology 3 around 2001-02 and so when LIBN came out, I did not come with the baggage of 3 decades of listening to the original. In fact, I heard the full original album after LIBN and didn't like it much
That makes more sense. Though one more thing that's always confused me is that Ringo supposedly overdubbed more drums during the Spector sessions, yet they don't seem to audible in the original mix.
i agree with you, however even if it isn't, naked sounds like it is closer to the point of the project as opposed to LIB which has a spector train runnin through it. My preferred option would be a selected fusion of the two
Spector does deserve credit for selecting some of the better takes, and he did indeed make it a listenable album, but at the expense of the integrity of the project. Years later we can see - and hope for - a better version, the version Naked could have been.
I'm more than OK with it... BUT only because I'm able to remove context from the equation. Not something most people can do. If I weren't able to, I'm sure I couldn't enjoy the album either.
I'm not keen on the Anthology version. It sounds like a run through to me, even though I know this is the same take Spector was told to make something of. That feeling is not abated when Paul's spoken word bridge section arrives. I'm not keen on the Naked version. I don't think it's the best take and for me, has a cheesy 'lounge' vibe to it. My favourite version is the original Spector mix (with a nod of approval to Giles Martin's recent 1+ mix) for it is for me, the only version which sounds like the finished article and comparable in quality to the standard set by all the other great singles released by The Beatles. My preference for it is genuine. However, I do prefer recent mixes of Hey Bulldog, Come Together, I Me Mine, Dig A Pony, Paperback Writer and countless many others and I am not ruled by my nostalgia for 'the original mix' (not much, anyway!)
I will amend my initial comment on the mixing and add that I really dislike the hard-edged sound of the cymbals/percussion and the terrible fish-tank reverb on the "Naked" version. The "YSS" project suffered from terrible reverb also. The tonality of the cymbals/percussion on the Spector mixes is great and is a big reason the Spector version is my preferred version. It's just more listenable and doesn't fatigue my ears. Again, I'd welcome a version 2.0 remix of the "Naked" album if they would address the issues people have with the album especially the dumb quick fades and clipped intros.
I tend to agree with people who mention the title and the album cover not being the strongest, but in the end it's about the music and I've always really liked Let It Be despite the clear "unhappiness" that surrounds it. I believe George Martin in the Anthology said something along the lines of "Let It Be was a very unhappy album which is a shame because there are a lot of great songs on it" which pretty much sums up how I feel about it. There's great content in there, but it's just clear they weren't happy. As for "Naked" itself, I think it brings more positive than it does negative. Don't Let Me Down unquestionably should have been on there from the beginning, why they preferred having John say "Hark the Angels Come" on there rather than that song, I'll never get. I get that the album itself is a contradiction in that the way in which it was made certainly is not "Naked," but whatever. I'll always be intrigued by whatever they decide to do. I wonder what people would have thought if it would have been re-released as they originally started the project. Call it "Get Back" and use the Please Please Me remake picture as the cover.
It's there. It was specially remastered for iTunes in 2013. Although lossy, it sounds better than the original 2003 mastering.
