Beatles - Let It Be - DVD

So, for the 101st time, why did they include the 'worst' fight scene from Let It Be in the Anthology if that was their great worry? If they were so worried about their legacy, why have they reissued (at least twice on both VHS and DVD) Magical Mystery Tour, which is regarded as their biggest folly?

My theories:

Paul totally digs MMT, despite pretending to be coy about it in interviews. Which makes sense, since Paul directed MMT.

There is some lingering bad blood between the LIB director Michael Hogg (and/or whoever outside entity has some rights to the film) and one or more Fabs....and it involves the one thing that is bigger than music or image----money.

And expanding on the MONEY factor, why did they buy up the old "Compleat Beatles" doc? Was there anything 'bad' in the contents? I don't recall anything---they didn't want it to compete with Anthology. Money (that's what they want). Remember, Paul is a skinflint...

 

It is remarkable that the film is still in the can. Shame on them is all I have to say. it is history. But heck, that does not only concern Let It Be, but all other things Beatles that could have been released already. The only band that has such a sucky campaign of posthumous releases.

 

It has been getting better (sorry, no pun intended ). I never thought I'd see the day where MMT would be released with a Paul McCartney director's commentary. I think due to years of a) the control the 4 board members of Apple have over releases and b) the "chart conscious" approach they have to every release, it's taken a while for The Beatles to get their act together and now they're playing catch up. Getting Jeff Jones in to fill Neil's shoes was a good move and has, thus far, paid off.

I think we will see a Let It Be released this decade. Remember that we've had long periods of nothing though out the 70's, 80's and 90's and early 2000's and now we get something nearly every one or two years. Perhaps Dhani Harrison might talk them into it? Heck, I was more disappointed that the remastered vinyl/CD of the album didn't come with the original box and Get Back book.

 

If they don't hurry, anyone who cares about buying it or watching it will be dead!

 

That sounds urgent.

 

you know what, you're right... totally forgot about MMT. Well... fingers crossed... that this decade it'll happen. And that it'll be done the right way.

 

The market for Beatles product must be eroding. Yes, it's still substantial and there are younger people discovering them all the time. However, I believe the biggest segment of the Beatles buying market must be the original fans from the 60s and early 70s who have already begun to pass. If sales is a critical criterion, the longer they wait/delay the release of Let It Be or any other project, the less return there will be on the investment. But maybe sales has become secondary to the overall legacy they will leave behind. In other words, maybe how they will be seen and heard 20, 50, 100 years from now is more important to the survivors than any near-term profits. If that is the case with Paul, Ringo, and the estates, you can bet Universal doesn't see it that way.

 

Interesting and I believe valid point. I think it's clear that McCartney, especially, has been concerned about image and reputation and legacy for at least a couple of decades now. That's the often unspoken reality that lies behind most of the interviews he's done over the past several years. That sort of behaviour has been variously described as he being "on" all the time or coming across as being "calculating", an approach that does not always stand him in good stead.

But back to Let it Be. If what you say is true of the Beatles, I have to wonder if there are other major artists from their era who operate the same way, i.e., by no longer focusing on sales but rather deciding what gets released primarily on the basis of legacy. If there are, who? If there aren't, why would the Beatles (Apple) solely operate as they do? (For the record, I'd be one of the first in line for a new remastered Let it Be package.)

 

I would say it's because the decisions are being made by different factions of attorneys, managers, and other advisors who don't talk to each other, and they make quick decisions that sometimes don't even involve the actual artist. If there's even the slightest hint of controversy or negativity, the easiest answer is NO. When there's layers and layers of protection between the artist and the studio or a record label or a movie distributor, everybody tip-toes around very carefully.

Also, Magical Mystery Tour is a movie without controversy and doesn't show the Beatles fighting and arguing with each other. Let It Be does that. I think Paul is keenly aware that if he recut the movie to leave out the conflict and only concentrate on (say) the music, everybody would complain that he's revising history. The easiest course is just to bury the movie and not release it. I think he even felt this way in the 1980s, and that's one reason Let It Be quickly disappeared from the home video market. UA thought they had the home video rights, but it turned out they did not have the music clearances from Capitol/EMI, and that was one way the Beatles have been able to keep it off the market. I believe Apple Corps eventually bought it outright from UA, but I don't know the circumstances or timetable when it happened.

I think Paul McCartney is currently the most-interviewed celebrity of anybody still alive in the world. He knows how to gracefully deflect, give non-answers, and avoid saying anything he doesn't want to say. It's very interesting when Paul is on (as one example) the Howard Stern Radio Show, and Howard asks Paul embarrassing questions about Yoko or Heather Mills. Paul immediately kind of shrugs and says, "well, that's all over and done with, and I've said all I care to say. I wish her well and hope she has a good life." Perfect non-answer.

Once you have all the money in the world, and you're facing only a few more years of lifespan, what else is there to worry about except your legacy?

 

Maybe it has not been released because doing so does nothing for the legacy of the group that those in charge ($) have a large interest in preserving. 99% of those wringing their hands waiting for an upgrade already know what the content is all about. For the uninitiated, venturing into this era blind thinking they have finally been granted access to some sort of holy grail are sure to be disappointed. This will only get worse as time passes. The powers that be will probably direct more energy at preserving the legacy of "The Fab Four" in their glory days before spending time with a project that will allow the converted to check off the Let It Be DVD box on their want lists. Just my .02.

 

The "too-much arguing" complaint against LIB is way over-blown, IMO. The biggest disagreement (between George & Paul), as has been noted many times, has been preserved for all time already in the Anthology. What other arguments are there? Paul tells John to sing on-microphone and John grumbles slightly. Paul rambles on to John about getting over the hump as a way to combat nervousness while John looks bored. Not an argument. Paul instructs John how to play the descending guitar break in I've Got A Feeling. Not an argument. Where are all these arguments that everyone frets over? They discuss going on the roof. While George doesn't seem thrilled at the idea, he goes along with the idea. John mildly grumbles at one point about the need to get the organs and pianos in tune, to no one in particular.

If anything, the main fault with LIB is that it punctures the fantasy of the happy 24/7 Beatles, a la Yellow Submarine. The excuses made for its burial are not unlike Brian Wilson's reasons for not releasing SMiLE for 40 years----(it's too weird, it's too far-out), reasons that don't really hold up when you look at them closely. The powers-that-be today almost seem to want the public to forget that they ever broke up in the first place....as if just a few happy years elapsed between Abbey Road and Anthology. I suppose nobody should be too surprised that they want to celebrate Beatlemania with the Live Project instead of the eve of breaking up with LIB, but it's difficult to imagine, at this point in time, how the "legacy" could be negatively affected. After all, the unpleasant way that Nirvana ended hasn't been soft-soaped and their popularity seems to show no signs of waning with the Millennials.

 

I think there are only a small number of artists in question here: Dylan and Hendrix don't seem to have a problem with historic releases, the Stones have come on board over the past few years. I don't think there's anyone else even in the same ballpark. I'd guess those artists don't enjoy the hearty catalog sales the Fabs do(wonderful though they are,)

With the exception of their earliest years, The Beatles have always operated on their own time. They were the 900 pound gorilla who could do what they what, whenever they want. They were/are a force to be reckoned with, but even if the image of The Beatles remains impervious to time, the audience will not.

 

This is interesting if true, as it's always been speculated that Yoko and/or Olivia were the main holdouts. Whoever is blocking this, it's just ridiculous.

 

We may have to be content that the film was ever released in the first place in 1970......and that may have only happened because George and John were pleased that the band broke up then and so they didn't care if the public saw them as they were. Now that everyone is old and happy and living their golden years with thumbs aloft, the film probably seems like a youthful embarrassment and they are unable to appreciate it on any level beyond that it showed them "breaking up", even though the actual film is not all that negative. I suppose I can believe that Sir Paul and Hall of Famer Ringo are the ones blocking it nowadays if they can't get beyond its reputation.

 

The Rooftop Concert at the end redeems any rough edges nicely and is a positive, upbeat ending.

 

Exactly. So why not release the Complete Rooftop? I hope it ends up on the Live project but I have not heard anything in forever about that---has anyone?

 

Check this out!



I'm surprised it wasn't in the finished film. This is what Let It Be was meant to be about. How could you pass up a scene of John helping George out with the lyrics to "Something"!

 

There are some cases where sound was rolling but picture was not, so they don't have the film to go with the scene. This was constantly a problem in documentaries that shot over a long period of time. Sound went in 30-40-minute chunks, but film typically stopped every 10 or 11 minutes.

 

I believe this is the case with the audio of Geogre quitting. Lindsay-Hogg got some muted audio of George but no film footage:

"At Twickenham, The Beatles, Yoko, and I, often joined by our cameraman Tony Richmond, would have a proper lunch in the small dining room up a flight of stairs, adjoining a bar where some crew members and studio office workers would be sinking their couple of pints of beer before going off to their own lunch...

George was usually with us, joining in the conversation, affable and friendly and interested in the give- and- take, but on the day of the Tunisian discussion, he wasn't with us as the meal started. At the morning rehearsal, I could tell by his silence and withdrawal that something was simmering inside him, and so in my role as documentarian, I'd asked our soundman to bug the flower pot on the lunch table.



We'd finished the first course when George arrived to stand at the end of the table.

We looked at him as he stood silent for a moment.

"See you 'round the clubs," he said.

That was his good-bye. He left.

John, a person who reacted aggressively to provocation, immediately said, "Let's get in Eric. He's just as good and not such a headache."

Paul and Ringo would not be drawn in, and after lunch we went back to the studio where Paul, John, and Ringo improvised a ferocious riff, half an hour of anger and frustration expressed with guitars and drums. Yoko sat on the edge of the rostrum on the blue cushion which had been George's and howled into his mike.

(My bug had only picked up the sounds of cutlery banging on china plates, obscuring what the muffled voices had said.)"

Michael Lindsay-Hogg
Luck and Circumstance

 

This is a great indication as to why memories shouldn't be trusted, even for people who were in the very middle of the events.

The "Tunisian" discussion day was Wednesday, January 8th.
George walked out, Yoko joined in for the jam, and John suggested getting Eric on Friday, January 10th
Michael bugged the flower pot in the lunch room on Monday, January 13th, when George wasn't even present.

First person accounts (even 42 year old ones, as in Michael's book) are better than conjecture, but are of far less value when there is a mountain of unused documentary sound.

 

If you give a close listen to most of the "Get Back" tapes, you can often determine what was filmed and what wasn't (assuming, of course, that the footage stills exists). There are usually (but not always) sync beeps at both the beginning and end of filmed segments. It appears that about two minutes in the middle of this was filmed on the "A" camera, and then another portion was filmed a bit later on (the second end sync is not within the YouTube clip). I took a listen to the concurrent "B" roll out of curiosity, and there appears to be just a short segment that was filmed (about 30 seconds worth). Then the issue becomes - is the footage usable? Can you cut between the "A" and "B" footage successfully? Does the "A" footage have the whole band in a wide shot or does it just focus on one band member? I'm not saying that there's not loads of interesting stuff still to be mined from the "Get Back" stuff, but very little of it is in a preferred form (complete performances captured by multiple cameras).

 

Ray, I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge of these recordings and what happened when. It is great to have someone who has studied these tapes so thoroughly. First because you share that info with us, and second (and perhaps more importantly) you've saved us from having to slog through those recordings and have (through your book and postings here) pointed us to the truly worthwhile stuff that we should hear!

 

It seems to be working. I've spoken to people in their twenties, admittedly not big music fans, who think 'Imagine' is a Beatles song and that The Beatles were no more because Lennon was murdered.

 

But by the time the film and album saw the light of day (almost eighteen months after the project started) they couldn't have cared less about it. They'd shipped the album out to Glyn Johns and then Spector (when the band can't be bothered with the music, you KNOW things are bad). Of course, only the Apple board have seen the alternate version of LIB and - apparently - had no objections to the new cut, so that alone suggests to me that it will be issued sooner or later. It WILL be released, but obviously the board don't see it as vital at the moment. Who knows what other plans they have before then?. We know we never get much notice of any new release (2009 remasters aside).

 

Actually, I've always thought that last part was true.