Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Strat-Mangler, Jul 11, 2014.
I like LIBN quite a bit - it’s my preferred version of these songs.
Having a released version of Don’t Let Me Down from the roof was the most excited I’ve ever felt as a Beatles fan to this day. I take it for granted now.
I really don’t get why you can’t discriminate here. Yes, there are noise-reduction and whatever, so it is going to sound different, which was the whole purpose to begin with. You are forgetting that the original, like any other album at that time, was also using noisegates etc. If they hadn’t, it would have sounded different. All albums, since noisegating was created, has used it in album production.
i agree however i plough a middle ground, i do believe Spector saved let it be by seeming to find better cuts that Glyn Johns seemed unable to find, however he then promptly shat all over half of it by adding the production and strings which as you say totally negates the whole point of the project.
However Naked imho misses a trick in that it should have kept a lot of the spector outtakes/chatter and had side two as a quasi live set from the Rooftop, even if it meant some of the rooftop tracks had to be replaced from the " live " in the studio recordings. That's what annoys me about naked it was a chance missed.
I agree with the Beatles the Glyn Johns attempts were simply not releasable at the time, however with the passage of time now they are and i'd love to see a 50th anniversary issue of his attempts in its original artwork.
True to a point, but DAW plug-ins are more aggressive than their analogue hardware equivalents (same goes for compressors/limiters etc.). It's like they went so far down the road of wanting to eliminate noise that some of the natural ambience was lost. It was the era (early 90s to mid 2000s) of excessive noise reduction, and not preserving recordings as they originally were unfortunately. They should have remixed it on analogue equipment, or used the DAW more sparingly IMO.
There's a good reason these songs weren't revived for the Abbey Road sessions. Well, some of them were pretty good, but some were garbage.
I'm not the biggest Beatles fan. Certainly not compared to many members on here. And I also know they are a band that doesn't need any accreditation from me, but.....
Let It Be was actually the first Beatles album I owned and listened to completely and repeatedly. I think it's great. It made me a fan and piqued my interest to explore more Beatles albums. If Let It Be is one of the least favorite Beatles albums, other bands should be so lucky to have throw away songs this good.
P.S. - I like LIBN as much (if not better than) LIB.
As for the songs, I may not prefer the versions found on Naked individually, but for me collectively it works better than the original album. I could never connect with the original like I do with all their other albums. I enjoy listening to the updated version.
Precisely one of the problems in the Spector version is that lack of cohesion in the idea, it's a schizophrenic album. The chatter and ditties seem to point in the direction of a soundtrack to the documentary, an "honest" and rough record with live takes. But then it has these orchestras and choirs... It doesn't work for me. It wants to be two different things at the same time.
I think Naked tried to do a different thing: create a conventional Beatles album from the session tapes. I don't miss the chatter and ditties because the album is no longer trying to have a documentary feel to it, it just tries to give us a cohesive album. I think they used too much NR, but as an album it works very well, much better than the Spector version IMO. And let's face it, both were made without the consent of part of the group, and both were finished without the Beatles' involvement, so to me both are legitimate versions.
That reason being, they were going to be released eventually along with the documentary. It has nothing to do with the quality.
I like the album, but I was expecting the "Get Back" album... not what was released. But it's still a good alternate to the Spector produced record...
I don't mean to be hard on this album. It's just not up to the standards of most Beatles albums. But the good songs are still really good, among the band's best. I think the highlights are "I Me Mine", "Let It Be", "Two of Us", "Dig A Pony", and "Across The Universe". Perhaps it would have worked better as an EP.
Don't mind me, I'm one of those people who thing Sgt. Pepper and the White Album are overrated. Not exactly popular stances.
The best thing about this set is the inclusion of "Don't Let Me Down"
I am not much of a Beatles fan and this album lacked spark and life. It did not cause me to become less of a Beatles fan, though.
Revolver made me a big fan.
It's a tough conversation to have since it really is their weakest album. I agree with Lennon's quotes on how Spector managed to make a product out of it. I don't dislike LIBN, I think it's very listenable. But despite its flaws, or maybe BECAUSE of them, I gravitate to the original to hear that looseness between tracks. Naked, no pun intended, by trying to be a "normal" album, exposes the overall lack of depth in most of the tracks.
And they cut out all the intros/outros making it much more sterile.
And they took off the coda from Get Back.
And they autotuned John's voice [one time].
And the version of Don't Let Me Down sounds remarkably ramshackle, like the wheels are about to fall off the bus...
And there is no Maggie Mae.
These are the reasons why I like it less than the original.
Things I like about it better than the original:
No overblown orchestra on The Long And Winding Road and Across The Universe.
Including George's guitar on For You Blue.
That makes two of us. At least.
Well, it's a product, no doubt. But as I explained, a very incoherent one. And very un-Beatle, those arrangements.
I don't think Spector's production gives more depth to any song. It's not a lyrical problem, it's a musical problem: Spector's approach doesn't fit musically.
I hear you, but to use a Joe Strummer quote, the original is the document. It all fits because it is what it is. LIBN is a great addendum to that, basically the Paul vision of the album. But it's not canon.
Anything that grabs more Beatle fans is ok by me, so if folks prefer it that's great.
Let it Be is one big glorious mess. But so was the breakup of the Beatles and this is the documentary of that.
It fits because "it is what it is"? Sorry, I can't agree with that.
What makes the original more canon? The Beatles were already disbanded when it came out, they were not involved in the mixing (I think Ringo attended one or two sessions?), and Paul didn't approve it. So we can say the original is John's cut, and Naked Paul's cut of the same sessions.
Yeah, LIBN to me is like George Lucas adding s**t to the original star wars films for each subsequent DVD/Blu release in order to produce something closer to his "original vision". But I think artists have a way of confusing their regrets and fickleness with "original vision". I'm skeptical that LIBN is what Paul had in mind circa 1970.
I don't think that's a good analogy. Paul didn't approve Spector's verison. Of course he would have made things different in 1970 (he says he liked Glyn Johns' final version from January 1970), but he never said Naked is that. The fact is The Beatles couldn't agree on what to do with the project, and they were breaking up so there was never the will to solve it. So John took matters in his own hands and gave Spector the job, so he did whatever he pleased.
John more or less approved it though. Is John's approval any less important than Paul's?
Separate names with a comma.