This is my understanding as well. Or at least influenced Phil's decision, since he knew it was coming out on that release. Cheers, Paul
Perhaps it's because we don't want history rewritten, and the fact that the music on LIBN sounds so sterile.
it does sound a bit sterile and I think that removing the chatter is largely responsible for that so it would have been an easy fix in that regard imho.
Well, there certainly are many posts disliking Let It Be...Naked. Out of all of those posts, I would guess that some bought the vinyl version. I'm headed to the WTB section of this forum to see if I can get a good deal on an album somebody has in their collection that they don't like. I will be doing them a favor and I can get an album I will listen to.
with a month to go before release the record was likely already at the pressing plants and Spector long gone for any chance of realistic remedy, Paul may have known this too. Of course it could have been changed but then we would likely have had a 606-1 revolver tmk remix 11 scenario with a short lived first press with different mix fetching big bucks !! However by that time the band was effectively done and nobody i suspect could be bothered to argue more about it once it hit the stores.
Basically, you are saying the same as I: That's why it's called "the original", it was all new material (except for singles) when it came out. But it was a posthumous album, and part of the group didn't sanction it (actually expressed distaste for it, at least with Naked no one did). To me, both albums are different versions of the same sessions. But I understand some people give more legitimacy to the original release. I don't.
Let's not go making over-generalizations, please. Some like the chatter, some do not. As a whole I prefer the original to the Naked, although the latter is an interesting occasional diversion. But better? No, not overall. See my previous post for my reasons why...
I think that we can all agree that Let It Be was a uniquely problematic release from a point when the band was on its last legs. I understand the objections to the Spector mix and share many of them--what he did to "The Long & Winding Road" was pretty awful--though I think that they've been overblown somewhat. I also understand the appeal of what amounts to McCartney's revision with Naked, though it lost some of the original's ramshackle charm (barring Spector's orchestral excesses). My ideal version lies somewhere in between the two--which is basically what one fan did on The Albums That Never Were site, so this is now my go to version. Maybe some future set will manage to improve things further, but in the end, this is never going to be one of my favorite Beatles releases, given all of the internal problems with the band at that point.
Of course, I was not trying to imply otherwise. I meant that we will never know what John and George would have thought of Naked, but we can be sure Paul didn't approve of the Spector version. And let's not forget George Ok'd the project before his passing. Yoko did too, and she is supposed to act on behalf of Lennon.
Paul didn't approve of one song. Did he have other complaints about Spector's mix? Do we know to what extent Ringo and Yoko were involved with Naked? It's one thing to simply sign off on a project, but that's not the same thing as active participation. George may have approved of the concept, but he obviously wasn't around to see the final product.
He only talked about TLAWR because it's the only song by him to which Spector added orchestration. But obviously, he produced Naked because he didn't agree with Spector's approach. I don't think any of them had an active participation on it, but the same can be said about the Spector version (I think Ringo attended one session, but I higly doubt he gave Spector any indication). At least Naked was signed off by the four parties. The original was released without Paul's consent.
George was dying. I doubt he was interested in getting into another spat with Paul at that point in his life. John didn't approve anything. Once again, I have no objection to Naked as long as it's viewed as what is--Paul's latter day revision of the Let It Be sessions. I'm glad that you enjoy it, but this argument has grown tedious to me.
What's true? The fact that a dying man and a dead man's estate signed off on a project that they had no involvement with?
It's Ok, I'm not even arguing, I'm just stating what happened. None of the versions were sanctioned by all four members of the band. John was responsible for the original version and Paul for Naked. We have both versions and can enjoy both (yes, I enjoy the Spector version too).
