Let It Be/Get Back 50th Anniversary Releases! (Content and Sound Quality Discussion Only)!

There is 3 scenarios:
1. Mary sang early in the 1970 vocal session and left it before camera’s took pictures.
2. Mary appeared later on in the session, after photos were taken.
3. Mary mis-remembers and think of another song.

 

Mary Hopkin, Macca, Linda, and young Heather:

 

And the debacle is ofcourse being forced on you……. ;-)

 

Thanks, that is all very interesting but I still wonder how the ordinary english speaking person who is not a mystic or Paul (or even a Beatles fan) would perceive the call to "Let it be"? More like a somehow pessimistic "Leave it" or more like a (possibly positive) "Let it happen"? Or is a double meaning baked into this indeed?

 

Nice pic but not the 1970 overdub session - different clothes, no beard. Or was there another earlier vocal overdub session for LIB?

 

I've heard it used as a call to stop arguing. Brother and sister squabbling, mum or dad says, 'Let it be. Give over.' Or if someone's worrying over something, or picking at a scab, or wanting to tinker in something but that could make it worse, they might be advised or admonished to 'let it be'. Prudent, but not exactly words of wisdom.

 

Correct. The photo is not from January 1970. It looks like summer 1969 on the front steps of EMI. Paul is wearing his Abbey Road cover outfit and Linda is pregnant.

 

^^^Another photo:

 

Awesome, we now know the exact moment Ringo said "**** this ****" and walked out on Spector.

 

As far as detailed, there was only one vocal overdub session for the song "Let It Be", done with Linda, Paul, and George on January 4, 1970.

 

The case for the CD deluxe set appears to be fragile as hell... just unpacking it left indentations on the edges..

 

I like the way you keep saying "No reply required or requested." I think that translates into English as, "Go away, my mind is closed, I refuse to learn anything."

Higher DR is not always better. Much below 10 is usually bad, especially with recordings that have been known to be much higher; but you can alter DR by a two or three points with EQ, so it's really not right to say that a DR 11 is necessarily better than a DR 10. The new 50th Anniversary edition of David Crosby's If I Could Only Remember My Name is DR 10, while the old 1990 CD was DR 13. Why? Mostly because the new release has much stronger bass, the way Crosby wanted it. It's a great-sounding release, and the dynamics are fine.

Around here, people seem to use DR numbers as a measure of compression, but that's really not what it is. It's actually a lousy metric in a lot of ways. A really low DR (something like Metallica's infamous Death Magnetic, DR 3) for music that ought to be reasonably dynamic is definitely a bad sign, but DR gets less and less useful the higher the numbers get, and it can give wildly misleading results just because of a single peak. (This make is particularly bad for vinyl rips, since it will consider a pop or click to be a peak.)

 

Wow so the last Beatles recording session attended by a Beatle was on April Fool's Day

 

Only TL&WR needed more drums (as far as I know), as Spector didn't think there was enough snare on it. There are a couple of moments when you can hear the added snare in TL&WR (though hardly enough to warrant it).

(Thanks to @Gila for bringing the extra snare and the relevant Spector interview to my attention a while ago)

 

Spector was going for his trademark "wall of snare" sound ...

 

"Dig" in '60s hipster language didn't just mean "like"; it also meant "understand". I've always interpreted "dig a pony" to mean something like, "Look at a pony, really see it, understand it", sort of in the way that someone on an LSD trip could stare at some ordinary object really intensely and feel like they were really seeing it for the first time.

 

The Let it Be edition of Let it Be is a great read that comes recomended. Among the notable stuff are these:
”Wiewers of Peter Jacksons Get Back films will have the benefit of of a new Giles Martin sound-mixes of the whole rooftop set:A rooftop CD or LP might emeegs at a later date”.

”Peter Jackson present much of what happen during the roof-top in split-screen divided between the group-plus Preston and its performance, the mayhem on the streets below and the hilarious efforts of three police -officers to call everything to a halt.His rendering of this most familiar occasion is newly thrilling. Apart from anything else it confirms what a brilliant musical unit they remained to the end ”

 

Well this “burned in the brain” phenomenon goes to the question of whether remixes in general are worthwhile or should even be attempted. If people are going to object to any and all changes, they shouldn’t be done. Or bought. Or listened to. But as long as long as the remixes and the originals are both available to me, I see no reason to complain. I’m willing to entertain a different approach to things.

 

It may also be that he just liked the sound of the words, and because of the influence of nonsense literature on his writing, he wouldn't necessarily have been concerned about making sense.

 

I like how when John does it people get existential, and when Paul does it people call him a terrible lyricist.

 

That's true also, but as humans listening to words, we're going to try to make some kind of sense out of them.

 

The only one I can recall off the top of my head is Strawberry Fields. When I first heard the remix I thought I was listening to the original, until I went and listened to the original and it sounded noticeably smaller.

As for the possible remaining 4, it could be more or it could be less. From memory, listening to the White Album, Abbey Road and 1, there were few that didn't offend me.

EDIT: I'm listening to the 2021 Long and Winding Road now and I can put that one on the list. It's a good alternate version, mainly because it didn't lose any single element that I like about the original and I can hear George's guitar more, which I always loved after first hearing the Glyn Johns mix back in the day.

 

In the case of LIB, I'd say it's "let it happen," in an accepting way.

 

Generally, the Foobar DR meter plug-in shouldn't give wildly misleading result, because it takes many measurements throughout the track and generates an average value. But it can give a misleading result, if you compare, let's say, the single version of Get Back (no chatter on either ends and no coda) with the album version.
It is also possible to trim particular moment and run the meter. I did such experiments with the new mix of I Want You (She's So Heavy). This heavy (white?) noise towards the end of the mix drives the average DR down. But if you measure the first minute of the track - it's more dynamic than the whole track.

 

No offense, here. And I hope we can discuss this as adults, as I'm not picking on you. This is false. Dynamic range does exactly that. Measures dynamics. The higher the [average] DR, is the measured difference between the high and low peaks, the less compressed the end product is. This is why badly mastered music (DR 3, for example) Sound awful.

I can agree that we shouldn't solely rely on the numbers posted on the DR website, due to its numbers being submitted by the community.

Edit: However, I will admit/concede that dynamic compression is a useful tool, when used in a limited capacity.