Let It Be Naked...What Do We Think?

Okay, it's out there...step up and sing out!

 

I don't have it yet but do plan to buy it, probably today. There is a negative but interesting consumer review on Amazon.com, FWIW

 

Where is the "I Hate It" category? I just bought it and haven't even listened to it yet, but I hate the whole idea. It should have been called "Let It Be... Reconstructed" because that is what it is. based on what I've been reading the men involved were just given access tot he 8 track tapes and were told "go at it."

There are an infinite number of versions of every Beatles album that could be created if you allow people to re-edit the original tapes. Who are the men who got to do it anyway? I bet there are DOZENS of members here who could have done a better job at it, because they care about the integrity of the original.

Just my $0.02.

 

I think your vote would more properly belong in the "I Don't Have Enough Information To Form An Opinion But I Want To Express One Anyway" category.

 

Now that I took the CD out of the Tower records bag and opened it I really hate the entire thing! My copy has a booklet that was trimmed incorrectly at the top, so the words Let It Be... Naked are cut off. The CD labels are ugly to me; where is the Red Apple (that was on the original LP)?

I'll listen to this once and take it back for a copy with a booklet that is OK. I'll probably never even open that copy.

It is such a shame that Apple thinks this is a good package. Paragraph 2 in the booklet says "...has also ensured the warmth of the analogue recording still colours the sound but the crackle of tape hiss has disappeared." Since when does tape hiss crackle? Has anyone with an actual set of ears ever said that NoNoise colours (sic) the sound less than analogue (sic) tape? All of The Beatles' CDs should sound as coloured (sic) as the original analogue (sic) tape.

Apple DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!

(I'm getting off of my soapbox now and putting down the megaphone.)

 

Well, I now have enough information and still do not have an "I Hate It" category in which to vote!

 

No, you won't have enough information to express an opinion until you've actually LISTENED to the thing.

But really, why bother? You made up your mind long ago.

 

I just got done listening to it in the car. Sonically it sounds excellent to my ears. It's what I expected the only thing that I hate is the cover. They should have used the art work that was prepared. Call it Get Back with the 69 photo of them at EMI. Maybe included Teddy Boy or Save the Last Dance. The title SUCKS big time. The bonus disk either should have been complete session songs or eliminated.

 

I think that's the intention of the "WhyWhyWhyWhy" vote

 

But for all his complaining Apple got his money, he probably has the LP on order also.

 

It's good. Not great. Will it replace LIB? No...

Sonically it's very good, but treat it like an "alternate LIB" because that's basically what it is.

 

No bickering over Beatles, people. Let's chill, okay?

 

Then why did you buy it? Vote with your wallet!

 

I've listened to the thing. In my opinion there was no reason to create this piece of revisionist history.

 

It will not replace LIB.
Just like the Yellow Submarine songtrack will not repace the YS soundtrack and '1' will not replace the Bee Gee's '1'

 

For the same reason you read dissenting opinions... knowledge. It is important to know what is going on, at least in the areas a person finds interesting.

Me buying a copy or not has very little influence over Apple. It is worth the $11.99 plus tax to me to know what this CD is about. It confirmed my suspicions. The CD, IMO, is revisionist history and does nothing for The Beatles' REAL history, just for the REVISIONIST history being spread by Apple.

 

Well, since we have at least two POSITIVE comments for it so far, i'm on my way to K-Mart to buy my copy.

It's the friggin' Beatles!

Since I never liked Spector's version, I will probably like this one, even though I also generally don't like revisionism either.

The only thing I do hate is that they probably no-noised the thing. This should clue us to what they will do top any future catalog remastering. Hang on to your old CDs and LPs!

 

I just picked it up at K-Mart and listened to it in my car. To my ears, it sounded much improved, sound-wise. I don't really have a strong opinion about it being "revisionist" or not. If artists want to revisit a work, I don't have a problem with it...the original is still out there. LIB is not one of my favorite Beatles works anyway........

 

I voted Not Bad, Not Great.
It sounds to clean to me, which IMO leaves no air around instruments and vocals (a NoNoise artifact no doubt). There is more clarity on some of the instruments, but that's probably do to the remix.
Why did they cut out the ending of "Get Back"?
I also miss Paul's "Yeah Yeah Yeah" at the end of "The Long and Winding Road" none the less, that song still moves me.
I do like the mix of "Across the Universe" I like what they did to John's voice at the end.
The disc is short, it clocks out at 35:02, they could of added a lot more to this disc, but.....
The booklet? Don't like the booklet at all. They could of put information about each track, that would of been more interesting than what we get here. Oh well....

 

Okay, let's not be so bitchy about this. It's a very interesting item from the Beatle camp, is not intended to replace Let It Be, and you totally have it within your own right to buy it or not.

That being said, I've heard it, and I think it's something just as benign as "1" and "Yellow Submarine Soundtrack". It's a curio. Nothing else. For fans who HAVE NOT heard this, please don't judge just that they're not reissuing something you want. The Beatles belong to a lot of people, not you or I unfortunately.

Just have fun with it and be nice. I don't want to close this thread, guys.

 

I'm just finishing up listening to it. Not bad, not great sums it up pretty well IMO. Personally though I'd have been happier with Glyn Johns Get Back but, this is better than nothing.

 

Have no interest in hearing this thing, but I must say that the cover is absolutely horrendous! What were they thinking??? It looks like it was created by an 8-year old during his first-ever Photoshop session. Those colors! ARIAL FONT! Man oh man.

In the old days, at least, a cover like this (if it even would have been allowed out - probably not) screamed "BARGAIN BIN!" I mean, really, this cover is ug-lee and, in comparison, makes things like 'Beatles VI' and 'Something New' look like masterpieces of tasteful design.

Ah, did I mention that this cover sucks?

And just why are those people who are always screaming about "messing with history" and the evils of NR in such a hurry to run out and buy this thing (and even make excuses for it)? Curiouser and curiouser.

 

That would really show them naked now wouldn't it.

 

The amount of noise reduction they used is absurd. There's no reason to use it that hard. The artifacts are VERY audible on any system. Did Bob Noberg do this?