I know this, but many refer to elec piano as “organ” when discussing Beatles, including the poster to whom I was replying. I thought about correcting it, but I wanted to use his lingo to avoid more confusion between us.
Makes sense. I thought about not correcting it, but decided to show my true colours as the pedantic b*****d I am.
Technical Note: The YouTube clip is slightly lower quality, so I've been using the same scene from a web browser in Disney+ to compare. The being said, yes, there are audible differences between the two. The film version further changes from itself depending on which shot is being displayed. Overall, the film version is narrower, pulled in, and has more reverb. There's also something funky going on with the frequencies (possibly due to a surround soundtrack being converted to stereo in a web browser maybe?) The film version, with its added reverb, does sound more recessed, to be sure. Peter mentioned during the IMAX Q&A that Giles does the film mixes in a scoring theater, so that may account for some of the differences. (I don't have the actual quote here but from my notes, Peter mentioned that he had to send the audio to Giles in England since they have no IMAX post-production facilities in NZ - and that he was jealous that we got to see it because he didn't have access to IMAX where he lives to view the result yet. ) I wholeheartedly agree that there should have been an option - especially on the blu-ray - to hear a "fixed viewpoint" version of the rooftop concert in the film. I do also think that the streaming rooftop album is a decent mix compromise with the same sensibilities of the film mixes - just adjusted for stereo, non-theater playback. As to which I prefer? Hard to say. I get what you're saying about the interplay on the film version, but after having accumulated a few different presentations of these performances over the years - via Let It Be, LIBN, As Nature Intended, etc. - I do like the clarity of the streaming album mix. In a perfect world, we'd be able to choose. Cheers, Paul P.S. Yes, Billy plays Fender Rhodes electric piano on the roof - point taken. P.P.S. I wonder how the LCPM 2 channel on the blu-ray compares here?
Daaaaaamn. Nice. Maybe that’ll encourage Disney to release an expanded edition. Also I’m still counting this towards an EGOT, even if it is a technicality. Just need Paul to win a Tony for “Wonderful Life” lol
I was waiting to purchase the blu-ray in the hope of an expanded version. This seems now very unlikely so I have decided to take the plunge. Only to realise that the blu-ray is out of stock everywhere here in UK. How is it possible that such a blockbuster release is no longer available after just a couple of months? Does anyone know if t will be made available again?
No offense against Peter Jackson (he did a phenomenal job), but shouldn't some part of these awards be shared with Michael Lindsay-Hogg? Peter Jackson is winning all these awards, but he didn't have to pick up a camera and film anything for this documentary.
Thought experiment...what about, say, a rap artist winning a Grammy for a song that is largely sampled from pre-existing material? Do they also have to share credit for the award? I personally think "no" and so I also think Peter Jackson gets the award outright. As others have said, Jackson has been giving Lindsay-Hogg the credit due him repeatedly and publicly - and I think that's appropriate, and enough. The Get Back docuseries is a completely different creative product than the original Let It Be film, though starting from the same source materials. Which is why I also don't think a rap artist needs to share an award for a piece that draws extensively on sampled pre-existing work - it's still a unique creation. Same reason Andy Warhol, had he won an award for his soup can paintings, would not in my opinion have had to share credit with the graphic artist who designed those labels. If Jackson had, say, merely done a slight recut or expansion of the Let It Be film, then of course it'd be a different story. To me anyway. YMMV of course.
The passage I was talking about earlier in this thread was definitely one where George needles Paul about the name of "I've Got a Feeling," not Ringo. Maybe there's some other segment where Ringo says something too I guess?
I hold the same view. MLH did an amazing job of getting all that footage, but he made horrendous decisions in his cut of the film. How does one leave out the Get Back birthing scene??? That’s still a hair-standing-on-end moment every time I see it.
Totally agree. I'm not certain about why MLH made the choices he made, of course - but I have to suspect that he developed a rather narrow/specific agenda early on as he saw certain things unfolding - and that agenda was to tell the story of a band breaking up - which of course then heavily influenced all of his subsequent choices. I mean, it would be a distracting inconsistency (from that perspective) to show something as magical and uplifting as the birthing of "Get Back" - "delivered" by Paul but then midwifed by the whole band (and Billy Preston) ultimately - if one is trying to show/convince people that the dream is over.
Great words to try to live by. I fail frequently in doing that, by the way - being a deeply flawed human, just as we all are - but I do try. One of my favorite quotes is by lawyer and civil rights activist Bryan Stevenson (founder and Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative): "Each of us is more than the worst thing we've ever done."
That’s the problem - he had an agenda to show a band breaking up. Only they didn’t. They went on to make a five star album and were planning another before they split. He was reverse-engineering 1969 footage to tell 1970 facts.
Yes, I totally agree (that was my point too, perhaps not made clearly enough). And yes indeed, his agenda ended up biting him in the ass when they pulled it together for a little while longer, not just by "hanging on" but turning out arguably their greatest album.
Yes. Sorry about my post. I was agreeing with you! So many other electric moments he left out - to the detriment of his own film and the band’s legacy.
An award for Best Documentary series or whatever: totally, Peter Jackson should take it. The problem is, award for best direction. Jackson didn't direct a single frame of the documentary.
I do believe it is important to note here that Michael seems to have been severely hobbled by editing choices dictated by the Beatles at the time: A rough cut of the movie was screened for the Beatles on 20 July 1969. Lindsay-Hogg recalled that the rough cut was about an hour longer than the released version: "There was much more stuff of John and Yoko, and the other three didn't really think that was appropriate because they wanted to make it a 'nicer' movie. They didn't want to have a lot of the dirty laundry, so a lot of it was cut down." "It’d be like, someone — it could be Paul, it could be Ringo and Paul — might say, 'You know when George left? I don’t know if we need that in the movie. Everything’s back to normal now, so…'" Yes - there are some odd choices - but I don't think the blame is all on MLH - especially since it sounds like he didn't have final cut approval. The Beatles were executive producers, after all. Cheers, Paul
