Will Apple Release The Get Back Album?

Those "outtakes, alternate songs, and other such things" were never intended to be released by the band. If they were, why didn't they release them back when they made them?

Nah, those outtakes and such are for bootlegs. The thing is the boys weren't making money off the bootlegs so the bean counters decided to release those bootlegged songs officially. In other words, a cash grab.

And those alternate takes and such are a waste. How many people on Earth actually like "Within You Without You"? Answer nobody. But then on Anthology they actually give us a version without George singing! Yeah, we were all dying for an instrumental version of a song we didn't like at all.

13 canon albums is what the boys released. Anything after that is not The Beatles. It's corporate greed. We don't need the "Get Back" album. If the band wanted us to have it, they would have released it in '69.

 

I far prefer Johns' 1st Get Back to Let It Be or Naked. Would sound awesome in hi rez.

 

I could see them having his takes included so one could make it themselves, but I just do not see a dedicated focus on it. And since he chose poor takes in some cases, I would not guarantee even that.

 

I thought Naked was "nearly" perfect except for the mastering, and a few other quibbles. Not to go down that rabbit hole, but I loathe the Spector version and love the Naked version.

 

I do not remember. Was each of Glyn's version his idea of a finished product. Or were they "works in progress"? I guess I am asking if one of his versions was his definitive release, but got vetoed, or was he just running to the guys and they did not like the direction and scrapped it?

 

Agreed. The edits on I Me Mine and Dig a Pony are smart. Long and Winding Road is less over-the-top than Goodnight and far better than Paul's own 1984 version.

 

The three things that Spector did that were great:

1. He chose the best takes
2. His edit of I Me Mine was brilliant, flushing it out to a full song
3. The edit of Dig A Pony makes a lesser song enjoyable

 

I think you may be oversimplifying. I love WYWY, both with words or without them. I also love INNER LIGHT. The melody and lyrics are beautiful to many.

 

The first one was a remix not the original

 

I enjoy "The Inner Light" and "Love You To," but "Within You Without You" is a loooong slog.

 

The first was an acetate of a work in progress. Johns turned in the second version and obviously it was turned down, the third version was made to include Across the Universe and I me Mine.

 

I've found the various instrumentals to be fascinating. Martin's string for Something that appear on the Abbey Road box are beyond brilliant.

 

I still do not understand John's choices for takes or some songs. Has anyone ever heard his logic behind the ones he chose?

 

this is true...I was playing along and answering the question. I get where you are coming form...too-shay!

 

No. The fabs really aren't known for letting out archival mixes or albums (with a few exceptions of course). Whatever it is, it'll be something fresh. The original Get Back album would only be for the most dedicated fans and I doubt they want something like the Glyn Johns mix on streaming services. Plus, I don't think any of them liked his versions in the first place. However, I could see them releasing Get Back with a revisionist approach featuring new mixes, best outtakes, and claiming it to be "warts and all." Then they could also release Let It Be with Spector's moles.

 

I also think the track order, the choice and placement of John’s interjections and the off the cuff material (Maggie Mae, Dig It) was script perfect. Spector’s version has just the right amount of undercutting any pretension. I also prefer the mixing choice in Two of Us, putting John and Paul both center, and the excision of the opening chorus to I’ve Got A Feeling. The mixes in general sound better than on Get Back (though admittedly they are from a better source). I also like the more produced version of Let it Be, with the soul-orientated brass and the louder lead guitar. As for LARW, yeah, it’s a bit corny, but I get it.

Is it that John is the one seemingly undercutting the music with his interjections that gives some people problems. For me, it’s a very clever way of counterbalancing Paul’s potential dominance of the album. Too bad Don’t Let Me Down isn’t there, and I do think Spector didn’t quite get there with Across the Universe.

 

The "Kum Back" bootlegs from the 70's have nothing to do with the "Get Back" album. They are rough mixes that circulated as an acetate and wound up being broadcast on the radio. The actual album didn't surface until 1987.

 

I'd certainly be okay with that. They haven't done anything RSD since the SFF/PL single. I'm not sure if they care about very limited releases all that much. There was some version that was sent to radio stations, right? Or was that a stolen tape/acetate? If anything, it'd be nice to see them putting out something similar to what Paul did with the mono Ram.

 

I agree with much of what you say here, but you lost me at "soul-oriented brass".

 

I vote I don't know.
On a side note, I watched the movie when it was out and seem to remember I thought it was cool. I was able to watch it about a year ago and thought it was terrible, didn't even care much for the rooftop scene

 

Are you talking about the Get Back album not surfacing until 1987? I bought a bootleg in 1981 that had the entire album, not the rough mixes that were broadcast by WBCN in Boston.

 

I have an aircheck of WMCA playing the entire 1st Johns Get Back album the week before Abbey Road hit the air in 10/69, considerably earlier than 1987. When Let It Be finally came out months later, I was horrified by it.

 

Actually they do. There may have been subsequent remixes throughout the spring of '69, but those particular takes used, with the exception of "Let It Be" are the same on both albums.
The mixes between the two were not that different from each other.

As for release, "Get Back" was already making it's way out in late '69. In October '69, the local paper here in Detroit reviewed the album, which at that time was slated for Christmas release. It was the exact track listing as it would have been released. IIRC, Rolling Stone magazine reviewed the album that fall as well.

 

I’m not in the know. Why?

 

Cause they really are in no way the cream of the sessions - as reflected in the band rejecting them. Release the best stuff instead