Curious: Why Hasn't 'Let It Be' Been Released Yet? | Beatles films, television and radio | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  
 

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Curious: Why Hasn't 'Let It Be' Been Released Yet?
23 October 2012
1.23am
Wildcat
The Cavern Club
Forum Posts: 80
Member Since:
15 September 2012
Offline

Intro (or skip straight to question, I won't be offended)

I mention this in some other Topic on here but will repeat it for this purpose: Growing up in a military family meant moving every 2-3 years to a completely different place. The air force bases we lived on usually had one movie theater, and they never showed first-run movies- the average wait was 13-14 months afterwards, when it was a lot cheaper to rent to a military base.

Thus, I saw 'Let It Be' on the big screen in mid to late 1971, as a 12-year-old, at Sandia Air Force Base, NM.

It's a lot harder to pinpoint the time of this next occurance, I was maybe 19 or 20? but I know that VCRs had just become available to consumers, and a new network called 'HBO' had just started around the same time. I had both, with which I intended to record as many naughty naked parts that HBO was showing. But my older brother, who conveniently worked (still does) at the cable company & provided the free HBO, brought me one of their first program guides, little 4" by 7" pamphlets with 6 pages, and there I just happened to see it:

'Let It Be' was making it's television debut on HBO that very month!  a-hard-days-night-ringo-6 

It was the first movie I ever recorded on to videotape, but here's the serendipitous part: I only found out about six years later that HBO had only aired it twice because of various, and immediate, threats of lawsuits that caused them to yank it off their schedule.

I still have that precious copy today (on DVD now, of course), but on to other matters

Your Opinion, Please:

Without revealing a single opinion I have regarding this film, I'm asking any and all who would care to answer:

Why Do You Think The Beatles 'Let It Be' Film Has Not Been Officially Released, Over 40 Years Later?

For many years, and then the advent of home video, I thought for sure there would be a 20th- anniversary reissue; however, I know how extremely patient EMI / Apple can be when it comes to witholding Beatles' ephemera, and then firmly believed that 2000 would be THE year.

No 30th-anniversary, no 40th.. what gives??

Your thoughts?a-hard-days-night-ringo-13

23 October 2012
1.32am
SatanHimself
Hades-on-Leith
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 697
Member Since:
16 August 2012
Offline

I think the most obvious answer is that unless you're a hardcore fan...

 

It's boring, depressing, shabby-looking, rambling and somewhat pointless.

 

I say this with the greatest of affection.  But let's face it:  It's just not a pleasant experience and it looks and sounds like crap.  At best, it holds historical importance of the decline of the greatest band there ever was.  It's a hard sell for Paul and Ringo to muster up the enthusiasm to sell a reissue as something that they would want you to see, remastered in 1080p blu-ray.

E is for 'Ergent'.
23 October 2012
1.36am
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline

From another thread:

Let It Be won't be released because Paul is concerned about his image, and how it would look rereleasing a movie in which (I saw it on YouTube) he's a massive douche. Yoko won't allow it because she's viewed derisively by all parties, and Olivia and Dhani won't allow it because George (I believe) threatened to veto it before he died (my timeline isn't perfect, but McCartney thought up Let It Be… Naked and a rerelease of the film in 2000, George gave approval of the music, but didn't give permission, so they said it wasn't going to be released because of internal tensions. I stand to be corrected, but that's how I know the story)

Also, a release was planned for 2003, along with Let It Be... Naked. Also, from a source in 2008: "global brand ... if the public sees the darker side of the story. Neither Paul nor Ringo would feel comfortable publicising a film showing The Beatles getting on each other's nerves ... There's all sorts of extra footage showing more squabbles but it's unlikely it will ever see the light of day in Paul and Ringo's lifetime."

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
23 October 2012
2.03am
robert
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 358
Member Since:
19 April 2010
Offline

This is a question which truly confounding to me - and for this reason. The Beatles (as a company) and Apple are clearly willing to release and re-release the same stuff over and over - clearly for the money. Let It Be on DVD, blu-ray, etc would bring in lots of money - I mean lots. Ringo needs the money - clearly Paul doesn't. Yoko will do just about anything for money and George was, from the very beginning, the most money conscious of them all (Hare Krishna aside, check the record - George was the big "where's our money" guy).

So there can only be, to me, one thing which stops the re-release - their image. It is the only thing that ever overruled the financial consideration - their image. All five of them (yes, Yoko considers herself one of the 'stars' in that movie) come off as pathetic.

 

And yet, Let It Be is out there on YouTube and you can buy it on Ebay. Funny.

FYI - I love watching Let It Be.

"She looks more like him than I do."
23 October 2012
11.13am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10383
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Ringo doesnt need the money. He has a large fortune laying around, goes on tour with his All-Star Band, and will make yearly earnings from his beatles royalties (which sell handsomely), back catalogue (which wont be that much but adds to the pot), and any other pies he has fingers in. Ringo might not be as well off as Paul but he isnt looking to morgage his home or turn down the gas. 

 

Mr Sun King summed it up: Ringo and Paul dont want it out for negative memories the film (and soundtrack for Paul*) holds and how the Beatles come across; Olivia (and Dhani) wont sanction it because George hated the film and everything about it; Yoko wont release it because of how she is portrayed and viewed + John is stoned for most of it and that doesnt fit her version of John as sold to the public; Apple wont release it because it doesnt fit the beatles image of positivity, love, light and everything else they use to sell the beatles to the public.

 

Thats not to say it wont come out eventually but it needs a massive shift for all to approve it; all beatles releases need an outright yeah from Paul, Ringo, and the representitives of John and George's Estate namely Yoko and Olivia.  

 

(* Let It Be Naked was an ego trip of Pauls to revise, reverse and remove all traces of Spector from the original, dont buy into the hype of it being how it was originally intended with no edits or anything, there are just as many edits and overdubs in LIBN than the original.)

 

Personally i feel it should be released as its part of the Beatles history and it does have good parts (eg The Rooftop Concert, John and Paul duetting on an early version of Two of Us, George and Ringo working on Octopus's Garden, some of the music performances). However i get why some folks wont like it and do understand where The Beatles are coming from at the moment, even if i dont agree with them in the slightest.

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
23 October 2012
12.47pm
robert
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 358
Member Since:
19 April 2010
Offline

meanmistermustard said
Ringo doesnt need the money. He has a large fortune laying around, goes on tour with his All-Star Band, and will make yearly earnings from his beatles royalties (which sell handsomely), back catalogue (which wont be that much but adds to the pot), and any other pies he has fingers in. Ringo might not be as well off as Paul but he isnt looking to morgage his home or turn down the gas. 

 

Mr Sun King summed it up: Ringo and Paul dont want it out for negative memories the film (and soundtrack for Paul*) holds and how the Beatles come across; Olivia (and Dhani) wont sanction it because George hated the film and everything about it; Yoko wont release it because of how she is portrayed and viewed + John is stoned for most of it and that doesnt fit her version of John as sold to the public; Apple wont release it because it doesnt fit the beatles image of positivity, love, light and everything else they use to sell the beatles to the public.

 

Thats not to say it wont come out eventually but it needs a massive shift for all to approve it; all beatles releases need an outright yeah from Paul, Ringo, and the representitives of John and George's Estate namely Yoko and Olivia.  

 

(* Let It Be Naked was an ego trip of Pauls to revise, reverse and remove all traces of Spector from the original, dont buy into the hype of it being how it was originally intended with no edits or anything, there are just as many edits and overdubs in LIBN than the original.)

 

Personally i feel it should be released as its part of the Beatles history and it does have good parts (eg The Rooftop Concert, John and Paul duetting on an early version of Two of Us, George and Ringo working on Octopus's Garden, some of the music performances). However i get why some folks wont like it and do understand where The Beatles are coming from at the moment, even if i dont agree with them in the slightest.

I will take exception with the one point where we sort of disagree - I think Ringo does need the money. He does not have any huge fortune lying around.  It's not that he's broke but he is not easily able to maintain that Beatle lifestyle he really likes. He burned through money in the 80's and 90's. He invested in a lot bad businesses.

 

Why do you think Ringo did Shining Time Station? Because it challenged him artistically? He needed the money.

This is why he stopped giving out autographs because he was diluting the value of his own memorabilia.

His records and tours now lose money - which is why he has to either cancel the tours or fund the records himself.

We forget, perhaps, that when a Beatle song is played on the radio or anywhere, they get nothing from that - those rights were purchased by Michael Jackson and now Sony. The Beatles make money only when product is sold - hence all the reissues. They do own the rights to a very few early tunes - but not enough to make a difference. Paul makes his money on his own stuff and music investments (Buddy Holly's music etc).

So Ringo makes very little (compared to what he spends) off the old Beatle songs - he makes a lot when they sell Beatle product.

That was John's motivation before his death to bring the whole band back together for Ringo's album - to help Ringo out. John knew that all four on a Ringo album would send it to number one.

My 2 cents.

"She looks more like him than I do."
23 October 2012
1.16pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10383
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Off-topic but we only have Jack Douglas's word on Johns wishes for a beatle get together on Ringos album and i doubt it would have happened in '81 for Ringo's album but who knows and never will. There is no doubt John would have been on the album and it would have featured all 4 beatles but i personally doubt all on the same track. (The topic of John and a Beatles reunion is in another thread).

 

The 80's were different for Ringo; he was out of control for a large part which is when he blew the money he had but he cleaned himself up, as did Barbara. The Anthology reaped huge financial benefits for everyone as did Love, the 2009 reissues and everything else Apple put out and the All Star Shows sell well tho not 100%. I dont know his financial accounts but he isnt desperate for cash like George was for the Anthology (he had money but it was all tied up).  

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
23 October 2012
1.59pm
robert
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 358
Member Since:
19 April 2010
Offline

Not to be argumentative because you are a thoughtful person, but if we eliminated all single source info we have on the Beatles, we'd chuck out about 50% of what know of them.

I think the thing is that Jack Douglas is a credible source - many of the other things he says are substantiated and there is no reason to believe he'd make that up.

Also, we do know that John was writing songs for Ringo's album - in fact Ringo wouldn't record them after John's death he was too shattered by the loss.

 

So it is more likely true than not true that John was at least intending to round up the others to get them all on Ringo's album - whether on the same track or in the studio at the same time is a different question. I think we can take Jack Douglas' comments as accurate.

John always had a special eye out for Ringo - remember he said in an early interview "Ringo's practically penniless!".

Agreed Anthology brought in lots of cash for all of them - and yes George is the one who needed it most - but my point is that Ringo still spends at a level beyond what he earns and he is not sitting a huge fortune.

We actually agree on the final point which is that it's ego and image preventing the re-release of Let It Be.

Peace.

"She looks more like him than I do."
23 October 2012
4.36pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10383
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline

Agree we cant throw out all single account reports on the beatles but we also cant accept them otherwise a whole pile of crap would be taken as gospel. I take Johns comments about a beatles reunion and not seeing the point above what Jack has to say plus a beatle reunion on Ringos album would make it go insane. However John would definately have been on the album, which in itself would be a major selling point. If this discussion is to continue best to move it here.

 

I have no idea how much Ringo is spending so cant say. However if money is required all Apple have to do is shove out some compilation and the money will come; some people actually bought Tomorrow Never Knows (the itunes exclusive compilation). Plus there are the 50th anniversarys to come and all the hype which will result in royalites from reissues to limited editions and from t-shirts to tea spoons. The Let It Be movie would still not be a neccessity.

 

And there is no need to say peace but thank you. Its cool to discuss subjects where there are differences of opinion without resulting to arguements and its delightful to not go down that route (one of the problems of the net is that you get morons who if you disagree with them or vice versa they throw bile at you - thankfully that doesnt happen here much at all). apple01

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
23 October 2012
8.30pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline

http://ultimateclassicrock.com.....-drummers/

$300 million! (estimated)

Also, Robert, isn't music publishing only a portion of songwriting income - separate from the songwriting royalties themselves? Or am I misunderstanding that?

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
24 October 2012
3.52am
Wildcat
The Cavern Club
Forum Posts: 80
Member Since:
15 September 2012
Offline
11

I'm truly grateful to have solicited exactly what these replies have delivered- unfiltered opinions that truly aid me in forming my own. I realise how ingratiating it can be to read the names of specific repliers I list in these posts, but when I'm tossing my own comments into the mix, I like to be clear on exactly who, or what, is informing my opinion at the time.

It's boring, depressing, shabby-looking, rambling and somewhat pointless.

SatanHimself

Up until just a few years ago, "depressing" was the one term I had most associated with Let It Be, with "boring" coming up a very close second. But to be quite honest, I've acquired a certain amount of affection for the film the last couple of times watching it, about 2 years ago & just again a few weeks back.

So there can only be, to me, one thing which stops the re-release – their image. It is the only thing that ever overruled the financial consideration – their image. All five of them (yes, Yoko considers herself one of the 'stars' in that movie) come off as pathetic.

Von Bontee

Personally i feel it should be released as its part of the Beatles history and it does have good parts (eg The Rooftop Concert, John and Paul duetting on an early version of Two of Us, George and Ringo working on Octopus's Garden, some of the music performances). However i get why some folks wont like it and do understand where The Beatles are coming from at the moment, even if i dont agree with them in the slightest.

meanmistermustard

You very astutely picked out some of the best highlights, and I think there are a few more, too - I believe it's slightly less than 90 minutes long, and while I could certainly understand how it would be boring to (probably) most people in general, I think it's an artifact well beyond the scars of history that surely took decades to fade, for the surviving Beatles and their fans. But 30 years was quite enough time to keep this from being released, and at 40 years, it's almost kind of embarrassing, like just now releasing the Zapruder film after protecting our delicate sensibilities for a couple of generations..

The lads are seen smiling from time to time; they seem to enjoy the rooftop performance; they really lighten up for a bit when Billy Preston gets there.

The movie isn't nearly as depressing to watch now, but I could understand how the 'image' issue would put off a fan like Von Bontee- hard to be unbiased watching it under that circumstance. 

Great input from everyone, thanks for assuring me I haven't missed something in all this time!

24 October 2012
5.26am
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
12

Appreciate the creditation, Wildcat, but that was ROBERT's quote (and opinion) you addressed, not mine! All I contributed to this thread was regarding Ringo's net worth.

I don't give a damn how badly they come off, I son't care about "image" - I wanna see (buy) that movie! (And with lotsa bonus outtakes, even if it makes 'em look even worse.) And I remain optimistic (and hopeful) about a 2013 reissue.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
24 October 2012
1.53pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10383
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
13

I personally dont believe it would harm their image at all. If anything it would show them to be human and struggling to get enthusiasm for recording (well 3 of the 4) and its the flaws that ultimately increase the greatness. Despite all the crap going on during January '69 the beatles managed to record some classic songs and there is an interest in watching a band breaking up but able to perform a fantastically powerful joyful concert. Its not the greatest movie in the world, it does have issues, but there are positives to take out of it.

The easiest way for a release is the original movie, a directors cut to make Paul, Ringo, Yoko & Olivia happier (judging by the nagra bootlegs happier times were experienced - especially back at Apple), additional bonus scenes (there are more than enough in the can), and the complete Rooftop concert.

 

Its just shallow egos that are holding it back.

 

I know i complain here a lot, mostly about Apple, but its so infuriating to think whats in the vaults and what we actually get. How hard is it to put together the promo videos and release them? It would show the beatles to be at the beginning of music videos, beating Queen by 7/8 years. Instead we get crap merchandise we never knew we didnt want, the MMT soundtrack revised, and reissues. Oh and some more exclusive itunes compilations to look forward to. Yeah hah, ramp up the playlist.

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
24 October 2012
1.56pm
Wildcat
The Cavern Club
Forum Posts: 80
Member Since:
15 September 2012
Offline
14

Sorry about the error; I also didn't know 'Let It Be' was on YouTube until robert mentioned it. I'm usually the last to know about most things, such as John intending to help with Ringo's album, so this forum is a very educational experience for me.

24 October 2012
5.15pm
MKR
The Indra
Forum Posts: 42
Member Since:
29 August 2012
Offline
15

Let it Be is awesome.

 

Love the rooftop footage and some of the studio footage too - stuff like the early takes of Maxwell's Silver Hammer, I Me Mine, octopus' garden, etc.  Even the behind the scenes stuff while it may be an unhappy period in the band, it's all really fascinating to watch.

 

It's a must see for any beatles fans.

 

there's a decent copy floating around the torrents.

24 October 2012
6.38pm
SatanHimself
Hades-on-Leith
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 697
Member Since:
16 August 2012
Offline
16

I think if it does see the light of day (and it probably will), it will have to be framed in the proper context.  Much like MMT acknowledges its shortcomings and the booklet in the box set even includes a bunch of negative reviews, Let It Be needs to be released as an archival piece which in hindsight gave the world a glimpse of a band which was falling apart.

Give the film an introduction stating as such and include a documentary with the participation of as many people involved as possible, and I think it would soften Paul's harsh image and perhaps put a bittersweet spin on the film.

 

Context is important, and as originally released Let It Be just sort of dumped a lot of material on people without any real perspective as to what was going on or what the Beatles were thinking.

E is for 'Ergent'.
24 October 2012
9.06pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
17

You're right about all that. Acknowledging and properly framing those flare-ups (which many if not most fans are already fully familiar with) is honest and healthy. Pretending they weren't there is dishonest and cowardly.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
25 October 2012
9.46am
Wildcat
The Cavern Club
Forum Posts: 80
Member Since:
15 September 2012
Offline

meanmistermustard said
I personally dont believe it would harm their image at all. If anything it would show them to be human and struggling to get enthusiasm for recording (well 3 of the 4) and its the flaws that ultimately increase the greatness. Despite all the crap going on during January '69 the beatles managed to record some classic songs and there is an interest in watching a band breaking up but able to perform a fantastically powerful joyful concert. Its not the greatest movie in the world, it does have issues, but there are positives to take out of it.

The easiest way for a release is the original movie, a directors cut to make Paul, Ringo, Yoko & Olivia happier (judging by the nagra bootlegs happier times were experienced - especially back at Apple), additional bonus scenes (there are more than enough in the can), and the complete Rooftop concert.

 

Its just shallow egos that are holding it back.

 

I know i complain here a lot, mostly about Apple, but its so infuriating to think whats in the vaults and what we actually get. How hard is it to put together the promo videos and release them? It would show the beatles to be at the beginning of music videos, beating Queen by 7/8 years. Instead we get crap merchandise we never knew we didnt want, the MMT soundtrack revised, and reissues. Oh and some more exclusive itunes compilations to look forward to. Yeah hah, ramp up the playlist.

Bravo, well said, meanmistermustard! This is a comment that deserves repeating! Awhile back, I got a 2-DVD set jam-packed with The Beatles' promo films off of eBay, an amazing collection that obviously had a lot of thought behind its production, even with the very poor quality of some of the clips. I'm watching this, and the entire time I'm thinking the exact same thing: if this fan can do such a competent job of compiling these gems, just how damned hard would it be for the company that owns the original films to do the same thing, and pocket a few million dollars in the process? You look at the waves of publicity surrounding the releases of A Hard Day's Night, Help! and Yellow Submarine on DVD, and it's incomprehensible that these people continue to ignore a collection of promo films that's every bit as entertaining and exciting to watch! If something like that were released today, it would sell like mad throughout the entire holiday season and beyond, yet these 'Piggies In The Middle' would rather keep them locked away, gathering dust and degrading in quality on some shelf, because.. why?!? There's no rational excuse for witholding these from commercial release!

I don't mean to get off-topic from Let It Be itself, but mmm's question is so painfully logical as to make one question the sanity behind the powers-that-be who have yet to figure this out! The collection I have is more valuable to me than those other three movies combined - everybody's had the chance to see them whenever they want, but there are a couple of generations who haven't even heard of these promos aside from what was shown in the Anthology project! THESE promos aren't depressing, or of poor quality, or embarrassing for anyone originally involved; they're absolutely joyful to watch, certainly more so than MMT, Submarine and especially Let It Be, and the earlier ones are perfect companion pieces to Help! and A Hard Day's Night... when one thinks of how George and Ringo could have benefitted financially from a treasure like this- 15, 20, 30 years ago - then it just becomes tragic that they haven't been made available to anyone since they were first shown. Just exactly who's death is it gonna take to inspire some ignorant marketing executive's greed to capitalise on the release of these promo videos?

I'm just as much a collector of Beatle rarities as anyone on this forum, and we all like to think we have something special that the majority of the other collectors don't. But it would be a distinct honour for me to make free copies of these CD promo collections available for anyone who would enjoy them as much as I do, beginning with all the members of this site. And we're not just talking about a few grainy, washed-out 8 millimeter black & white reels in somebody's attic; there are multiple promos of the same songs in some instances, like 'Paperback Writer', 'We Can Work It Out', 'Revolution', 'Ticket To Ride' and 'Hello Goodbye', some in color and black & white. GGGRRRRrrrrrrrrr.....

It was criminally negligent of EMI to wait so long on officially releasing a collection of the BBC radio performances - sitting their fat arses on these promo films for forty-five years and still keeping them under lock and key is criminally insane if you ask me.

Thanks a lot, meanmistermustard - I'm awake at 4:30am from annoying bad dreams and catching up on the comments here, and you have to bring up the promo videos and induce another one of my typing frenzies! 

Excuse my lack of decorum, but F*CK Let It Be - there are more pressing matters of concern to address, and this one tops the list!

blue-meanie paul-mccartney a-hard-days-night-ringo-6ahdn_george_05 a-hard-days-night-john-2..."We all agree with you..."

25 October 2012
2.53pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline

Hm, I'd still prefer to see "Let It Be" released first. Music videos have never had a great deal of interest for me, really. I mean, if I have to watch a band lip-synch and pretend to play their instruments, there are few I'd rather see do so than the Beatles. But if we had "Let It Be", we could watch them sing and play FOR REAL!

Aw, who am I kidding - I wanna see it all! "Let It Be" first, then a promo compilation. After that, I dunno...Shea Stadium maybe??

Oh, and thank you for that generous offer, Wildcat! :D

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
26 October 2012
2.09am
Wildcat
The Cavern Club
Forum Posts: 80
Member Since:
15 September 2012
Offline
20

Von Bontee

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone that their preference is wrong, but I read your reply and I throw that presumption out the window, because you're undeniably wrong here.

I don't know how or why I've been chosen to possess this kind of wisdom (Christ, you know it ain't easy), but I know better than to question it and, just as surely as some other person on this site mistakenly thinks that 'No Reply' is his all-time favourite Beatles song, I can only share this gift of wisdom with you both that, contrary to what I'm sure you both believe to be the truth, it just --- isn't.

Yes, dear friends, I am merely a vessel  that some Higher Power has ordained to be the Voice of Reason, and to speak to those misguided souls whose preferences are simply incorrect, no matter how 'preferential' they may seem to be, according to your particular mindset.

I like you people here, I truly do, which is why I suppose the Forces of 'Rightness' have led me to this destiny, Forces that neither you nor I can ignore in the grand scheme of things. Who could this Force be? What omnipotent, all-knowing source of True Correctness guides me? Who is the Perpetually 'damn straight', 'no b.s.', 'Take-My-Word-For-It' Master of 'I know what you are but who am I' Greatness that compels me to point out your shameful, pathetic 'wrongness' on matters that are beyond my mortal comprehension??

Could it be... SatanHimself??!!??

"I say this with the greatest of affection.  But let's face it:  It's just not a pleasant experience and it looks and sounds like crap.  At best, it holds historical importance of the decline of the greatest band there ever was."

Okay. You might say, "Aw, just a lucky guess," or some silly thing like "He's a false God, let's all curse his name and spit on his doorstep, since we are all pagans and have no tolerance for truth!"

But his further words in support of that inflammatory statement must also be absorbed, if we are to still identify ourselves as compassionate, thoughtful, and open-minded pagans:

"I think if it does see the light of day (and it probably will), it will have to be framed in the proper context.  Much like MMT acknowledges its shortcomings and the booklet in the box set even includes a bunch of negative reviews, Let It Be needs to be released as an archival piece which in hindsight gave the world a glimpse of a band which was falling apart.

Give the film an introduction stating as such and include a documentary with the participation of as many people involved as possible, and I think it would soften Paul's harsh image and perhaps put a bittersweet spin on the film."

"Context is important, and as originally released Let It Be just sort of dumped a lot of material on people without any real perspective as to what was going on or what the Beatles were thinking."

Just let that bit of enlightenment sink into your dark, 'wrongly-preferential' soul, worthless heathen...

All seriousness aside, the approach SatanHimself outlines makes the most sense. Didn't Paul himself admit that MMT was a rather embarrassing affair? If his ego can survive that resurrection, surely Let It Be shouldn't concern him that much - the most uncomfortable moment of the film, where George is acquiescing to Paul's snarky, condescending attitude instead of 'arranging' his premature exit from the Material World, is shown in full on the Anthology program.

It's exactly because of the eternity of time that's passed since those sessions that the movie should be made available again. I have to admit I found it mostly a bummer when watching it originally, everyone did. But to watch it now is uniquely fascinating.

When I see Billy Preston showing up in the studio and all four of those guys are greeting him with genuine cheer (and relief), I'm wishing I was Billy Preston! On that rooftop, obviously cold as bloody hell, even with John in that ridiculous furry thing and Ringo in that ridiculous red thing, they're all exchanging looks and smiles and getting off playing live to a clueless street gathering below - it's a beautiful sight, and it isn't faked for the cameras, they couldn't have cared less by then. Ringo does that exaggerated jump when little Heather bangs his cymbal; John & Paul look completely serene doing Two Of Us together, like brothers...

I honestly can't imagine the average Beatles fan disliking this movie, released in the proper context that SatanHimself describes.

So, in the spirit of conciliatory perspective towards my fellow forum followers, I'll give everyone a break and keep this post short for a change, no thanks necessary

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Into the Sky with Diamonds, AbbeyRoadRage, Mr. Kite
53 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 10383

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

Ahhh Girl: 5517

parlance: 5494

Annadog40: 4734

mithveaen: 4651

Zig: 4549

Mr. Kite: 4291

Ron Nasty: 3217

fabfouremily: 2947

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2684

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3149

Posts: 140431

Newest Members: ZoeLouk, arsentev78, Rocky You're a Blackbird, Johnlovedcats, Alex

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5517, meanmistermustard: 10383, Zig: 4549, Joe: 3492

Administrators: Joe: 3492, Ellie: 1

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: None