The Beatles Bible - Topic: Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/ Simple:Press Version 5.2.6 meanmistermustard on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74458 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74458 Regarding Ive Got A Feeling, its one of the few tracks which they released as recorded on the Rooftop, its the Beatles as nature intended live with no overdubs, just blasting it out, and its a true highlight of the Beatles later years, a true Beatles performance not just from the Get Back/Let It Be ruins but from a period when more often than not everything was subjected to overdub after overdub to get it right, countless reduction mixes and frequent editing of takes to complete one final track. Yet on the Naked album they go back and edit two performances into ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 21:10:56 +0100 DrBeatle on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74454 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74454 ^what you said about LIBN is exactly how I feel. The frankentracks they created are reason alone why I can never get into it. The only thing I love about it is it's the only place you can hear Across the Universe at its original speed (sped up on the WWF album, slowed down on LIB)

]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 19:44:53 +0100 meanmistermustard on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74446 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74446 Did Spector make Let It Be more John? Teddy Boy was only axed upon discovering Paul was including it on his own album, Spector even gave it a couple of mixes before it was dropped. Spector also cut down Dig It, mercifully, to under a minute and whilst omitting Dont Let Me Down for whatever reason added Maggie Mae, his biggest crime to the LP. All thats left are the sound bites and, at least for me, they arent a minus on the album - tho it could be argued the placements were detrimental to Pauls Two of Us and Let ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 19:08:57 +0100 DrBeatle on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74444 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74444

fabfouremily said
ExText, I don't think I have anything new to add, really (should have checked back here last night after posting). I respect your opinion of LIBN although I still believe that it was made more into the album that was originally intended. Yes, Paul's presence is heavier than on the original album. Is that because he made it like that though, or because Spector wasn't too much of a fan of Paul, and much preferred John's work?

As others have also said, Paul isn't the ego-maniac that he's often painted out to be. He was trying to ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 18:37:27 +0100 DrBeatle on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74442 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74442

Expert Textpert said
 

And as you know, Dr. Beatle, I'm a huge John fan...and I can personally identify with his inclination to get stoned and sleep all day much more than I can with Paul's extroversion, cheerfulness and professionalism.  I can't watch Let It Be without disliking Paul by the end of it.  But I'm not trying to single him out (as you say, no one was blameless), that's just my reaction.  There is one scene which is very funny to me..it's the one where we see Paul talking from the back of his head and the camera is focused ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 18:35:04 +0100 fabfouremily on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74436 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74436 a-hard-days-night-ringo-8No problem, not everyone is mad on all four of them. I just thought that some of your above comments and reasons for disliking him were faulty, that's all.

]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 16:40:28 +0100 Expert Textpert on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74434 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74434 I like all of them, but I'm Paul-challenged.

For the longest time I disliked The Beatles, and the reason was silly songs by Paul such as Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da. I just would not listen to The Beatles because I thought they were silly people's music.

I'm grateful to a friend for giving me every Beatles album so that I could hear the whole catalogue.  And now I'm a Beatles fanatic.  I was mainly interested in John and George, whose songwriting instantly appealed to me, but especially John. 

After a while, those silly songs began to sound a little better to my ears, but when ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 16:21:55 +0100 fabfouremily on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74430 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74430 ExText, I don't think I have anything new to add, really (should have checked back here last night after posting). I respect your opinion of LIBN although I still believe that it was made more into the album that was originally intended. Yes, Paul's presence is heavier than on the original album. Is that because he made it like that though, or because Spector wasn't too much of a fan of Paul, and much preferred John's work?

As others have also said, Paul isn't the ego-maniac that he's often painted out to be. He was trying to keep the band afloat ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 16:10:49 +0100 Expert Textpert on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74427 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74427  

And as you know, Dr. Beatle, I'm a huge John fan...and I can personally identify with his inclination to get stoned and sleep all day much more than I can with Paul's extroversion, cheerfulness and professionalism.  I can't watch Let It Be without disliking Paul by the end of it.  But I'm not trying to single him out (as you say, no one was blameless), that's just my reaction.  There is one scene which is very funny to me..it's the one where we see Paul talking from the back of his head and the camera is focused on John's face, who is ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 15:32:35 +0100 DrBeatle on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74425 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74425

meanmistermustard said
Paul raised no objection to Spectors work back in 1970 before release, he might have not given two hoots and been more focused on his own album but still he could have stopped Let It Be at least long enough to change some parts he later hated (TLAWR namely). Instead he bitched about release dates and had a heated arguement with Ringo. None of the beatles are blameless over the whole Get Back/Let It Be debacle hence why we have two albums, neither of which are what were originally mooted at the time of concept creation, and no movie ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 13:47:00 +0100 DrBeatle on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74424 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74424

Expert Textpert said
Dr. Beatle,

I believe it was later than '72, during the Rock and Roll Sessions, when Spector's behavior became erratic and violent and he stole the tapes.  But he went on to work with Yoko after John's death, I believe in 1986, on two posthumous John Lennon albums.

Also, not all of the John b-sides are weak.  I Am The Walrus, Revolution and Rain are all John b-sides with a Paul a-side.  Of course, Paul didn't get every a-side, and I'm not really counting, but I do think it was a trend.

But, as you say, I have ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 13:42:04 +0100 meanmistermustard on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74419 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/page-2/#p74419 Paul raised no objection to Spectors work back in 1970 before release, he might have not given two hoots and been more focused on his own album but still he could have stopped Let It Be at least long enough to change some parts he later hated (TLAWR namely). Instead he bitched about release dates and had a heated arguement with Ringo. None of the beatles are blameless over the whole Get Back/Let It Be debacle hence why we have two albums, neither of which are what were originally mooted at the time of concept creation, and no movie on home release.

John ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 10:40:46 +0100 Linde on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/#p74412 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/#p74412

mja6758 said
But one thing you have to accept, DrBeatle, is that three Beatles believed that Spector saved the tapes, and only one thought he sabotaged them. There is lots to pull all the main protagonists up on during that period for how they were dealing with each other, but you cannot ignore the fact that three of the four were happy enough with the album, and the fourth was appalled, and that when he led a reconstruction of the album (Naked), he stripped away lots of the spirit of the original and ended up with an album that was more ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 09:32:57 +0100 Expert Textpert on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/#p74411 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/#p74411 Dr. Beatle,

I believe it was later than '72, during the Rock and Roll Sessions, when Spector's behavior became erratic and violent and he stole the tapes.  But he went on to work with Yoko after John's death, I believe in 1986, on two posthumous John Lennon albums.

Also, not all of the John b-sides are weak.  I Am The Walrus, Revolution and Rain are all John b-sides with a Paul a-side.  Of course, Paul didn't get every a-side, and I'm not really counting, but I do think it was a trend.

But, as you say, I have a lot more to read ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 04:29:10 +0100 mja6758 on Get Back, Let It Be or Let It Be... Naked http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/#p74405 Let It Be http://www.beatlesbible.com/forum/let-it-be-1/get-back-let-it-be-or-let-it-be-naked/#p74405 But one thing you have to accept, DrBeatle, is that three Beatles believed that Spector saved the tapes, and only one thought he sabotaged them. There is lots to pull all the main protagonists up on during that period for how they were dealing with each other, but you cannot ignore the fact that three of the four were happy enough with the album, and the fourth was appalled, and that when he led a reconstruction of the album (Naked), he stripped away lots of the spirit of the original and ended up with an album that was more McCartney weighted than ...]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 00:53:24 +0100