Let It Be or Let It Be or Get Back

  • Thread starter Thread starter CoolCat
  • Start date Start date

Which do you Prefer Let It Be or Let It Be

  • Let It Be Original

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • Let It Be ReMix-Naked-Get Back

    Votes: 3 27.3%

  • Who are the Beatles?

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • Total voters
    11
yeah all of that information is from the Beatles ANthology. A good read!

Pretty much, all the cabaret and small clubs that they booked in early 63, they still honored in late 63 even after having several hit singles/albums by that time. They didn't skimper out on any of the small stuff, they did everything they promised.

And yeah their contract with EMI was ridiculous because George Martin didn't think he'd make much money from them anyway. Turns out he was wrong. They did redo the contract in 1967, but to my knowledge this is the same contract that remains in place today. Which is practically nothing.
 
AT the time of Brian's death, The beatles had established Apple Records and pretty much managed themselves into utter bankruptcy. Brian's only managerial duty was to book them concerts. The Beatles stopped touring all together by that time and Brian had nothing to really do.

Allan Klien was brought in by 3 of the Beatles to fix the financial mess the 4 of them created.

AND

The Beatles contracted a real whack job to build then their own studio. The film crews showed up and everything was set for Let It Be. The only problem was the studio did not even remotely work. It was way too late to move to Abbey Road, so they borrowed everything and rented some stuff from Gearge Martin's studio to film the movie. The Let It Be recordings were done at Abbey Road later. The only audio from the actual filming of the movie ever released was the rooftop recordings.

I have a bootleg of the recordings done in the movie studio and they are truly horrible.
 
I voted "who are the Beatles?", does that make me a dick? :D

What I want to know is who are the other dicks that voted the same? :eek:

Only kidding, I love the Beatles just think they're over-hyped too much, kind of like people that use David Beckam as a measuring stick for comparing against other football (soccer :p) players.

As for let it be, the uncut version is better, you can't hear the banter the same in the new release. Am I right in remembering that spector was behind the mixing desk for a couple of songs on that album?
 
yes the "Spector version" was what the "original" was referring to in the poll. the commonly known release.

i was wondering who produced the recent one, the "Naked" release? at EMI?...at Abbey Road?...Geoff?...George Martin?

of all of the albums, I always thought the Spector album was muddy and cruddy as far as sonic sounds compared to the others....it is what it is and thats part of a great collection though.
it was changed and the chatter has become part of the familiarity.

but the "original" just has that rough audio tone, muffled IMO. The rooftop is what it is, but side by side, the new one is so much clearer more like the White Album quality and clarity.imo.

the film recording audio is even worse?:eek: hopefully they'll re-do that too.
 
COOLCAT said:
yes the "Spector version" was what the "original" was referring to in the poll. the commonly known release.
Click to expand...

But I thought spector only worked on 3 or 4 of the songs? I can't really remember. By far not my favourite beatles album. I prefer "the best of the beatles" :p :rolleyes:
 
MCI2424 said:
AT the time of Brian's death, The beatles had established Apple Records and pretty much managed themselves into utter bankruptcy. Brian's only managerial duty was to book them concerts. The Beatles stopped touring all together by that time and Brian had nothing to really do.

Allan Klien was brought in by 3 of the Beatles to fix the financial mess the 4 of them created.

AND

The Beatles contracted a real whack job to build then their own studio. The film crews showed up and everything was set for Let It Be. The only problem was the studio did not even remotely work. It was way too late to move to Abbey Road, so they borrowed everything and rented some stuff from Gearge Martin's studio to film the movie. The Let It Be recordings were done at Abbey Road later. The only audio from the actual filming of the movie ever released was the rooftop recordings.

I have a bootleg of the recordings done in the movie studio and they are truly horrible.
Click to expand...

Boootlegs in general are bad quality. You cannot say the Twickenham audio was bad based on bootleg versions!
 
oh, and they guy was called "magic Alex'. He was a friend of Johns. He promised them he could build a 16 track studio with sixteen separate speakers and that Abbey Road was a shit studio. Nothing he did ever worked, just total buzz and distortion. All his gear ended up thrown out. I'd love to have picked it up out od the dumpster just for the novelty:D I believe they werew building their Apple studios but it wasnt done which is why they were not recording there. But still if they wanted to be filmed recording and album from start to finish, why not just do it at Abbey Road! I dont believe they would be held out of the studio due to other bands having booked the time. I think Beatles took first preference.And, when the did get Apple studios up, why record the "Abbey Road" album back at EMI? Plus, I wonder whereall the gear from Apple went? Mccartnets studio? He got a lot of the EMI gear. Studer recorder, odd pianos and organs.
 
COOLCAT said:
Lenny Kravitz has the main board, I read.
Click to expand...

There wasn't just one "main board" used during the Beatles' time in studio 2. which board were you referring to?

The Beatles didn't ALWAYS have first pref when it came to booking time at Abbey Road.....hence Hey Jude, Baby You're A Rich Man, Hey Bulldog being done elsewhere.
 
GC: What's in your studio?

Lenny: I have an API Legacy Console that I had custom made. It's a wrap-around board and I had it modified, so it's custom. They made the EQ and the mic pres a million times better than they come. We also use Protools. And we have an assortment of old tape machines: 24-track Studer, 4 and 8-track Studers and others. I also have my Beatles console, the EMI console that the Beatles made all their records on. I have a bunch of compressors including old Universal compressors as well as lots of different EQs and mic pres, some from Motown. A bunch of Trident "A" Range stuff and we have an assortment of the new things as well. We have our little digital corner that has the newest gear. We have a bit of everything, but a really fine collection of vintage equipment and microphones of course.

http://gc.guitarcenter.com/interview/lkravitz/

I had to look pretty good but remembered seeing it. pretty cool,
 
Some cool info there....thanks COOLCAT.
I do however think that Lenny could be a little deluded - from what I've read they used at least two desks. The REDD 47, REDD 37.......others may include the TG 12345. If my memory serves me well. :rolleyes:

I just did a quick google and found that Lenny in fact owns the REDD 37....the very first desk the Beatles worked with.
 
I don't know how many desks they used at EMI, but I know they got their first SS desk for recording Abbey Road. Before that they were using tube desks.
 
poor usage of gear...

COOLCAT said:
GC: What's in your studio?

Lenny: I have an API Legacy Console that I had custom made. It's a wrap-around board and I had it modified, so it's custom. They made the EQ and the mic pres a million times better than they come. We also use Protools. And we have an assortment of old tape machines: 24-track Studer, 4 and 8-track Studers and others. I also have my Beatles console, the EMI console that the Beatles made all their records on. I have a bunch of compressors including old Universal compressors as well as lots of different EQs and mic pres, some from Motown. A bunch of Trident "A" Range stuff and we have an assortment of the new things as well. We have our little digital corner that has the newest gear. We have a bit of everything, but a really fine collection of vintage equipment and microphones of course.

http://gc.guitarcenter.com/interview/lkravitz/




I had to look pretty good but remembered seeing it. pretty cool,
Click to expand...


I love this as it is case and point that great gear does not make great recordings. Lenny K. sucks IMO. He has always had very sterile, semi retro sounding boring recordings
 
Seafroggys said:
I don't know how many desks they used at EMI, but I know they got their first SS desk for recording Abbey Road. Before that they were using tube desks.
Click to expand...

Correct, they used valve redd 37
consoles until the album Abbey Road when they used the solid state tg12345 console. The redd 37 console used the v72s mic preamp. I have seen many dealers selling the "Beatles" abbbey road mic pre under v72, v72a, v74,76 but the v72s, s being "studio" is the preamp from the redd 37 and very hard to come by. V72 can be bought all day long.As well as the others
 
Its funny how people are like all "TUBES TUBES TUBES!" and The Beatles best sounding album was recorded on a solid state desk :D

I wish I had a room that sounded as good as Studio 2.
 
jmorris said:
Boootlegs in general are bad quality. You cannot say the Twickenham audio was bad based on bootleg versions!
Click to expand...

I can hear past the recording quality pretty much. It definately does not hold up to the Abbey Road recordings.
 
Seafroggys said:
I wish I had a room that sounded as good as Studio 2.
Click to expand...

I'll need to dig out some pics and check but if memory serves, the pics I've seen of Abbey Road sessions looked very much like Studio 3. maybe I'm wrong......again :o
 
qiktune said:
I'll need to dig out some pics and check but if memory serves, the pics I've seen of Abbey Road sessions looked very much like Studio 3. maybe I'm wrong......again :o
Click to expand...
Yes studio 3 is very much like #2 except larger and with a stage at one end.
 
MCI2424 said:
I can hear past the recording quality pretty much. It definately does not hold up to the Abbey Road recordings.
Click to expand...

Oh, of course, but the guy said the audio was very badly recorded at Twickenham but his opinion is based on bootlegs, not a good benchmark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top