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
CoolCat

CoolCat

Well-known member
Mixing and Remixing....

Listening to Let It Be, Get Back, ReMix, Naked, Get Back, Let It Be this morning, going back and forth of the two mixes.

I tend to like the new one. It's more exciting. I always thought the original was the worst Beatles album sound wise.

the old one is a little cool with the raw, and chatter talking though...

looked up old threads and didn't see anything.

what about a Poll?
 
As a Beatles fan for 40 years I thought the Naked version was about the most stupid thing I ever heard, as well as very poor sounding. Very Protools. No drive/ass kick feel on Lennon's rthy. gtr on "Get Back" for example. "Long and winding road" is basically the same without choir. I mean, what was the point? Its been that way since 1970,38 years, if it wa good enough for release then why screw with it now. Pretty much to make money. The no choir version of long and winding was on anthology...what the f... Oh, and most people do not realise than some of the tunes are compilations. Meaning they stole better solos from other versions etc., time stretched them whatever was needed. The main enginner from Abbey Road, Paul( cant remember his name) that worked on the project commented on how they would replace things. Mix article I believe.
 
I'm also curious as to which "original" version of Let It Be one wishes to compare the remix to? ;)

(from off camera: "Honey, are you visiting that 'All Beatles, All the time' web forum again? Don't MAKE me blast 'Stairway To Heaven' and 'Freebird' until you throw up again!")

G.
 
Yeah, aren't there like 3 different guitar solos for Let it Be (the song)?

Best solo was the one that was featured on the '1' album. Was that the original single version?
 
I forget which version it is, but i bought Let It Be on CD around 1999 or 2000? It had a bad ass, loud guitar solo in it. But that's the only time i've ever heard it. Every other time it's been a slightly less...ballsy.....organ/guitar/pedal solo combo.



Zeke
 
Let It Be (Naked) was poor, but I LOVE the 'Love' album, compiled by George and Giles Martin for the Cirque De Soleil. Done in ProTools but it sounds great!
 
Elton Bear said:
Let It Be (Naked) was poor, but I LOVE the 'Love' album, compiled by George and Giles Martin for the Cirque De Soleil. Done in ProTools but it sounds great!
Click to expand...

Yes Elton, I agree with both of your statements."Love" was kind of cool! And why we are on the Beatles.......I also NEVER understood back when recording LET IT BE, while the idea was to do a film of the creative process from start to finish, why the hell did they do it in a crapy, cold film studio?:mad: Why not just record it at EMI? They all have complained about how bad the enviroment was at Twickenham, wacky colored lights, cold room. Also they used portable gear and a not so good recording room. I've read they were getting feedup with EMI at that point complaining of the bare brick walls, very sterile, but still I feel they should have just brought the film crew into EMI and record them in the natural enviroment, with the same top equipment they were used to.....
 
The first half was recorded at Twinckenham, the second half of the movie was cut at Apple Studios (which is where the album tracks came from).

They did not record at EMI Studios, though they went back there to do Abbey Road.
 
Seafroggys said:
The first half was recorded at Twinckenham, the second half of the movie was cut at Apple Studios (which is where the album tracks came from).

They did not record at EMI Studios, though they went back there to do Abbey Road.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct, they scrapped most if not all of the Twickenham audio and re recorded/added at their Apple studio with borrowed gear from EMI. But again, why the hell did'nt they just do it all at EMI........ Without Brian E. they became knucklheads
 
jmorris said:
Yes you are correct, they scrapped most if not all of the Twickenham audio and re recorded/added at their Apple studio with borrowed gear from EMI. But again, why the hell did'nt they just do it all at EMI........ Without Brian E. they became knucklheads
Click to expand...
I think your last comment about Epstein holds a major clue to the answer, j.

Perhaps without him they became knuckleheads, but with him they were getting ripped off like babies with candy. After they fired Epstein for contractually raping them, and had become as big as they had, they trusted no one. This is why they formed Apple and why they wanted to do things as proprietary and as in house as possible; it was a knee-jerk and protective reaction, circling the wagons. Sure, they could have recoded elsewhere and maybe better, but they felt they had to learn how to do it themselves somehow. Better sooner than later, they borrowed the gear and jumped into home recording, Beatles-style :D.

At least that's how I kinda have understood it, 127th hand ;).

G.
 
Fired Brian???I have never read that.. he died, that we all know, overdose with pills and booze. Topping it they called it per Anthology. Yes, Brian did make some poor deals where Beatles got short end of the stick. It was due to lack of experience rather than malice as I have always understood it. Glen, where did you read they fired Brian? Could be, but I have never heard that. All interviews with Beatles at time of his death( John in particular) tell of how they were lost without him, like chickens with their heads cut off to quote Ringo from Anthology. I believe he was never fired but the shit hit the fan after he died. And again, yes Brian did not handle the money as he should have but not with intent as I have read. But he sure as hell got them to the top under his guidence. No one wanted them before him which is strange as you'd think someone would have also seen their potential
Jim
 
jmorris said:
Glen, where did you read they fired Brian?
Click to expand...
I might be wrong about that. I am certainly not an expert on Beatles esoterica. You're probably right in your account of the method of his exit from the scene, I'll defer to you on that.

But I have heard and read on a couple of different occasions, including a BBC documentary I saw on PBS just recently that while Epstein may have gotten them as far as he did, he had the contracts structured in a way where they made next to nothing in the first couple of years of success (the figure of $800 sticks in my head for something big like their entire first American tour or something like that.)

Anyway, I have been under the impression for a long time that - whatever the reason for Epstein's departure - that episode with Epstein stuck in their collective throats and was a driving force behind them trusting practically no one and wanting to take control of themselves with Apple Records.

Again, I'm not stating this as Gospel; just an offer of an explanation for side-stepping EMI with that project.

G.
 
Once Brian died, Paul wanted Linda Eastman's father to manage them, and John (and maybe the others) wanted Allen Klein , who was managing the Stones. It turned out that, even though the Beatles had sold way more records than the Stones, the Stones were much richer. So, Brian was either ripping them off, or getting ripped off.
 
I dont believe Brian ever ripped them off. Poorly setup contracts, yeah could be. Ther Beatles have all said(on film) about how Brian was great and was one of the few in their inner circle of people they trusted. It could have been that the shitty deals was the best Brian could get for them at the time. Remember no one wanted them. Remember the famed Decca recording rejection? Yes Rami, Paul wanted Lindas father( and I think that would have been a good choice) all the other 3 Beatles wanted Allen Klien who by the way was a theif and was busted on shit later if I remember right.
 
jmorris said:
I dont believe Brian ever ripped them off. Poorly setup contracts, yeah could be.
Click to expand...
The only specific source I can remember off-hand (45 years of specific stories start to blend together, ya know? :)) is the film documentary "From Liverpool to San Francisco", which had that $800 figure in it along with at least one reference to Epstein getting the lion share of the proceeds. There are a lot of fairly rare inerviews in there with the mopheads, including one where the interviewer asks them about the millions of dollars they are worth. Their response is pretty interetsing to watch; their non-verbal language is stronger than what they say, and what they do say is that they had yet to see a whole lot of money, as popular and famous as they were.

I guess it just goes to show you...love can't buy you money.

(2...3...4...)

G.
 
jmorris said:
I dont believe Brian ever ripped them off. Poorly setup contracts, yeah could be. Ther Beatles have all said(on film) about how Brian was great and was one of the few in their inner circle of people they trusted. It could have been that the shitty deals was the best Brian could get for them at the time. Remember no one wanted them. Remember the famed Decca recording rejection? Yes Rami, Paul wanted Lindas father( and I think that would have been a good choice) all the other 3 Beatles wanted Allen Klien who by the way was a theif and was busted on shit later if I remember right.
Click to expand...


I agree, I don't think Brian was ripping them off. They might have simply become too big for any one man to manage.

And you're right about Klien, turned out to be a scum bag, too.

Where does Rubin Cincaid fit into all this?:D
 
Interesting views on BE ripping them off.

My take on it is that up until the signed with Parlophone/EMI, Brian was paying for EVERYTHING out of his own pocket based on his SOLE belief that these guys were going to be big!

I don't doubt that the reason they never really complained openly to him about being "ripped off" was because he'd been footing the bill for so long. I can see them asking for more money by the time the world tours began but up until then I dunno.

There is in fact factual proof that when they visited Australia in 64 for the first world tour, a promoter in Adelaide decided that he'd up the ticket prices to the venue because The Beatles had now become so popular......the group apparently vetoed the idea and stuck with the agreed price from 1963. Not only did the promoter lose big time but I'm sure the group lost money that way. Adelaide wasn't the only place this happened ( I believe it happened in the US as well ). What I'm trying to say is that not only did BE stick to his "gentlemans' agreements" when it came to money but The Beatles backed him 100 percent ( this is all just my own views ). Future bookings however would obviously command more money.

Yes, they were locked into a "slave deal" with EMI but anybody on this board who has been signed to a major can tell you nothing has changed since then and they at the time just wanted a recording contract....which locked them in until 1967.
I'm sure when the contract was renewed in 67 there would have been some serious changes made.

Not sure if my written expression is as good as my verbal but that's my view...
I doubt that Brian ripped them off!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top