Re: Spector's "Let It Be" - a bad rap

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (EgwEimi) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> The reply came -- 
>>If one is going to be honest to the initial terms of reference, then
>>an 'As Nature Intended' album is the way to go.  And Glyn John's mixes
>>are the ones that are best suited with that end in mind.
> 
> I'm not even sure about that.  First of all, the introduction of Billy
> Preston to the project changed the project's intent somewhat.  If not
> one other musician, why not twenty?  If we can overdub on "Let It Be,"
> why not the whole LP?  


I agree.

It just all comes down to the fact that the notion of a 'no overdubs' 
album was always fatally flawed and that the Beatles started to realise 
and acknowledge this.




> Even if Paul's "nature intended" can be somehow recovered, that
> doesn't mean it was ever a GOOD idea.  

agreed.




>>You cannot allow 
>>classic tracks like Long and Winding Road, Don't Let Me Down, Get Back
>>and Let it Be, to be just put out in such an amaterurish way. It is a 
>>sin.
> 
> Again I agree.  Both Martin and Spector agreed as well, but obviously
> Paul still holds that 30+ year grudge against the other three at
> hiring Phil Spector.  Lennon claimed to his grave that Paul didn't
> care about the project and had given his consent to Spector on the
> final mixes. 


I would imagine that by the fall of 1969, the levels of communication 
between the solo fabs was pretty poor...especially between John and 
Paul.





>>The undubbed project was maybe an interesting idea, after a few pints
>>of beer late one evening, for a band that had tried most other things 
>>across the 1960s.  It was a fairly radical and original idea at the 
>>time.
>>
> 
> Sure.  Like issuing a white-covered LP after Sgt. Pepper. 


very true.





>>I think that Spector did a great job with a lot of crappy recordings. 
>>He made the best of a bad job
> 
> That's what John said as well, and George agreed to that (but not as
> strongly). 
> 
> I believe the Get Back sessions have always brought back for Paul the
> infighting and the alienation from the others that he felt.  He
> "needs" to do it his way because the others got their way originally. 
> Historically, he forgets that the reason that he didn't get his way is
> that he was on his farm secretly recording a solo album at the time,
> while the others were available to complete the project.


It is always nice to get a new Beatles album/project released.

But Paul, apart from financially, is in a no win situation with this new 
album.

I genuinely believe that he had limited input into the Naked mixes.

But many will see this new album as the Macca remix, a mix that was over 
30 years in the offing. And that is harsh.

The Naked album, for me, falls between two stools.

It is neither 

1 - a true, undubbed album (which was supposedly what the whole project 
was about), nor

2 - the best studio album that could have been released from the 
project.


I favor number 2.  I would like to have seen the best producers going in 
(I would have badgered George Martin and Geoff Emerick) and taking the 
best studio takes, and using the best of the old overdubs and putting 
out the shiniest and best album from the recordings.

--

All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.    
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please 
change your headers appropriately.   -- the moderators