New topic
PrintableI'm pretty sure that at least by the third album, they archived isolated tracks before bouncing them down.
My guess is that if and when The Beatles back catalogue is (officially) released as MP3s, most albums will be remixed to make the stereo separation less harsh. MP3 files are basically intended for portable devices, meaning the use of earphones in most cases. They couldn't use the new remasters to sell as MP3s - they really couldn't. Some of the tracks are downright painful to listen to in earphones. The release of the remastered catalogue on CD would have been the ideal time to launch MP3s on iTunes, Napster, 7digital etc... They must have spent a fortune in advertising. Why incur further costs for a separate launch for MP3s at a later date? My guess is that EMI are remixing every song and they're not quite finished. We know they have isolated tracks archived digitally already. They Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be... Naked, Love, The Beatles Rockband are all evidence of this... If I'd been in charge at Apple Corps, I would have still released the remastered original mixes as a mono box set and stereo box set. However, I would have demanded that the individual albums on CD were remixed. It would have been a good middle ground to take; the purists would still get their original mixes, whereas non-purists would get the remixes we all expected. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
GirlBrother said: My guess is that if and when The Beatles back catalogue is (officially) released as MP3s, most albums will be remixed to make the stereo separation less harsh. MP3 files are basically intended for portable devices, meaning the use of earphones in most cases. They couldn't use the new remasters to sell as MP3s - they really couldn't. Some of the tracks are downright painful to listen to in earphones. The release of the remastered catalogue on CD would have been the ideal time to launch MP3s on iTunes, Napster, 7digital etc... They must have spent a fortune in advertising. Why incur further costs for a separate launch for MP3s at a later date? My guess is that EMI are remixing every song and they're not quite finished. We know they have isolated tracks archived digitally already. They Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be... Naked, Love, The Beatles Rockband are all evidence of this... If I'd been in charge at Apple Corps, I would have still released the remastered original mixes as a mono box set and stereo box set. However, I would have demanded that the individual albums on CD were remixed. It would have been a good middle ground to take; the purists would still get their original mixes, whereas non-purists would get the remixes we all expected. Mixing is such a creative process. Now that the masters have had the dust cleaned off them it's time to let them be. Those mixes represent a time, a place and a vision that all 4 members were actively involved in realising. I don't see any reason they would be remixed apart from greed. Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
nd33 said: GirlBrother said: My guess is that if and when The Beatles back catalogue is (officially) released as MP3s, most albums will be remixed to make the stereo separation less harsh. MP3 files are basically intended for portable devices, meaning the use of earphones in most cases. They couldn't use the new remasters to sell as MP3s - they really couldn't. Some of the tracks are downright painful to listen to in earphones. The release of the remastered catalogue on CD would have been the ideal time to launch MP3s on iTunes, Napster, 7digital etc... They must have spent a fortune in advertising. Why incur further costs for a separate launch for MP3s at a later date? My guess is that EMI are remixing every song and they're not quite finished. We know they have isolated tracks archived digitally already. They Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be... Naked, Love, The Beatles Rockband are all evidence of this... If I'd been in charge at Apple Corps, I would have still released the remastered original mixes as a mono box set and stereo box set. However, I would have demanded that the individual albums on CD were remixed. It would have been a good middle ground to take; the purists would still get their original mixes, whereas non-purists would get the remixes we all expected. Mixing is such a creative process. Now that the masters have had the dust cleaned off them it's time to let them be. Those mixes represent a time, a place and a vision that all 4 members were actively involved in realising. I don't see any reason they would be remixed apart from greed. Better sound? I'm more interested in hearing the best possible sound/mix than anything else. I wouldn't call myself a purist and I don't think the Beatles were infallible. For instance, I think Paul is utterly insane if he thinks Phil Spector actually ruined "The Long and Winding Road." 
Anyway, many of the remixes that have been released in the last 10 years have been awesome ("Eleanor Rigby," "Hey Bulldog," "All You Need Is Love," "Love You To," "Think for Yourself"...). I'd argue that the vast majority of people who hear those remixes will prefer them over the stereo remasters with hard-panned vocals, especially those first two. "Hey Bulldog" (2009 Stereo Remaster) "Hey Bulldog" (1999 Songtrack Remix) I don't think the spirit of the song was affected, but it definitely sounds better with the vocals in the middle. (FWIW, I'd still give the edge to the mono remaster.) "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm still waiting... I have some boots of the mono vinyl drop cd's... but I wish the boxed sets were more affordable for both stereo/mono together as a super boxed set! I am also hoping they do a complete remix/remaster in the near future of the entire catalog, because there are tones and flavors in there that could be brought out, even though that throws away a purist approach, it does make it fresh and startling again. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: nd33 said: Mixing is such a creative process. Now that the masters have had the dust cleaned off them it's time to let them be. Those mixes represent a time, a place and a vision that all 4 members were actively involved in realising. I don't see any reason they would be remixed apart from greed. Better sound? I'm more interested in hearing the best possible sound/mix than anything else. I wouldn't call myself a purist and I don't think the Beatles were infallible. For instance, I think Paul is utterly insane if he thinks Phil Spector actually ruined "The Long and Winding Road."
Anyway, many of the remixes that have been released in the last 10 years have been awesome ("Eleanor Rigby," "Hey Bulldog," "All You Need Is Love," "Love You To," "Think for Yourself"...). I'd argue that the vast majority of people who hear those remixes will prefer them over the stereo remasters with hard-panned vocals, especially those first two. I don't think the spirit of the song was affected, but it definitely sounds better with the vocals in the middle. (FWIW, I'd still give the edge to the mono remaster.) yeah, that's the thing about the stereo mixes. while the OP is correct in that there is a market for the purists, it was the mono mixes that the Beatles cared abotu and worked on. the stereo mixes, even in the 60's, were a money grab for hi-fi enthusiasts and to get an extra buck or 2 out of them. and while it's nice to have the original stereo mixes, if they were making the stereo versions the standard because that's what they think the majority of people in 2009 want to hear, then they might as well have gone ahead and made them true, modern stereo mixes. they did it for Help and Rubber Soul, they did it for the Anthology releases. and they've done it for the YS songtrack and Love. and we've also got Let It Be... Naked, so they obviously aren't THAT averse to going back and fiddling with the original stuff to create something "new" out of it. there is a market for purists, in both mono and stereo, and for the UK vs. American releases of the early ones. but there is also a market for a decent sounding stereo remix. which is actually probably bigger than any of those other markets if you're trying to sell them to a modern audience and keep the cash flow coming in from casual listeners, or trying to turn on a new generation to the Beatles, etc. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: nd33 said: Mixing is such a creative process. Now that the masters have had the dust cleaned off them it's time to let them be. Those mixes represent a time, a place and a vision that all 4 members were actively involved in realising. I don't see any reason they would be remixed apart from greed. Better sound? I'm more interested in hearing the best possible sound/mix than anything else. I wouldn't call myself a purist and I don't think the Beatles were infallible. For instance, I think Paul is utterly insane if he thinks Phil Spector actually ruined "The Long and Winding Road."
Anyway, many of the remixes that have been released in the last 10 years have been awesome ("Eleanor Rigby," "Hey Bulldog," "All You Need Is Love," "Love You To," "Think for Yourself"...). I'd argue that the vast majority of people who hear those remixes will prefer them over the stereo remasters with hard-panned vocals, especially those first two. "Hey Bulldog" (2009 Stereo Remaster) "Hey Bulldog" (1999 Songtrack Remix) I don't think the spirit of the song was affected, but it definitely sounds better with the vocals in the middle. (FWIW, I'd still give the edge to the mono remaster.) I totally understand Paul's point though about "the Long and winding road" i thinnk we cant understand how the artist feels because we didnt write the song ourselves, but that song is 100% Paul's no other Beatles even, its doubtful that anyone played on it but him too. So his view is that "i did this song" and along comes "producer" to clean up what was intended to be simple, and then lumps all these strings annd things all over it. I would feel the same way in writing if someone took my story and changed the direction or ending, it wouldnt be flattering at all. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GirlBrother said: I'm pretty sure that at least by the third album, they archived isolated tracks before bouncing them down.
My guess is that if and when The Beatles back catalogue is (officially) released as MP3s, most albums will be remixed to make the stereo separation less harsh. MP3 files are basically intended for portable devices, meaning the use of earphones in most cases. They couldn't use the new remasters to sell as MP3s - they really couldn't. Some of the tracks are downright painful to listen to in earphones. The release of the remastered catalogue on CD would have been the ideal time to launch MP3s on iTunes, Napster, 7digital etc... They must have spent a fortune in advertising. Why incur further costs for a separate launch for MP3s at a later date? My guess is that EMI are remixing every song and they're not quite finished. We know they have isolated tracks archived digitally already. They Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be... Naked, Love, The Beatles Rockband are all evidence of this... If I'd been in charge at Apple Corps, I would have still released the remastered original mixes as a mono box set and stereo box set. However, I would have demanded that the individual albums on CD were remixed. It would have been a good middle ground to take; the purists would still get their original mixes, whereas non-purists would get the remixes we all expected. I seriously doubt that the Beatles are moving closer to digital releases, there is almost no need for it at this point. Also they would never get full cooperation to sell songs from albums seperately, i dont see it, it would lose the integrity of the albums at that point. The Beatles are from the "collectible" age, there is nothing collectible about the digital age, so they most likely will not get involved till someone comes up with something to make it special "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: AlexdeParis said: Better sound? I'm more interested in hearing the best possible sound/mix than anything else. I wouldn't call myself a purist and I don't think the Beatles were infallible. For instance, I think Paul is utterly insane if he thinks Phil Spector actually ruined "The Long and Winding Road."
Anyway, many of the remixes that have been released in the last 10 years have been awesome ("Eleanor Rigby," "Hey Bulldog," "All You Need Is Love," "Love You To," "Think for Yourself"...). I'd argue that the vast majority of people who hear those remixes will prefer them over the stereo remasters with hard-panned vocals, especially those first two. "Hey Bulldog" (2009 Stereo Remaster) "Hey Bulldog" (1999 Songtrack Remix) I don't think the spirit of the song was affected, but it definitely sounds better with the vocals in the middle. (FWIW, I'd still give the edge to the mono remaster.) I totally understand Paul's point though about "the Long and winding road" i thinnk we cant understand how the artist feels because we didnt write the song ourselves, but that song is 100% Paul's no other Beatles even, its doubtful that anyone played on it but him too. So his view is that "i did this song" and along comes "producer" to clean up what was intended to be simple, and then lumps all these strings annd things all over it. I would feel the same way in writing if someone took my story and changed the direction or ending, it wouldnt be flattering at all. yeah, i suppose. and it's believeable in this context because the Get Back/Let It Be sessions were meant to be a back to basics simple affair. on the other hand, of all the Beatles, you know damn well that it's Paul that's the one most in love with an orchestra, a choir and a harp, so part of it for the last 40 years is just him bitching about something he probably would have done anyway, left to his own devices 
they really should have approved either of the 2 versions Glyn Johns put together in 1969. would have saved them all some heartache and decades of bad feelings. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: lastdecember said: I totally understand Paul's point though about "the Long and winding road" i thinnk we cant understand how the artist feels because we didnt write the song ourselves, but that song is 100% Paul's no other Beatles even, its doubtful that anyone played on it but him too. So his view is that "i did this song" and along comes "producer" to clean up what was intended to be simple, and then lumps all these strings annd things all over it. I would feel the same way in writing if someone took my story and changed the direction or ending, it wouldnt be flattering at all. yeah, i suppose. and it's believeable in this context because the Get Back/Let It Be sessions were meant to be a back to basics simple affair. on the other hand, of all the Beatles, you know damn well that it's Paul that's the one most in love with an orchestra, a choir and a harp, so part of it for the last 40 years is just him bitching about something he probably would have done anyway, left to his own devices
they really should have approved either of the 2 versions Glyn Johns put together in 1969. would have saved them all some heartache and decades of bad feelings.  Agreed. All the talk of the song being "Spectorized" is hilarious since it sounds exactly like something McCartney himself would've done. Regardless, the song is better for it. The Naked versions feels... well, naked and incomplete. I still can't believe he wrote such a sappy song and actually thinks it shouldn't have strings. That seriously blows my mind."Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: errant said: yeah, i suppose. and it's believeable in this context because the Get Back/Let It Be sessions were meant to be a back to basics simple affair. on the other hand, of all the Beatles, you know damn well that it's Paul that's the one most in love with an orchestra, a choir and a harp, so part of it for the last 40 years is just him bitching about something he probably would have done anyway, left to his own devices
they really should have approved either of the 2 versions Glyn Johns put together in 1969. would have saved them all some heartache and decades of bad feelings. Agreed. All the talk of the song being "Spectorized" is hilarious since it sounds exactly like something McCartney himself would've done. Regardless, the song is better for it. The Naked versions feels... well, naked and incomplete. I still can't believe he wrote such a sappy song and actually thinks it shouldn't have strings. That seriously blows my mind.and Paul has used the "Spectorized" instrumentation in concert - so much for hating it! "Lisa, i'm gonna give u the brush, and u're gonna paint the side of the train..." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: errant said: yeah, i suppose. and it's believeable in this context because the Get Back/Let It Be sessions were meant to be a back to basics simple affair. on the other hand, of all the Beatles, you know damn well that it's Paul that's the one most in love with an orchestra, a choir and a harp, so part of it for the last 40 years is just him bitching about something he probably would have done anyway, left to his own devices
they really should have approved either of the 2 versions Glyn Johns put together in 1969. would have saved them all some heartache and decades of bad feelings. Agreed. All the talk of the song being "Spectorized" is hilarious since it sounds exactly like something McCartney himself would've done. Regardless, the song is better for it. The Naked versions feels... well, naked and incomplete. I still can't believe he wrote such a sappy song and actually thinks it shouldn't have strings. That seriously blows my mind.the Glyn Johns mix on Anthology 3 is a nice middle ground, although it still just kinda lays there compared to the Spector version. Paul's preferred (basically demo) version just never really takes off. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The only album I heard they expressed dissatisfaction with was Let It Be which they have rectified. If you want drums, vocals and bass up the middle, the option is there right?
Stereo panning is overrated.... It's all about depth! That's what's missing in so many modern recordings and is what limiting helps destroy! Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
nd33 said: The only album I heard they expressed dissatisfaction with was Let It Be which they have rectified. If you want drums, vocals and bass up the middle, the option is there right?
Are you talking about Naked or mono? If it's the former, no thanks. The only thing I like about that project is the addition of "Don't Let Me Down," which never should've been cut. If it's the latter, hell yeah! I'm still wading through the stereo remasters to find the few nuggets of gold, but all of the mono versions sound great. Stereo panning is overrated.... It's all about depth! That's what's missing in so many modern recordings and is what limiting helps destroy!
We're in complete agreement here. "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
AlexdeParis said: nd33 said: The only album I heard they expressed dissatisfaction with was Let It Be which they have rectified. If you want drums, vocals and bass up the middle, the option is there right?
Are you talking about Naked or mono? If it's the former, no thanks. The only thing I like about that project is the addition of "Don't Let Me Down," which never should've been cut. If it's the latter, hell yeah! I'm still wading through the stereo remasters to find the few nuggets of gold, but all of the mono versions sound great. Stereo panning is overrated.... It's all about depth! That's what's missing in so many modern recordings and is what limiting helps destroy!
We're in complete agreement here. I like Naked WAY better than either the original remaster or this one. Hate the Phil Spector production...always have...but the sound I think is perfect on Naked. It completely changed my opinion on that album...it went from a half finished, horrible sounding, depressing album to one that can hold its own to the others in the catalog. I KNOW I am in the minority here about Naked...but its my 2 cents for what its worth. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Poplife88 said: AlexdeParis said: We're in complete agreement here. I like Naked WAY better than either the original remaster or this one. Hate the Phil Spector production...always have...but the sound I think is perfect on Naked. It completely changed my opinion on that album...it went from a half finished, horrible sounding, depressing album to one that can hold its own to the others in the catalog. I KNOW I am in the minority here about Naked...but its my 2 cents for what its worth. replacing Maggie Mae and Dig It with Don't Let Me down certainly does wonders for it. my only gripes about it are the modern mastering job and some of the versions they picked, particularly the reprise-less Get Back, etc. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: errant said: yeah, i suppose. and it's believeable in this context because the Get Back/Let It Be sessions were meant to be a back to basics simple affair. on the other hand, of all the Beatles, you know damn well that it's Paul that's the one most in love with an orchestra, a choir and a harp, so part of it for the last 40 years is just him bitching about something he probably would have done anyway, left to his own devices
they really should have approved either of the 2 versions Glyn Johns put together in 1969. would have saved them all some heartache and decades of bad feelings. Agreed. All the talk of the song being "Spectorized" is hilarious since it sounds exactly like something McCartney himself would've done. Regardless, the song is better for it. The Naked versions feels... well, naked and incomplete. I still can't believe he wrote such a sappy song and actually thinks it shouldn't have strings. That seriously blows my mind.If you have a copy of the A/b Road set (let it be sessions), you can reference several sketches and takes of the long and winding road. Which are imo, stark, beautiful, and moving. Music is the best... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
GirlBrother said: We know they have isolated tracks archived digitally already. They Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be... Naked, Love, The Beatles Rockband are all evidence of this... I agree with your logic, but I don't know how they would have isolated early tracks since many of the early tracks contain two or more instruments each. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: Poplife88 said: I like Naked WAY better than either the original remaster or this one. Hate the Phil Spector production...always have...but the sound I think is perfect on Naked. It completely changed my opinion on that album...it went from a half finished, horrible sounding, depressing album to one that can hold its own to the others in the catalog. I KNOW I am in the minority here about Naked...but its my 2 cents for what its worth. replacing Maggie Mae and Dig It with Don't Let Me down certainly does wonders for it. my only gripes about it are the modern mastering job and some of the versions they picked, particularly the reprise-less Get Back, etc. But the original Let It Be didn't have a reprise on Get Back either. I do agree that they might not have used versions as good as the ones on Let it Be, but otherwise I much prefer ...Naked. Let it Be does represent the film well, but ...naked seems like a better album. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Poplife88 said: AlexdeParis said: We're in complete agreement here. I like Naked WAY better than either the original remaster or this one. Hate the Phil Spector production...always have...but the sound I think is perfect on Naked. It completely changed my opinion on that album...it went from a half finished, horrible sounding, depressing album to one that can hold its own to the others in the catalog. I KNOW I am in the minority here about Naked...but its my 2 cents for what its worth. no I totally agree. the song order is way better and getting rid of the "I dig a pygmy" stuff definitely made it more of a proper album. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i prefer naked, but I love the guitar solo on Let it Be and the string arrangement on The Long and Winding Road on the original. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sdldawn said: i prefer naked, but I love the guitar solo on Let it Be and the string arrangement on The Long and Winding Road on the original.
but those are [gasp] overdubs! Actually I have not been able to prefer the new naked T.L.A.W.R. to the string version. Maybe that song is not my cup o' tea. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Sdldawn said: i prefer naked, but I love the guitar solo on Let it Be and the string arrangement on The Long and Winding Road on the original.
but those are [gasp] overdubs! I realize that, but the string section seems to bring out more of the melody. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: they really should have approved either of the 2 versions Glyn Johns put together in 1969. would have saved them all some heartache and decades of bad feelings. Maybe, but I think doing Abbey Road instead was probably a better idea. I feel like maybe they felt the whole thing was unsalvageable. It wasn't even a long time spent on the Let It Be sessions (basically just January 1969). Despite some good songs, it really wasn't enough for a great Beatles album, though in the end they got a decent one. One note about the Naked thing, is that I believe they left one Phil Spector aspect. According to one book, I Me Mine was originally half as long but Spector spliced another chorus & verse onto the end. That seems to have been left there for the naked version. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: GirlBrother said: We know they have isolated tracks archived digitally already. They Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be... Naked, Love, The Beatles Rockband are all evidence of this... I agree with your logic, but I don't know how they would have isolated early tracks since many of the early tracks contain two or more instruments each. That only applies to the first two albums AFAIK. "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
GirlBrother said: I'm pretty sure that at least by the third album, they archived isolated tracks before bouncing them down.
My guess is that if and when The Beatles back catalogue is (officially) released as MP3s, most albums will be remixed to make the stereo separation less harsh. MP3 files are basically intended for portable devices, meaning the use of earphones in most cases. They couldn't use the new remasters to sell as MP3s - they really couldn't. Some of the tracks are downright painful to listen to in earphones. The release of the remastered catalogue on CD would have been the ideal time to launch MP3s on iTunes, Napster, 7digital etc... They must have spent a fortune in advertising. Why incur further costs for a separate launch for MP3s at a later date? My guess is that EMI are remixing every song and they're not quite finished. We know they have isolated tracks archived digitally already. They Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be... Naked, Love, The Beatles Rockband are all evidence of this... If I'd been in charge at Apple Corps, I would have still released the remastered original mixes as a mono box set and stereo box set. However, I would have demanded that the individual albums on CD were remixed. It would have been a good middle ground to take; the purists would still get their original mixes, whereas non-purists would get the remixes we all expected. EMI is not remixing anything - they just spent 4 years getting these remasters done, and these are the offerings for the foreseeable future (unless Hi-Def versions come out at a later date). They are not available online (yet) because, in my opinion, it would've seriously impacted CD sales. I think they'll be available online when the CD sales level off. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sdldawn said: I love the guitar solo on Let it Be and the string arrangement on The Long and Winding Road on the original.
Co-sign. I absolutely love those strings on "The Long and Winding Road." Besides being gorgeous, I think they give the song character and its own identity. The naked version is just another piano ballad and there's already a better one on the album."Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: errant said: replacing Maggie Mae and Dig It with Don't Let Me down certainly does wonders for it. my only gripes about it are the modern mastering job and some of the versions they picked, particularly the reprise-less Get Back, etc. But the original Let It Be didn't have a reprise on Get Back either. I do agree that they might not have used versions as good as the ones on Let it Be, but otherwise I much prefer ...Naked. Let it Be does represent the film well, but ...naked seems like a better album. yeah, I know no version of this album ever used the reprise. I don't know why not. How hard would it have been to just include the single versions of Get Back and Don't Let Me Down on the album? they are, by far, the best versions available, but they had "stuff" done to them that would be at odds with the back-to-basics theme of the album (for instance, the reprise of Get Back being spliced from a take a on a different day). but then again, neither of the official versions of the album ended up being what was intended when they went into the studio, with Spector's remixing for Let it Be in 1970, and the extreme editing done for Nake in 2003. I think LIB/Get Back is going to continue to be one that confounds and is never "quite right" no matter what they do. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point either of the Glyn Johns versions of the album come out officially. Let It Be (1970) is clearly not what was intended, though the segues and song fragments give it that vibe, and Naked really isn't representative of it either. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: NDRU said: But the original Let It Be didn't have a reprise on Get Back either. I do agree that they might not have used versions as good as the ones on Let it Be, but otherwise I much prefer ...Naked. Let it Be does represent the film well, but ...naked seems like a better album. yeah, I know no version of this album ever used the reprise. I don't know why not. How hard would it have been to just include the single versions of Get Back and Don't Let Me Down on the album? they are, by far, the best versions available, but they had "stuff" done to them that would be at odds with the back-to-basics theme of the album (for instance, the reprise of Get Back being spliced from a take a on a different day). but then again, neither of the official versions of the album ended up being what was intended when they went into the studio, with Spector's remixing for Let it Be in 1970, and the extreme editing done for Nake in 2003. I think LIB/Get Back is going to continue to be one that confounds and is never "quite right" no matter what they do. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point either of the Glyn Johns versions of the album come out officially. Let It Be (1970) is clearly not what was intended, though the segues and song fragments give it that vibe, and Naked really isn't representative of it either. Since the Beatles couldn't be bothered about putting the care and attention in to the finished product as they had previously LIB is never going to represent a Beatles album as previous ones did. IMO "Naked" represents the initial concept of the album better than LIB, but it is LIB that was released so its always going to be contentious. Glyn Johns configurations are only rough concepts and were assembled without Beatle input. I would be surprised if these see an official release. "Lisa, i'm gonna give u the brush, and u're gonna paint the side of the train..." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: NDRU said: I agree with your logic, but I don't know how they would have isolated early tracks since many of the early tracks contain two or more instruments each. That only applies to the first two albums AFAIK. I know they did it as late as The Ballad of John & Yoko My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
errant said: NDRU said: But the original Let It Be didn't have a reprise on Get Back either. I do agree that they might not have used versions as good as the ones on Let it Be, but otherwise I much prefer ...Naked. Let it Be does represent the film well, but ...naked seems like a better album. yeah, I know no version of this album ever used the reprise. I don't know why not. How hard would it have been to just include the single versions of Get Back and Don't Let Me Down on the album? they are, by far, the best versions available, but they had "stuff" done to them that would be at odds with the back-to-basics theme of the album (for instance, the reprise of Get Back being spliced from a take a on a different day). but then again, neither of the official versions of the album ended up being what was intended when they went into the studio, with Spector's remixing for Let it Be in 1970, and the extreme editing done for Nake in 2003. I think LIB/Get Back is going to continue to be one that confounds and is never "quite right" no matter what they do. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point either of the Glyn Johns versions of the album come out officially. Let It Be (1970) is clearly not what was intended, though the segues and song fragments give it that vibe, and Naked really isn't representative of it either. yeah I can't argue with any of that! Though I suppose you could say the album represents the fucked up nature of the sessions very well
I think the project was doomed from the start. They started too quickly after the white album. Had they taken a year off, who knows? My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |