Paul And Ringo Won't Let It Be
	found on Rolling Stone written by CelebratedMrK, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 1 Feb 1:50pm
		"The surviving Beatles have announced plans of re-releasing the Let It Be album. Unhappy with legendary producer Phil Spector's 'Wall of Sound' treatment, Paul and Ringo (and the marketing monkeys at EMI) have now decided to release the album as it was originally intended. Call it the 'Musician's Cut', if you like. "Is this blatant marketing move necessary? I would argue not. It has been more than 30 years since the album was originally released. In comparison to the music (prog rock etc) that followed the Fab Four, Let it Be actually sounds quite minimal and stripped down (even when compared to Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road and White Album). "On the original album, the only song that really sounds overblown and overproduced today is 'The Long and Winding Road'. So why not release that one song, as it was originally supposed to sound, and be done with it? Why, oh why can't the remaining Beatles leave the legacy untouched and unrevised?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 39 commentsbest: 5 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  The long and winding road to rid us of Spector   by holgate       at Sat 1 Feb 11:58am score of 2 astute     I'd rather see this than the 'Anthology' stuff, which really did feel like a scraping of the barrel, especially with the 'new' tracks such as 'Free as a Bird'. Ugh. Perhaps EMI -- I know, still trying to recoup the Mariah Carey losses -- could be a little inventive and issue a software version which allows you to mix the Spector stuff in and out as you listen to it. I know, that would be asking for some inventiveness from the record business. McCartney actually did a 'de-Spectored' retake on 'Long and Winding Road' on Give My Regards To Broad Street, but that's not quite the same as wiping Phil from the original masters.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Anthology aka "Please Sir, More Money Sir..."   by Ajax       at Sat 1 Feb 2:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     I'd rather see this than the 'Anthology' stuff, which really did feel like a scraping of the barrel, especially with the 'new' tracks such as 'Free as a Bird'. Ugh. I agree that much if not all of "Anthology" sounds like clearing out the basement -- does the world really care about (e.g.) an unmixed version of "Get Back" where Ringo coughs twice during the second chorus? -- in search of something to hawk on eBay. But (and call me crazy if you must) I actually like "Free As A Bird." It can really only be called a Beatles song in the most technical sense, but it's not an awful song. I'd rank it above such quote-unquote classics as "The Ballad of John and Yoko" and "Old Brown Shoe", anyway. ;) "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Anthology aka "Please Sir, More Money Sir..."   by TargetDemographic       at Mon 3 Feb 1:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     I do think it's funny that now the Beatles are trying to "update" the stuff Spector produced by stripping it down, while "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love", the latest (sorta kinda) Beatles songs, are hardly minimally produced. I can't remember who said it, but I remember someone describing it as sounding like Electric Light Orchestra or something and that's pretty much dead on. Whether or not it's overproduced is subjective, but it's definitely very produced.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Anthology aka "Please Sir, More Money Sir..."   by nmiguy       at Tue 4 Feb 1:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     While I admit to being a fan of the BEatles and their musical talent, I can say with much confidence that on many of their songs the lyrics are ass. "I am the egg-man, I am the egg-man, I am the Walrus, coo-coo ka-choo!" "Number 9, number 9..." "Obla Di Obla Da, life goes on, ah1 La la how my life goes on..." "Na na na nannana na, nanana na, hey Jude." "I read the news today oh boy. Ten thousand holes in blackburn Lancashire. And though the holes were rather small, we had to count them all, now we know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall. I'd live to turn you on..." "Have you seen the little piggies crawling in the dirt? And for all the little piggies life is getting worse. Always half clean and they play around in" You get the idea. They try to be obtuse but they peddle garbage lyrics. Granted in their later years they strayed away from cliche lyrics, no more love songs about holding hands or loving someone 8 days a week (Someone needs to tell the Beatles there are only 7 days in a week.) Still, the fab four could rock out when they wanted to. I like their cover tunes, like "Roll Over Beethoven" (My favorite song of all Beatles songs is "Let It Be". And "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" really moves me, and I like the acoustic re-release in the anthology, the last verse seems incredibly fitting and I cannot understand how the final mix on the original release left out that verse. So I don't mind the Anthologies, except most of the stuff is just raw and not the highest quality.) To me, the Beatles attained such heights in the Music business that they could sell crap lyrics and still sell records. Of course if I am wrong, please feel free to defend the Beatles lyrics.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Anthology aka "Please Sir, More Money Sir..."   by rekoil       at Mon 3 Feb 11:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Well, the fact that the track was produced by former ELO band leader Jeff Lynne might have had something to do with that...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Anthology aka "Please Sir, More Money Sir..."   by gbv23       at Mon 3 Feb 5:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     I actually heard those original demos for "real love" and "free as a bird" and they were great (this was back in about '87) Jeff Lynne does have a reputation for "over-dressing" a song and I think he did just that on these two.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Anthology aka "Please Sir, More Money Sir..."   by TargetDemographic       at Mon 3 Feb 7:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Oh OK well that makes sense. Jeff Lynne is the one responsible for producing the Travelling Wilburys, Tom Petty and George Harrison, right? Talk about glossy production!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Anthology aka "Please Sir, More Money Sir..."   by Thunder Bumper       at Tue 4 Feb 8:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     Not only did he produce, but I believe Jeff Lynne was a Travelling Wilbury. He was the only guy with a small enough ego to play bass. ;-)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Vomitus removalus...   by 1fastdog       at Sat 1 Feb 2:17pm score of 1     Along with Starr and McCartney, another figure who will welcome the Let It Be reissue is veteran British producer Glyn Johns, who engineered the original sessions. "My version of [the song] 'Get Back' actually was released fairly quickly as a single," he says. "And my version of [the song] 'Let It Be' was also released, before Phil Spector puked all over it. And I hope you quote me on that. I think this is a good idea: puke removal. And why not? After all, if it's the contention of the artists and producers originally involved that this is the way it was meant to be heard, then by all means, release it without the puke. Tipping The Bottle & Biting The Lime   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: Vomitus removalus...   by holgate       at Sat 1 Feb 7:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     if it's the contention of the artists and producers originally involved that this is the way it was meant to be heard, then by all means, release it without the puke. That's well established, I think. At least, I remember reading Hunter Davies's biography of the Beatles many years back, when he described how most of the band had left the tracks in the can with the Glyn Johns mix, and that John had agreed for Allen Klein to get Spector to do the wall-of-sound on them. (Or, 'that bastard Allen Klein', as he was apparently known to Paul.) Dumping the Spector mixes, then, is also a poke in the eye at John, and perpetuates the Paul-Yoko feud. Fun fun fun.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Vomitus removalus...   by StofCircumstance       at Sun 2 Feb 2:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     While I'm not a big fan of Phil Spector's idea of "hit sound" in all facets, I have to reserve some doubts as to this "un-Spectorized" version soon to be released. I happen to think the released version of the song is excellent; then again, it's the only one I've ever heard. Will this new version be superior? I have no idea. It's entirely possible. Then again, I may decide that the Beatles' original desires are not as good as Spector's tinkering. It may be sacreligious, but there you have it. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Well, at least Yoko isn't to blame.   by MAYORBOB       at Sat 1 Feb 3:36pm score of 1     I'm more than a little bemused that the submitter is obviously so worked up over this decision and yet half of the ensemble who created the album are so in favor of it. Could it be, as the submitter implies, that it's all just a matter of grubby materialism? Well, I guess that's always a possibility, but perhaps it's really a case of legacy preservation. The Beatles had been on a demolition course, almost from before they lashed together the White Album. As a lifelong Beatles fan, I always felt that the music on Let It Be was emblematic of the end the band had come to. Great songs to be sure, but no discernable core to the collection of them that spoke of them as Beatles songs. It was rather, one by Ringo, a few by George, a couple by John, and a couple more by Paul. As I recall, the thing that saved the album from being savaged by the critics at the time was the fact that the band had finally made it official what most knew was the case for years -- the Beatles were over. So, perhaps Ringo and Paul are looking to reproduce the collection, in the hopes that the underproduced result will be a more fitting adieu to a once great group. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Hey, if worst comes to worst...   by newkindakick       at Sat 1 Feb 4:17pm score of 1     ...this new release still can't possibly be more disappointing than that other Let It Be reissue... I wouldn't normally do this kinda thing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Hey, if worst comes to worst...   by asthmaticeog       at Sun 2 Feb 10:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     And don't forget THIS indisputable classic. Perfect is the enemy of good.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  I'm gonna have to side with The Beatles here.   by RawkStah       at Sat 1 Feb 6:16pm score of 2 astute     I'm a BIG fan of Phil Spector's production. Ike and Tina Turner's "River Deep, Mountain High" is one of the most stunning recordings I have ever heard. But, what works for The Righteous Brothers, The Teddy Bears, The Crystals, The Ronnettes, and "Rock and Roll Radio" by The Ramones just doesn't work for The Beatles, even if it did work for John Lennon on "Imagine". The approach to "Let It Be" was all wrong, and I think that everyone (with the possible exception of Spector) knew it, but felt that a 'final' release was needed. Personally, I think that they should have stopped with "Abbey Road", even though I feel it's their weakest album. "The Long and Winding Road" was WAAAY overdone, but "Across The Universe" was absolutely murdered. The best version I've heard of it was done by Rufus Wainwright on the "I Am Sam" soundtrack. Nothing scares us more than what we want.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: I'm gonna have to side with The Beatles here.   by nathanTeske       at Sun 2 Feb 4:04am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 6     Personally, I think that they should have stopped with "Abbey Road", even though I feel it's their weakest album. I'm not going to get into a critical argument over that, but Let It Be was actually recorded prior to Abbey Road . The release order was flip-flopped. But can you hit me with your bust of Kant and at the same time will it a universalizable maxim?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: I'm gonna have to side with The Beatles here.   by RawkStah       at Mon 3 Feb 8:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Yes, but "Let It Be" was abandoned. "Abbey Road" was recorded when The Beatles could be civil with one another again and decided that perhaps they did have one more album in them. Nothing scares us more than what we want.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: I'm gonna have to side with The Beatles here.   by nathanTeske       at Tue 4 Feb 2:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Let It Be was essentially complete at the time of its initial abandonment. I was only making reference to the fact that they really did stop with Abbey Road, it being their last organized recording effort. But can you hit me with your bust of Kant and at the same time will it a universalizable maxim?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: I'm gonna have to side with The Beatles here.   by trouscaillon       at Sun 2 Feb 5:03pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 6     Man "Across the universe" is the best Beatles song out there, no exceptions. I can't remember if the one on Let it Be has the women singing back up or not but both versions are absolutely perfect. Spector's production can definately be a little over the top but it's really grown on me. Anyway redoing them doesn't really bug me as long as the originals are still available.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  A new Let it Be is kinda irrelevant...   by rgoodland       at Sat 1 Feb 6:54pm score of 3 informative     considering that all the "Spectorized" tracks have since been released in "de-spectorized" forms. The songs "Let it Be", "Get Back" and "Across the Universe" - before Spector laid his grubby symphonic hands on them - can be heard on Past Masters, Volume 2, which you can buy here. "I Me Mine" and "The Long and Winding Road" have been released sans-Spector on Anthology 3, which you can buy here.The rest of the tracks on "Let it Be" are more or less untouched by Spector. (Btw, purchase wise, if you can't afford Anthology 3, and don't have too many qualms about ethics, just download the sans-Spector tracks off Kazaa. Anthology 3 isn't that great a release, but DO get Past Masters Vol. 2. All of the Beatles best singles, and the real, original version of "Across the Universe" is absolutely beautiful.) IMHO, this just seems like a marketing ploy to me. They're not releasing anything new, just tracks that have already been released packaged together. Get your CaseLogic's and cd burner out and make one yourself. But then again, I'll probably buy it anyways for the liner notes. Jai guru deva om, everybody. :-) If I erroneously attribute a particular opinion to a particular poster, please forgive me; it was unintentional.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Paul's Career Is Dead   by Al Coholic       at Sun 2 Feb 10:52am score of 1     Why can't he disappear into obscurity, like his last few albums?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Some things should never change   by Anonymous SidVicious       at Sun 2 Feb 1:30pm score of 1     And some things are beyond our control. For example, I was born too late (1973) to experience firsthand the once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon that was the Beatles (not too mention Jimi); yet seeing him (Paul) perform recently on TV in the 'Back In The USA' special reminded me of the one thing that keeps us all coming back for more: universal, brillant songs you will remember forever.       The only exception was a song about "fighting for our freedom", which seemed um, uncharacteristic and quite a change from these happier times.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  Anything that makes Phil Spector crawl...   by Brian Jones       at Sun 2 Feb 5:09pm score of 1.5 informative     ...is cool by me. Phil Spector flim-flammed The Ronettes the way countless other R&B acts were screwed in the early days. I do hope that come press tour time, Paul and Ringo make it precisely clear just how much of a credit-hogging shit (PDF, pg. 5) Phil Spector was. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Re: Anything that makes Phil Spector crawl...   by bitter_engineer       at Mon 3 Feb 2:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     And don't forget the colorful backstory behind his collaberation with Leonard Cohen, the result of which was less of a "wall" of sound than a "Boschian Tableau". Non estat prandium gratuitum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Anything that makes Phil Spector crawl...   by MC Nally       at Mon 3 Feb 9:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Anything that makes Phil Spector crawl... ...is cool by me. Looks like you get your wish in a major, major way. Wire services are reporting that Spector has been arrested on suspicion of murder after the discovery of a woman's body in his home.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  When I said that, I had no idea...   by Brian Jones       at Tue 4 Feb 3:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     ...that the something that would be making Mr. Spector crawl would be going by the name of Simon Adebisi. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Live Beatles?   by Shmo43       at Sun 2 Feb 5:55pm score of 1     The only way I can see this album being successful is if they release it with a title such as: Beatles Live! End of Story!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Alas, Poor John and George, we knew them well..   by StratKat       at Sun 2 Feb 9:21pm score of 2 astute     ...and they probably wouldn't have gone along with any of this revisionist bullshit. Which is probably why Paul and Ringo are going for it. The two purists in the band are dead and gone and can't fight them on it.       Would any one try to touch up the Mona Lisa? Or maybe finesse a few curves on The Pieta?       You can bet your ass the songs that will get the most reworking will be Sir Paul's. I'm not saying that to be ugly, but the guy's ego is more powerful than he is.       I think the songs on that album stand quite well as they are. The Anthology albums gave us some different looks at all their songs, and the creative processes involved. If Paul and Ringo need a project, why the hell can't I get "Let it Be" on DVD??? Work on that!       Oh well...It's out of our hands folks. If they do it and it's cool, we'll probably buy it to round out the collection. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Re: Alas, Poor John and George, we knew them   by bellydancer       at Mon 3 Feb 12:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     why the hell can't I get "Let it Be" on DVD??? Work on that! From the article: "The Let It Be movie will be released on DVD to accompany the new CD, although it's currently unclear whether any unreleased footage will be included." Guess you WILL be buying it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Alas, Poor John and George, we knew them   by StratKat       at Mon 3 Feb 8:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Guess you WILL be buying it. Woman's intuition? You're probably right. "Let it Be" is the only movie they made that I could watch over and over again. "Hard Day's Night" is good, but once every 10 years will do me on that one. "Help" was just silly. "Yellow Submarine" and "Magical Mystery Tour" are very entertaining...if you're on acid. I burned so many brain cells in the '60's that I can't really afford to burn anymore...If I expect to have any lucidity at all in my "Golden Years".       But "Let it Be", I can watch over and over again...without personal reprogramming. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Beatles flicks   by Ajax       at Tue 4 Feb 10:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     Admittedly, the only two Beatles movies I've seen are A Hard Day's Night and Help!, but I just revisited them both last night and they're still classics. :) Help! in particular has some of the best lines this side of Monthy Python: Assistant: He's out to rule the world...if he can get a government grant. Scientist:: It's the brain drain. His brain is draining. Inspector: So you are the famous Beatles. John: So this is the famous Scotland Yard. Inspector: Quite so. And how long d'you think you'll last? John: Oh, I wouldn't presume. Great Train Robbery...how's that coming, then? Ringo: They have to paint me red before they chop me. It's a different religion from ours...I think. Silly, yes, but that after all is the point. And, of course, full of great songs. :) "Coca-ColaŽ and ArmageddonŽ / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Beatles flicks   by StratKat       at Tue 4 Feb 8:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     One of my favorite lines in A Hard Day's Night: (to George); "What do you call that hairstyle?" George: "Arthur" You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Alas, Poor John and George, we knew them   by holgate       at Tue 4 Feb 12:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     they probably wouldn't have gone along with any of this revisionist bullshit. Well, the 'revisionism' argument is countered by the fact that the album itself -- essentially recorded before Abbey Road, but then abandoned -- was itself 'revisionist bullshit' from the moment it was released, since it too the original masters and put them through the wringer, so that they weren't the tracks that were put down by the band in Abbey Road.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Alas, Poor John and George, we knew them   by eidilon       at Tue 4 Feb 10:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Would any one try to touch up the Mona Lisa? Or maybe finesse a few curves on The Pieta? Why shouldn't the original artist be able to change a work? Why pick one arbitrary point in time -- when the work is "released" -- and say that it is carved in stone and can't change after that. Obviously it changed before that. There are many inveterate revisers throughout music history. Chopin was well known for constantly revising music he had already released. They are his songs. They aren't yours. He isn't destroying old songs by releasing new ones. If da Vinci came along and decided h wanted to touch up his Mona Lisa who are we to say he shouldn't? If artists constantly listened to other people's opinions of what their art should be like, I doubt it would very often turn out to be as brilliant as it is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Alas, Poor John and George, we knew them   by StratKat       at Tue 4 Feb 8:32pm score of 1.5 witty   in reply to comment 35     Why shouldn't the original artist be able to change a work? Why pick one arbitrary point in time -- when the work is "released" -- and say that it is carved in stone and can't change after that. In this case, because 1/2 of the principals involved in the work are not around to provide input and criticism. They are his songs. They aren't yours. No, they aren't mine. They are not completely his either. If da Vinci came along and decided h wanted to touch up his Mona Lisa who are we to say he shouldn't? If Da Vinci came along I reckon he could do whatever the Hell he damn well wanted, having conquered 500 years of death. If John Lennon and George Harrison suddenly appeared out of the ether to join in the remix, no one would have any objections. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  The best solution   by skuunk       at Sun 2 Feb 11:20pm score of 2 brilliant     Rather than complain about this new re-release, can you simply just refuse to buy it? Let them do what they want. No one is forcing you to listen to the new version. It's not like they are going to erase everybody's copy of the existing version.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Looks like Spector didn't take to this too well...   by ludi       at Mon 3 Feb 12:24pm score of 1.5 funny     Bang! Phil Spector arrested for murder today.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  The Rembrandt Underneath   by gparizot       at Tue 4 Feb 10:02am score of 1     There was an interesting story last week about a Rembrandt self portrait being discovered underneath the painting of another artist. And of course, the Sistine Chapel saw many clowns "touch up" Michelangelo's work. Fortunately, we've gone back and tried to restore the originals for these works of art. Let It Be, recorded and left unfinished before the piece d' resistance that is Abbey Road (and what the heck are you thinking Rawkstah, in comment #6?), was only released AFTER the Beatles broke up, in an effort by Capitol and EMI to squeeze a few more bucks out of their now dead cash-cow. It certainly wasn't The Beatles' vision. Sure, there's a commercial aspect to re-releasing Let It Be. But if we still have the original artists available to supervise the work, well, what's wrong with this? I'd like to see the Rembrandt underneath. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Revolution #10   by mrwarmth       at Tue 4 Feb 1:47pm score of 1     You have to see this move in the larger context of McCartney's clear plan to reshape the legacy of the Beatles to suit his needs. He is methodically going through the Beatle's oeuvre and editing it to enhance his part - or, in his mind, preeminence - in creating it. This is why he's been switching credits on Beatles songs he wrote alone. This is why he's stripping off Spector's production, because it covers up his own. Etc. I pass no judgment on this effort, I simply note it. In this world of war and disaster and out of control celebrities, it's nice to know we will have the privilege of watching the perhaps decades-long duel to the death between Yoko and Paul. Neither will want to die with the other still living, because they know whoever lives the longest will have the last word on the Beatles. Yoko is, I believe, much older than Paul, but I'm sure she will do whatever it takes to outlive him. And vice versa. This will provide a better source of ghoulish fascination for the rest of us than any number of reality shows. I'm sure they will eventually stoop to trying to trick the other into going to the Netherlands, where they can be safely euthanized. I'd avoid Amsterdam from now on if I were either of them. -Niall Where is Ratko Mladic?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]