Quoted from Kevin

Maybe it's best left alone. A thread on "what do you think of Adolf" isn't exactly kosher. That implies that their may be a view other than "madman monster,"  and is not worth the grief.

Very true. It'll be an 'everyone's entitled to their own opinion as long as it's the same as mine', thread.

i dont know why but i really cant see much difference between let it be and let it be naked, apart from chatter at start of the tracks and the orchestration on the long and winding road which i actually prefer   maybe its just me but i feel it was a big fuss about nothing, although with the long and winding road i can understand McCartney's need to perfect it for himself but did the whole album really need to be remastered ?

I think the original has a warmth to it that 'naked' lacks. I also think they've cocked up big time. The album should have been a proper soundtrack in the first place, with more chatter and snippets of jamming. 'Naked' was a chance to put that right, but they did the opposite. When they get round to re-issuing the back catalogue what the hell are they going to do with LIB? Issue it as it was in 1970? Won't that be admitting that 'Naked' was a mistake? Shot themselves in the foot, though I doubt if they see it that way.

true it would be a major bit of back tracking, to release the original after making such a big fuss with naked.

Quoted from DarkSweetLady

quite frankly i hate the guy....

  did you know that he fired off guns in the studio when lennon was recording.... crazy... idk but that's what my mom heard on court tv....  from that one japenese girl lennon had an affair with....

May Pang. She's Chinese-American, but no biggie

I'm not going to deviate off-topic by following the Hitlerian/WW2 subtext. Despite Spector's paranoic, anti-semitic fears and gun-wielding counter-rants, the SUBJECT is did his post-production work embellish L.I.B. in a positive or negative way ? I think it was positive. In fact, BOTH versions of Let It Be are great as far as I'm concerned. I never could understand the vehement controversy on this subject. Paul was obviously very exacting about how he wanted the final project to sound--he could be forgiven this because the particular songs that caused all the animosity between him and P.S. were his. I personally think the strings Spector added to The Long And Winding Road (for example)were beautiful--on the other hand, the "Naked" version just shows another way to look at the same composition....and now the public can have BOTH albums to see the relative merits of either perspective. Art is subjective anyway. Macca is the only one who had the right to b**** because he "heard" these  songs a certain way in his head during conception. His bias is completely understandable--- but it doesnt have to be everyone else's(and now, w/ the advent of the so-called "stripped" version, the muted epithets and rancor should've long died down, at least in my opinion. It's now simply a moot point)

To give Spector his due (despite his current legal and health troubles), the classic "Wall of Sound" recordings from the 60's will forever stand the test of time. He is (and always has been) a troubled genius...and yes he IS a genius no matter what we may think of him personally.

And I love how Spector put in John Lennon's little joke at the end of Get Back: On behalf of the band, I thank you, and I hope we passed the audition.

I realized that, Naked or no Naked, Ringo Starr did not sing a song on this album.  On every album prior to this, and even after, he had one song he could sing on a Beatles album.  What happened with LIB?

When they release the remastered Beatles albums, they better release the 1970 version!  It would be so wrong to omit this masterpiece (as I see it) from the catalog, just because of Paul's hatred of Phil Spector.  If he hated him so much, how could he possibly have gotten his hands on this project?  Wasn't Paul essentially running the show by this point, considering John's preoccupation with Yoko Ono and Heroin?  I just don't get it.

And Paul's disgust with Phil's orchestration on "Long/Road" is puzzling, considering Paul has agreed to orchestration to a lot of his songs in the past.  To my ears, its beautiful - and soooo Beatle-y.

Everyone here needs to be reminded with LIB was all about.  John Lennon told George Martin that he wanted to get back to the basics - no more "production tricks," as it were.  That's the reason, I think, that George Martin wasn't involved in the project.  After the fiasco of LIB, John Lennon went back to George Martin and said the Beatles wanted to record a new album with him, and that they'll do "just like the did in the past."

Frankly, its such a 380 degree turn around for Lennon.  Lennon was the guy who, around 1965 or so (with McCartney), said they wanted their sound to not be limited to just guitars - that's how they wound up getting into all the weird and innovative experimentation in the studio.

Well, whatever, right?  LIB achieved what Lennon ultimately wanted - a guitar-driven album.  After LIB, they went back to doing their "studio magic" with Abbey Road.

I think everyone will agree that LIB was a great group effort - all Beatles were involved, since a lot of it was recorded live.

I always wondered why Spector limited the album to such a degree keeping off Don't Let Me Down?  Wasn't Old Brown Shoe by Harrison recorded around this time, as well?

maybe as it was a live album none of the tracks would have been suitable for ringo to play and sing at a decent level, i know he had recorded songs before which he had to sing live, but those songs didn't have the hardest vocal parts, where as if he had to sing a lib track it would have took a little more vocal skill than he had previously shown

Quoted from BlueMeanie

You really consider it better than A Hard Day's Night, and Rubber Soul? I admit, I like Let It Be more than a lot of people, but I wouldn't rate it that highly.

well I honestly think the songwriting on Let It Be is stronger than A Hard Day's Night..... A Hard Day's Night has nothing on it that touches with Across the Universe and Let It Be...

even if we compare the weaker songs - one after 909 and i me mine are no worse than when i get home and i'm happy just to dance with you....well actually they are better

for some strange reason people have bought into the myth that let it be is a bad album just like they bought into the myth that sgt peppers was the best beatle album

let it be is a flawed album for sure - a flawed album with outstanding songwriting.... I just can't see how anyone can look at that songlisting and conclude that it's a bad album... makes no sense

Quoted from matthew

well I honestly think the songwriting on Let It Be is stronger than A Hard Day's Night..... A Hard Day's Night has nothing on it that touches with Across the Universe and Let It Be...

I think it's a bit dodgy making that comparison. The songs on A Hard Days Night were the pinnacle of how rock sounded in 1964. No other band got even close. Songwriting just didn't get any better.
Let It Be, while it has good songs, doesn't represent the zenith of rock in 1970. You can, for instance, compare the song Let It Be with Bridge Over Troubled Waters. No one else was pumping out the energetic pop found on AHDN. Those songs were as good as songs got in 1964.

i agree....maybe over at the moondogs this could have been discussed but no here......