I bought "Let It Be Naked" the other day, and I don't know what to think yet. For me it's kind of disturbing to my ears to hear different versions of the songs I know note-for-note. Also, does anybody know if all of the songs on the new record are the same takes as used on the original? It seems like they are not. Maybe my ears are fooling me, but I think that I hear differences in vocals and guitars especially. Overall I like the original better.

Yes, I agree, some of the vocals seem to be slightly different takes in places. It is a strange listening, mostly due to the new order I think. I do like some of the overtly changed tracks (Long and Winding Road) but it is quite hard to compare them to tracks etched in your mind for your whole life. I like it as a 'getting under the hood' of the Beatles, more than that remixed version of Eleanor Rigby was a few years ago. That was a modern take on mixing older tracks. They made Paul's vocals they way he likes them done now, which I find not half as weird/exciting as the odd hard panned and odd EQ stuff they did on the original.
I can not see this new "Let it be" taking the place of the original but it is a very interesting listen. I wish there was more to hear. I have always enjoyed all those boots of alt takes and demos etc. especially George's 'Beware of Atco'. What insight into those songs and his way of writing.

I am happy with my purchase so far.

Personally, I think the new version is exceptional.

Sounds like a very good band playing together live.

Let there be no doubt, of course, that The Beatles are my favorite band forever.

my first impression was - it sounds great; but i'm a little thrown. i could hear artifacts or i should say effects like the reverbs on let it be and across the universe that were obviously not original. they put some effects on the original tracks which is odd.

also, and i know this is done now all the time but it's off-putting, songs like let it be feature vocals from different takes spliced together, which is why is sounds different than anything previous.

all in all though, im impressed. just to know 4 of the songs are taken from the rooftop recording sessions - amazing. anyone whos head the bootlegs from that session can attest they did a prettty outstanding job on them.

i guess if theres one thing the digital medium does really well, it's the ability it gives you to bring tracks back from the dead.

stephensolo wrote:i guess if theres one thing the digital medium does really well, it's the ability it gives you to bring tracks back from the dead.

you know, digital technology really has nothing to do with bringing tracks "back from the dead". it's easy to spool up a 20-year old reel of analogue tape, and remix that--you just go back to the master tapes, and that's all. no programming stupid digital fuck shit computer craphole bullshite.

analogue is SO much better than digital. hell, even my watch is analogue.

regards,
jet.

I know Jet often has a good and dry sense of humor so I may be reacting to something that was said off the square but...

I do not think it is easy enough to say analog is better than digital or visa versa. Each have their own qualities, each have their own strengths and weaknesses, each have good applications and each are used to great effect by people that know how to use them. I, personally, am a music lover. I like good music. I don't care if it was recorded on a wire recorder, I am most interested in the music. The recording device/media is important as it is the tool from which the music is recorded. But again, there are some people using digital in amazingly creative ways and making music that will rock my world from now on. I fault them not for using the tools they are comfortable using.

don't worry, running bunny,

i was just being my old dry self. enough has been said re analogue vs. digital in the context of an actual debate.

regards,
jet.

That was a touching moment.

I'm not a fan. Having gone through a bootleg phase with this before, I fanatically searched for the "Get Back" bootleg (the original pre-Let it Be warts-and-all album they were going to release in 1969). I found it after a while and that one for sure was a more interesting record. It had great interludes and transitions, which had the same sound quality/character as the Get Back single (long reverb, darker and straight-up mixing). There were different versions, kids, laser guns, the works. Ok no laser guns.
Why didn't they just release that record? It was done already!
One reason 'Naked' sucks because they mixed the same takes that were on the Let it Be album. Songs like Dig a Pony, I've Got a Feeling, The One After 909, were straight up live recordings and weren't Spectored(drowned in strings and reverb). What was the point of using the same takes? If you are going to do something like this, you'd think you would present something new. Dig A Pony has the same edit at the beginning and end that Phil Spector did (see the same performance in the movie). The mixes sound like a decent rough mix, which is fine I guess. I Me Mine was recorded well after these sessions I believe. I don't know. Whatever.
I think they totally blew a good opportunity.
Nowhere near as good as the Pelican record.