'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?

Subject: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 09:35 AM

WARNING: ONLY FOR OLD BEATLE FARTS.



According to the news, Paul and Ringo (and George from his deathbed) agreed to strip off Phil Spector from "Let It Be". Since it is one of my least favourite Beatle albums, I am mildly in favour of this; but the larger question is mucking around with the Beatle past generally -- ranging from E.T. without guns to Paul McCartney walking across Abbey Road without a ciggy in his hand. Furthermore, Paul McCartney is a general pain in the ass (dearly as I love him) about changing the attribution of Yesterday, and the other Lennon-McCartney songs. Apart from it being impossible generally to separate them out, he seems to have lost the Platonic idea of The BEATLES. I also hated "Real Love" and "Free As a Bird", which were forms of necrophilia.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Peter T.
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 09:37 AM

Sorry, don't know how E.T. got in there. But the idea is the same!! yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: GUEST,Nashville Cat
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 10:03 AM

If he's able to get the attribution change doesn't that free up the designation Lennon-McCartney and therefore rendering invalid the Michael Jackson ownership of the catalog?...which pisses Sir Paul off no end, by the way. This 'revisionist history' may have more to do with 'that' reality than anything else. Plus, he and Yoko aren't exactly mates and I'd be willing to bet she's never forgiven the 'flavor of the month' remark attributed to him. So, he probably wants to separate 'his' songs from a contract agreed to when young and naive re the music business. As a songwriter under contract myself I completely understand and applaud his efforts to do this. My deal is that I'm in for a third on the publisher's side. He's lost in the neighborhood of a billion dollars in royalties because of that deal. Steven Tyler of Aerosmith is going through exactly the same process. Trying to extracate himself(and his bandmates)from a contract signed when young and hungry. And Dick James has got to be the luckiest man on the face of the earth

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: GUEST,Cluin (not at home)
Date: 01 Feb 03 - 12:53 PM

Well, I'm not crying for any of Sir Paul's lost millions, I would like to hear the album without Phil Spector's wall of sound production. Just to hear what it would sound like. Of course I probably wouldn't lash out to pay for it, but I'd like to hear it once anyway.

I wouldn't call it revisionist really since a new LIB would be over 40 years later, and both John & George (the major Phil Spector fans of the Fabs) are safely out of Macca's way now, but it would be a mildly interesting alternative. I agree that "Let It Be" was mostly a pile of unfinished junk that PS tried to polish up but it, in itself, is an interesting glimpse into a work-in-progress by the Beatles (especially when accompanied by the film... call them the car-crash in slo-mo and the subsequent bodywork to try and repair things in vain).

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: GUEST,nashville cat
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 10:19 AM

You'd have a different perspective if they were 'your' lost million, I'd be willing to bet. I'm not crying either, but rip-off deals on the publishing side have been industry standard from the tin pan alley days and anything to help bring about change is welcome.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: GUEST,Cluin (still not home)
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 09:41 PM

Probably. I'd like the chance to enjoy a different perspective alright. I'll trade places, financially speaking, with Sir Paul any day.

I've got nothing against him, but he's learned his lessons and gained a lot of business sense along the way. He owns the rights to a lot of songs he didn't pen now and makes money from them. Everyone knows he wrote Yesterday. What difference does it make what Yoko says?

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: GUEST,nashville cat
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 10:06 PM

Respectfully, rather than debate points of publishing here we could simply start another thread...And it makes considerable difference what Yoko thinks as she controls John's portion of the publishing royalties.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Cluin
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 08:21 AM

Apples and Oranges.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:10 PM

Didn't know that Phil was tangled in with The Beatles that much. The only thing I my feeble brain rmembers was that John was supposed to work with him on a album. I beleive that said album never came to fruition. Am I right there? Instead, John recorded one of the best cover albums of good solid R & R. that I can recall. What was the name of that album anyway?

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:23 PM

Does this have anything to do with Phil being arrested for murder ? A dead woman supposedly being found in his home ? Just a rumor so far - I don't have any documented facts just yet.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:53 PM

After the Beatles broke up, John Lennon invited Spector to clean up the tapes of "Let It Be". Lennon remarked on what a great job Spector did with (I believe the phrase was) "a load of crap". I believe that Spector had something to do with (maybe produced?) "All Things Must Pass" for George Harrison. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 05:53 PM

Wesley, if you go to the thread titled "Phil Spector arrested" you will see some news articles and links. Yes, he was arrested this morning at his suburban LA mansion, and has now been charged with murder.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Cluin
Date: 03 Feb 03 - 07:39 PM

Phil Spector did indeed remix the tapes from "Let It Be" so the album could be released. This was in response to the fact that bootlegs of the material were rampant, coming from several sources (like the film soundtrack and demos being snuck out of the studio, etc.). The quality of these was terrible, but nobody wanted to face the job mixing the source tapes, due to group tensions and chemical distractions. Things were pretty tense within the group at the time.

So John brought in PS to mix the tapes for release. Most of the boys were big fans of Spector's work and thought it was a good idea, though there is some talk that Paul did not agree and figured he and George Martin should do it, or maybe somebody else (hard to know exactly since Paul McCartney has the unfortunate habit of changing history in the retelling). Anyway, Paul was very unhappy with what Phil Spector did to his song, "Let It Be" in particular, with the orchestration and female choir. He tried to stop release of that version but was voted down. A big bone of contention that contributed to the break-up, though Ringo was sent to make peace at the time.

There was a law suit involved around then too, though I think that involved blocking a solo album release by Paul that the rest of the group figured would conflict with the upcoming release of "Abbey Road".

And yes, Phil Spector worked later with both Lennon and Harrison on their solo projects.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 02:13 PM

Wouldn't that be "ex-Spectorated"???   ;-)

Cheers,

                            -- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 02:16 PM

Gesundheit!

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Steve-o
Date: 04 Feb 03 - 02:41 PM

You want to hear a real "wall of sound", listen to the R&B-styled album John made with Spector. It works for some things, like "Stand By Me", but for many others it's just tooooooo muuuuucchhh. It could use some de-Spectorizing, even though it reminds me of how great John was when singing good old-fashion '50s Rock 'n' Roll!

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:05 AM

I recall a "Top of the Pops 2" item with the Beatles playing "Let It Be" simply as a fourpiece. The backing vocals were just Lennon and Harrison and it was definitely better (TO ME) than the big production job we're used to.

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: alanabit
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:27 AM

The version without Spector has been available on bootleg for years. In fact, without Spector's slop even "The Long and Winding Road" is quite bearable!

Subject: RE: 'Let It Be' -- Let it Be DeSpectorized?
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 12:45 PM

Whoops! Thanks, alanabit for jogging my memory.

I screwed up in my rattling-on above. It wasn't the mix on the song, "Let It Be" that displeased Paul. It was actually "The Long and Winding Road". "Let It Be"(the song) had already come out as a single before that.