Ooh! This sounds really good. I always thought replacing George Martin with Phil Spector was an awful idea, even for one album. I will be ordering that one as soon as it comes out. "Let it Be" is the only Beatles album I don't listen to, and it's precisely because of all the strings, backup singers and schmaltz that Spector glommed on to it.

D

I think it will be amazingly better without the extra bits. I'm looking forward to it tremendously.

That said, the song that you put up for us to listen to was really good--I was impressed.

I love Spector, and I love Let it Be, but I think this is a great fucking idea. Was this the only Beatles album that Martin wasn't involved in?

I've been listening to Paul whine about all those Spector strings on The Long and Winding Road for 30 years, and I have to say, when I saw the movie (where you can basically hear all the naked tracks), I liked it better Phil's way.

But maybe I was just young and ignorant.

I could be wrong, because it's been 25 years since I was embroiled in these conversations, but I'm pretty sure Martin produced it and Spector was handed the tapes after they left the studio and went about adding. (And did Martin demand to have his name delisted, or did I imagine that.)

The running joke was that credits should have read, "Produced by George Martin, Overproduced by Phil Spector."

That sounds about right to me. The funny thing is, I don't really mind the Spector sound, I just like the idea of another take on the same subject. I tend to like music that is more straight-forward in approach, so I think that the originals will appeal to me as much, if not more, than the Spector re-worked approach.

Lennon said it all when he said that Spector took a load of shit and made something out of it. Across the universe was never releasable until spector added the orchestra. McCartney's main gripe was with The Long and Winding Road, which was pretty schmaltzy, but the rest of the album went pretty much untouched. I prefer Spector's version of Let it Be. I think people wll find the album much like Glynn John's original "Get Back", rather unpolished and ripe with tension.

I welcome the new album, and I have heard several versions of Across The Universe before. I kind of think some of the other classics in there original cut will be a bit on the flat side. But a good song is like a good steak, its hard to screw it up.

What burns me is the snob attitude of “Sir Paul”. He has become quite “English” in his old age.
Like the name reversal on credits form Lennon & Mccartney to Mccartney & Lennon on a newly released CD. It is no secret that he resented the way Let It Be was produced. If hadn’t been so busy stabbing the other 3 Beatles in the back at the time he could have change it. He was more preoccupied with how the Eastman’s could take over the management of the Beatles than the music they were producing. My point being he is a businessman first and a Beatle second and always has been. Phil Spector and John Lennon made a masterpiece of 2 Mccartney songs that otherwise may have been dismissed as average for the time.

Tim Laird / Houston, TX

I'm thinking along the lines of the gentleman who simply likes the idea of an alternate take on otherwise decent music. Have always been a Beatles fan (for more years than I dare mention here). I am, however, puzzled at the fact that despite his dislike of the Spector approach to the Let It Be project, it certainly didn't stop Sir Paul from using those same arrangements in his tours. If it disgusted him so much, I would've imagined he would've gone back to his ideas of how TLWR and other titles were "supposed" to have been released. Sir Paul a business man? You bet. But, he is truly a legend.

i got the oportunuty for listen ''naked'' the new album and is great!!! i so loved it.
the songs without so many adjustments and it is like the beatles wanted before the moust naked songs they could create.
but with all the stress at the time they fight and there happened the dissolution of the band.
I LOVE THE BEATLES AND IT'S GREAT THIS NEW ALBUM!!!

Three thoughts: First, losing two throwaway songs in favor of "Don't Let Me Down" would have improved the album immensely in 1970. Did Spector make that decision? If so, it sucked.
Second, "Let It Be" is definitely better in the Spector version. Much of the spiritually and soul simply doesn't come through on "Naked."
Third, the 1970 TLaWR, despite the heavy Spector hand, doesn't sound that different from many other Beatles tracks. It's not like the Beatles were ever shy about adding layer after layer of studio production to their songs. On balance, I don't see the "Naked" version as an improvement, simply an interesting alternate version.

Three thoughts: First, losing two throwaway songs in favor of "Don't Let Me Down" would have improved the album immensely in 1970. Did Spector make that decision? If so, it sucked.
Second, "Let It Be" is definitely better in the Spector version. Much of the spiritually and soul simply doesn't come through on "Naked."
Third, the 1970 TLaWR, despite the heavy Spector hand, doesn't sound that different from many other Beatles tracks. It's not like the Beatles were ever shy about adding layer after layer of studio production to their songs. On balance, I don't see the "Naked" version as an improvement, simply an interesting alternate version.

Have to laugh when I read that "this is a must have for Beatle completists". Truth is there are so many bootlegs of this era stuff floating around that everyone i know who fits in that category already has 2 or 3 "versions" of this "version" of the album already.

Still, I always figured it would end up "All four one (and one for Paul)"