Laughing City

Will you buy the Beatles remasters?
I'm buying a box set
26%
 26%  [ 5 ]
I'll buy select individual albums
15%
 15%  [ 3 ]
No
57%
 57%  [ 11 ]
Total Votes : 19

Author Message
JBaker
Vintage Newbie


boone wrote:
That makes it inappropriate, not terrible. Just because Paul McCartney didn't like it doesn't mean that you can't like it. Just because it changed the context of the album as envisioned, doesn't automatically make it bad. I don't accept any of those explanations as a valid opinion, because it's not opinion, it's bias. It's fine if you don't like it, but if you don't like it simply because it deviated from the original concept of the album, I personally think that is a stupid reason. If everything that changed from it's orginal concept automatically sucked, there wouldn't be a lot of things to like.

They used an alternate take for the naked version of The Long and Winding Road because John fumbled through the bassline on the master take. I have no idea why nobody has asked Paul to overdub that bass track...


I believe one of Paul's complaints when he sued The Beatles was that they should have just asked him to come in and overdub the bass track instead of putting the orchestra and choir in the song (Spector said that one of the reasons he did it was to help cover up the bass mistakes).

And again, I think it's bad because it's not THE BEATLES. I don't really care about the technical aspects of the production. They could be great, but they didn't work for the band or that album.And if the band were the ones that changed the album away from its original concept, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Instead, an outside source who did almost everything without Paul, John, or George in the studio is the one who changed it from its concept.

It's like if you drew a great black and white painting, but before it got put up in the museum, I decided I really like colors, and without your input, I painted over the exact same lines you had drawn, but with color.
It's still a good looking painting, and I'm a great painter, but it's not what you had wanted or envisioned. It's not as great a piece of art.

I had a professor in college during the whole Phil Spector murder fiasco who said that none of this would have ever happened if they had just put him in jail 40 years ago for murdering Let It Be. Always cracked me up.

_________________
EvilSpace
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


JBaker wrote:
I had a professor in college during the whole Phil Spector murder fiasco who said that none of this would have ever happened if they had just put him in jail 40 years ago for murdering Let It Be. Always cracked me up.


Mr. Green

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
boone
Vintage Newbie


JBaker wrote:
I believe one of Paul's complaints when he sued The Beatles was that they should have just asked him to come in and overdub the bass track instead of putting the orchestra and choir in the song (Spector said that one of the reasons he did it was to help cover up the bass mistakes).

And again, I think it's bad because it's not THE BEATLES. I don't really care about the technical aspects of the production. They could be great, but they didn't work for the band or that album.And if the band were the ones that changed the album away from its original concept, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Instead, an outside source who did almost everything without Paul, John, or George in the studio is the one who changed it from its concept.

It's like if you drew a great black and white painting, but before it got put up in the museum, I decided I really like colors, and without your input, I painted over the exact same lines you had drawn, but with color.
It's still a good looking painting, and I'm a great painter, but it's not what you had wanted or envisioned. It's not as great a piece of art.

I had a professor in college during the whole Phil Spector murder fiasco who said that none of this would have ever happened if they had just put him in jail 40 years ago for murdering Let It Be. Always cracked me up.

My point is that the background of the painting has nothing to do whether it is good or not. It may be wrong or unethical, or just a plain bad idea, but that has no bearing on whether or not it's good. If adding color makes for a beautiful-yet-different painting, it just does. When Alex Ross painted over George Perez's lineart for the cover of Crisis on Infinite Earth, it made it into a completely different animal, but it looked great. But it wasn't really George Perez anymore. Make of that what you will, but it doesn't change the quality of the finished product. But don't give Alex Ross a drawing and expect to get it back looking like George Perez.

The fact is, they hated the Get Back album, they didn't know what to do with it. They moved on to Abbey Road. They handed it around to see what could be done with it. They knew what they would get into giving it to Spector, but they did anyway, and got something completely different. And finally released it, so it must have been the best take on it they got. I think McCartney's reaction of it has just reached the level of hyperbole, since, before the album was released, he just suggested that they get rid of the chorus and the harp. Spector said he had to cover up the bassline. McCartney offered to rerecord the bassline, but Spector just had a "take it or leave it" attitude about it, I guess. The animosity didn't really start until the album got bad reviews for being overproduced, so maybe it's just a coverup. But Lennon was apparently happy with Spector's ability to polish a turd like he did.

That's kind of what drives me nuts about Beatles fans. Just take things for what they are. Just take the album for what it is, good or bad, and stop thinking you're doing The Beatles a favor by hating it.
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
JBaker
Vintage Newbie


I don't think I'm doing The Beatles a favor.

But listen to the WWF Across the Universe and the Naked Long and Winding Road.

They're just so much better...

_________________
EvilSpace
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


boone wrote:
My point is that the background of the painting has nothing to do whether it is good or not. It may be wrong or unethical, or just a plain bad idea, but that has no bearing on whether or not it's good. If adding color makes for a beautiful-yet-different painting, it just does. When Alex Ross painted over George Perez's lineart for the cover of Crisis on Infinite Earth, it made it into a completely different animal, but it looked great. But it wasn't really George Perez anymore. Make of that what you will, but it doesn't change the quality of the finished product. But don't give Alex Ross a drawing and expect to get it back looking like George Perez.

What is going on today, we are hitting some sort of Geektastic Stride this week Very Happy I mean that in a good way. Is Kanye our Ozymandias???

_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pantheon4
Vintage Newbie


wilsmith wrote:
Is Kanye our Ozymandias???


You should be hanged for that comment alone. Laughing

_________________
Power is only pain

It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

"Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?" -memo from 1952 Project ARTICHOKE

Joined: 19 Aug 2004 | Posts: 10565 | Location: Somewhere in the middle of nowhere
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


give it time, let it marinate, and you'll appreciate that joke, and you'll kick yourself for knocking my comedic sensabilities Razz
_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bigideas
Vintage Newbie


did Paul agree to hand it over to Spector and then not like it, or was he never on board?

all the sly Lennon comments between songs - it's just hard to believe Paul would be cool with that. (this doesn't seem to be addressed in the wiki article)

_________________
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.
Joined: 05 Nov 2002 | Posts: 6826 | Location: Gilmer, Tejas
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JBaker
Vintage Newbie


bigideas wrote:
did Paul agree to hand it over to Spector and then not like it, or was he never on board?

all the sly Lennon comments between songs - it's just hard to believe Paul would be cool with that. (this doesn't seem to be addressed in the wiki article)


Paul did not agree to it and was in fact unaware of it at the outset.

_________________
EvilSpace
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
boone
Vintage Newbie


Somebody at Apple Records gave the job to Spector (EDIT: Apparently, it was John Lennon and George Harrison). There is no good reason to believe that Paul wasn't aware of it. He was co-owner of the label. Why wouldn't he know? Even if he didn't approve, he still would have been given a formal explanation (which is how The Beatles ran Apple after their official breakup in 1975.)

It still just seems like McCartney trying to distance himself from the album after the bad reviews. A kind of "See, I told you so/I had no part in this" reaction.
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
JBaker
Vintage Newbie


Actually, McCartney attempted to halt the album's release but was unable to. It wasn't a reaction to bad reviews.

He had NO knowledge that the album was given to Spector until after the fact (he knew before it was completed, but not at the time Spector began working on it).

_________________
EvilSpace
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
boone
Vintage Newbie


1) I just don't see how it's possible that McCartney was completely unaware that Spector was given the album. That doesn't ring as true at all, and since nothing I've read seems to mention it (without using the word "allegedly"), I have a real hard time believing it. The only reason why I heard that he tried to prevent the album from being released is because he had problems with TWO tracks on ONE song; he didn't seem to crap on the album as a whole until much later. Harrison and Lennon seemed to be pleased with Spector's work on the album (even though Lennon seemed to hate everything about the album anyway), and they both worked with Spector on solo albums. Phil Spector was even hired as Director of A&R at Apple for a while.

2) None of this has to do with the quality of his production of the material. I have no problem with you not liking it, but I just think your reasons for not liking it is BS. And the majority of public opinion about the album is based on Paul McCartney's and some elitist, folk-loving hipster music reviewers' opinions on the album, and not their own. It's all just silly.
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
wilsmith
Vintage Newbie


Two men enter, One man leaves! Laughing
_________________
yup, that's my name.

FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE:
4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB

Love Very Happy Smile Cool Neutral Confused Sad Embarassed Rolling Eyes Mad Evil or Very Mad
Wink = personal fave Mr. Green = Eisley fans should dig it
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9637 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rmlawrence
Vintage Newbie


boone wrote:
2) None of this has to do with the quality of his production of the material. I have no problem with you not liking it, but I just think your reasons for not liking it is BS. And the majority of public opinion about the album is based on Paul McCartney's and some elitist, folk-loving hipster music reviewers' opinions on the album, and not their own. It's all just silly.


The fact that I'm posting means I read something that bugged me.

I get annoyed when people say things like "the majority of public opinion about [insert issue] is based on [insert person]'s opinion and not their own." That might be true, but you don't have facts to back up that statement. And even if you did, does it make their opinions less valid? It shouldn't without fully knowing the circumstances under which they formed that opinion.

By the way, I'm not talking about people who are lying or who really don't have an opinion but say they do. But even then... how do you really know if that's the case?

Take me, for example. I like the original version of The Long and Winding Road. I loved it the first time I heard it. Then, at some point in the future, I read about the controversy surrounding the album and the treatment of that song and, out of curiosity, tracked down the non-string version on one of the Anthology collections. I liked it too. Not sure if I liked it more at the time though. I eventually bought Let It Be... Naked and grew to love that version of the song. These days I much prefer the Naked version. I like it so much that I find myself never wanting to listen to the original. While I can't say that I dislike the original, I certainly don't like it nearly as much as I did when it was the only version I was familiar with.

So what caused my level of enjoyment of a song to change? Did I finally get bored of the song and move on to something different? Was my opinion shaped by elitist reviewers and fans? Was it something else? I honestly don't know, and I'll never know without being able to erase my memory of the controversy and listen to both versions anew. But how I feel about the song now is very real and it annoys me that somebody can so quickly dismiss it because of his or her assumption.

And I do believe that being informed about things like context, intentions, symbolism, etc. can affect your opinion. Sometimes it forces you to be more critical which has the potential to heavily shape or alter your opinion. I remember watching Citizen Kane in college just to see what all the hype was about. I was bored out of my mind. Later, I took a film class and, at the end of the semester, decided to do my final paper on Citizen Kane. After reading books and articles about the film and watching it several more times I grew to really enjoy it (and not just appreciate it). Maybe I was brainwashed. Or maybe I legitimately grew to like it. Maybe I would have liked it regardless of the film class if I had watched it a few more times on my own. I like to think that knowing more about the film caused me to appreciate it which, in turn, caused me to like it.

I don' t know.

I could go on but I have to wake for work in 5 hours. I knew there was a good reason I stopped coming to the forum. Sometimes posts pop up and I simply don't have the will power to ignore them. -sigh- Don't take that as an insult. I just means that I think you're very much worth the time for discussion. Oh great... now I just insulted everybody else. I'm going to bed.

_________________
"If you're a ninja, every day is like friday."
-Jamie M.
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 | Posts: 2857 | Location: Lake Jackson, TX
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
boone
Vintage Newbie


The difference is, Rob, that you did a great job of expressing your personal opinion and that's something I can respect. It's also refreshing for you to admit that your opinion may be slightly biased, but that doesn't stop you from making up your own mind about it.

I didn't make any claims to what version of the album is better, I don't really love one more than another, I just get frustrated at hearing the vitriol aimed at Spector's version. Even if someone doesn't like it, it doesn't deserve the amount of negative hype that it gets. I can't stand what I've heard from the Across the Universe movie soundtrack, and I think each song I'd heard was a mess, and sounded nothing like a Beatles song should have. Yet a lot of people love that album, and crap on Let it Be for what I perceive to be asinine reasons.

Our opinion is pretty much the same, really, Rob. We both are able to see both versions for what they are, and enjoy them as such. Sadly, you are literally the only person I've heard talk about the album without totally slagging Spector for what he did to it. That's why it gets frustrating, that's literally all I hear about it. There are no sources to cite about it, that's just all I ever hear.
Joined: 04 Mar 2004 | Posts: 11753 | Location: Toledo, OR
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Post new topic   Reply to topic

Display posts from previous:   



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB, coffee, and Eisley fans worldwide.
phpBB is © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group