naked nerd

We were listening to Let it Be naked last night.

That is, of course, we in the royal sense of the word, and naked as in despectorized. Unlike a lot of the critics I loved what I heard. Sounds better. I was quite happily boppin along to fresh beatles in borders in full anorak nerditude in headphones.

---

Comments: naked nerd

Eh. The problem I have with the album is that however they choose to present it, they can't disguise the fact that it was, really, the sound of only one person giving a shit about what they were doing. They basically didn't have much good material to start with, and presenting it minus the Spector touches doesn't really make it better for my money. Also, I'm bothered by the impression the hype around the album gives that this is the album as the Beatles originally wanted it, when it is, frankly, nothing of the sort.
Posted by James Russell at December 14, 2003 05:26 PM

In the meantime, Phil has despectorised himself to the point where the uberromantic is now defending himself in that squalid mess of murder he has got himself into.

I've never been much of a beatles fan. But the actual song Let It Be was just perfect not only for the end of the band, but of an era as it evolved into .. too hard to describe. Where is my Hunter Thompson channelling mantra when I need it?
Posted by David at December 14, 2003 11:54 PM

It's great, isn't it? I like it better the more I play it. I was put off by it at first (as I think some critics were) because the songs didn't sound exactly like I'd heard them a million times before. But it grows on you. It sounds "live" (even if that's partly an illusion), and therefore imperfect, but I like that.
Posted by MG at December 15, 2003 05:40 AM

Eh, James. The Rutles have been so anthologized, revisioned and remixed that it's hard for anyone (even the players themselves)to sort out the authentic truth from the dreaming anymore. That is - I don't know how a punter can conclude anything about what was going on with the Beatles at the time. I think the best source is a book like The recording Sessions - where you see that even at the height of the full on war zone or dug-in trench warfare, individual sessions were quite amicable, animated, creative.
I can't agree that there was only one heart involved in LIB, or that the material isn't worthy of an album. Haven't read enough of the hype or even the speil about the original feel, so wouldn't know about that.
- but because I'm a beatle-tragic - another childhood sentimental nostalgic thing really -
like MG, I'm happy just to listen to a new take on old sounds. My expectations were low, and I was relatively unattached to those songs, but I think it sounds better. And yep - it does have a live feel. Got to stop sampling at borders and buy it now.
Posted by boynton at December 15, 2003 03:14 PM

Ah, yes, another reason why I'm not buying the CD: it's copy-controlled. Even if I did like the album I'd still just settle for mp3s of it. (And yes, I know the copy-control can be circumvented, but I don't see any point in encouraging EMI...)
Posted by James Russell at December 15, 2003 05:12 PM

Thought the film was better than the record myself.
Honestly folks, Yoko Ono did better work than this.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at December 16, 2003 10:02 AM