So it's going to be called "Let It Be Naked" ?????

[Bennett Cerf]

It's a sloppy release, but as we are Sheep, who pony up to the cashier with our money EVERYTIME a ridiculous release like this is sluffed off to us, this is what we deserve. Crap.

Oh, please. You haven't even heard it. Do you actually listen to CDs, or do you base all of your opinions on running times and analyses of press releases? Your paranoia is a little frightening.

It needs to be over 100 minutes to count as a double... and that only affects how RIAA counts sales when certifying gold and platinum sellers. The number of discs and the running time have NO effect on how Soundscan counts anything. A Soundscan count of 1 million sales means 1 million copies were sold of that title, whether it was one disc or two or three or twenty.

[lukpac]

They qualified for SoundScan, and that's all that REALLY matters to them, here. It's not a crime, but I guess they don't want to be embarassed, and make sure, it's LOTS of big numbers for the Suits. They don't care about putting together a good product...just a cheap, cost effective release, for some quick money.

If the whole point of this was a "cheap, cost effective release, for some quick money", they would have just issued the same old Let It Be again under the *REMASTERED* banner along with some spiffy new packaging and liner notes. They wouldn't have bothered to create something totally new.

It's a sloppy release, but as we are Sheep, who pony up to the cashier with our money EVERYTIME a ridiculous release like this is sluffed off to us, this is what we deserve. Crap.

Mike, you haven't even heard it. If, when you do hear it, you decide it's crap, fine. But I grow tired of "this will suck because Paul is a whore" or "all they care about is money" or "the suits just care about numbers", etc.

If it's that big of a problem, DON'T "pony up to the cashier" with your money. Don't buy it. It's that simple. Apple can probably release whatever they damn well please. Even if this were to bomb, I'm sure Apple would still have a license to do whatever they want to.

[lukpac]

BTW, Bennett, is the afterlife all it's cracked up to be?

[mikenycLI]

Here's a site with two clips from the new release.

Clips from LIB... N "Fly On The Wall" Disc [ October 25, 2003 ]

TheBeatles.com sends out an email about two clips from the Let It Be... Naked "Fly On The Wall" disc.

Clip 1 (One After 909)
http://www.beatles.com/letitbeNaked/tea ... advertID=2

Clip 2 (Dont Let Me Down)
http://www.beatles.com/letitbeNaked/tea ... advertID=5


The first clip features the Beatles reheasing "One After 909" with discussion dialogue, the second features the Beatles reheasing "Don't Let Me Down" again with discussion dialogue.

http://www.thebeatles.com.hk/news/index.asp

[hobokenlad]

I could be wrong, but back in the '90's, the RIAA determination of whether a multiple CD was counted as one or two or three discs, etc., depended on the list/retail price.

For instance, we've all seen the Laserlight multi-disc compilations (4 or 5 CD's for about $20). These count a ONE disc for certification because of the list price. Basically, if a CD is listed as a $19.98 list price or below, it is counted as one CD for certification purposes. It's all very confusing, but, then again, that's what you would expect from the RIAA.

Don't know if this system still applies.

[mikenycLI]

From abbeyard, a contributer showed what the price spread, for this Cd set is, so far. So far, Japan, will be releasing this set, 4 days prior to the US/Uk release date....


From Jeff Jacomowitz:

Hi Steve - Yes prices vary dramatically. As you know, our friends at AMAZON.COM will be selling Let It Be...Naked for a normal price of $12.98, while Circuit City has it listed at $13.99, Tower Records is up to $15.99 and (I can't believe this one) Best Buy is selling it for $20.99. I am not a retail expert but I just don't get it.

Let our Beatles family know of this...

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/news/403letitbeagain.html

[mikenycLI]

Courtesy of Capitol Records Forum, and "The Beatles" thread...

All I can say is "UGH" ! Sounds like some person's A&R wet dream ?



Beatles Audience Is Getting Younger
As we all get older Beatles fans are getting younger.

A survey conducted by Neilsen research in America has found that 32.7% of people who bought the Beatles '1' album were aged 18-24.

The most popular Beatles demographic is still the 40+ with 39.6% in that bracket but the 18-24 demo has shown a big increase on previous survey figures. Just prior to the release of '1' the figure for 18-24 year olds was 18.5%.

A spokesman for EMI said "Whilst it may be that a large number of younger record buyers bought The Beatles 1 as Christmas presents for their parents in 2000, we believe that The Beatles are experiencing a growing appeal with 'The 1 Generation'. As the release of 'Let It Be…Naked' is coinciding with an increase in demand for guitar-based rock and quality pop, it is hoped that this new appeal to the young will be enduring".

The Beatles 'Let It Be … Naked' will be released on November 17.

by Paul Cashmere

[balthazar]

All I can say is "UGH" ! Sounds like some person's A&R wet dream ?

When I was starting college, and therefore in the 18-24 demographic, back in 1995, I knew of a lot of people my age and younger who were all over the Anthology releases, and picking up other collections as well.

Today's average 18-24 year-old may not have an interest in acquiring all the studio albums, etc., but as a casual fan may indeed be looking for a "best of" collection that suits their purposes, and 1 certainly does this.

Where does all your negativity come from? And where do all your commas come from?

[mikenycLI]

balthazar, I love the way they are deciding for the consumer, what it is WE are listening to, and paying for, and how they are characterizing this junk.

All they are really doing is remixing (read: constructing), stuff that's already been released before, and putting it in a new package. The original music isn't enough to sell, so they feel they have to make things up!

In this case, "Let It Be Naked", from what I have read about listener impression of the samples, they have re-constructed songs, sometimes with other parts from other recordings, and made another version of the song, that was NEVER performed in the first place ! I think this can be called in this instance, making an out-fake. This is stuff usually relegated to bootleggers...their sworn enemy.

Using advertising copy like "As Nature Intended", only gets them in deeper, with what to me is a misrepresentation.

[mikenycLI]

balthazar, I love the way they are deciding for the consumer, what it is WE are listening to, and paying for, and how they are characterizing this junk.

All they are really doing is remixing (read: constructing), stuff that's already been released before, and putting it in a new package. The original music isn't enough to sell, so they feel they have to make things up!

In this case, "Let It Be Naked", from what I have read about listener impression of the samples, they have re-constructed songs, sometimes with other parts from other recordings, and made another version of the song, that was NEVER performed in the first place ! I think this can be called in this instance, making an out-fake. This is stuff usually relegated to bootleggers. I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em !

Using advertising copy like "As Nature Intended", only gets them in deeper, with what to me is a misrepresentation.

[lukpac]

balthazar, I love the way they are deciding for the consumer, what it is WE are listening to, and paying for, and how they are characterizing this junk.

"Junk?" YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HEARD IT.

All they are really doing is remixing (read: constructing), stuff that's already been released before, and putting it in a new package.

First of all, that's only partly true - some of the takes/versions haven't been released before, at least on disc.

Secondly, what's the problem with this? What's wrong with "something different"? Do you equally despise the YS Songtrack, the Pet Sounds stereo mix, or any other "modern" remix for that matter?

The original music isn't enough to sell, so they feel they have to make things up!

Why is it seemingly impossible for you to believe that this release just *might* be for artistic reasons? Paul has been unhappy with Let It Be for years.

If this was just about sales, we would have seen the whole catalog remastered by now, probably several times. And the Beatles' music would be available online.

In fact, I'd say if money was indeed the number one priority, they wouldn't be issuing another version of one of the least popular albums in the catalog. No, we'd be seeing a "Sgt Pepper Deluxe Edition" or something.

In this case, "Let It Be Naked", from what I have read about listener impression of the samples, they have re-constructed songs, sometimes with other parts from other recordings, and made another version of the song, that was NEVER performed in the first place !

I've seen no mention of this. I believe they did "pick and choose" a few overdubs, from what I've heard, but that certainly doesn't equal "parts from other recordings".

And even if they did, so what? Is Strawberry Fields Forever invalid because it is comprised of multiple takes? Combining things from multiple takes isn't anything new.

Using advertising copy like "As Nature Intended", only gets them in deeper, with what to me is a misrepresentation.

A misrepresentation of what, exactly?

[balthazar]

I love the way they are deciding for the consumer, what it is WE are listening to, and paying for, and how they are characterizing this junk.

What makes you think they are deciding for the consumer? Even if they're saying "Go out and buy this, it's good!" that's really no different from any other form of advertising.

Would it make you happier if it got some negative reviews?

How are they deciding what you pay for? In the end, aren't you the person who decides to go to your favorite music outlet and buy the CD or not?

And why are you calling it junk? Have you even heard it?

All they are really doing is remixing (read: constructing), stuff that's already been released before, and putting it in a new package. The original music isn't enough to sell, so they feel they have to make things up!

Remix doesn't necessarily mean constructing. Do you always use flat equalization, or do you boost the bass a bit, or tweak the high frequencies?

Sure, this material has been released before. But it was produced by Phil Spector, and would the Beatles have gone to him by themselves? Maybe the original music doesn't sell because I can listen to the single-versions of some of the material on Past Masters - Volume 2 or I can listen to an over-produced version on the original Let It Be. Now I'm goinng to have an option of listening to all the material as it was most likely intended.

In this case, "Let It Be Naked", from what I have read about listener impression of the samples, they have re-constructed songs, sometimes with other parts from other recordings, and made another version of the song, that was NEVER performed in the first place ! I think this can be called in this instance, making an out-fake. This is stuff usually relegated to bootleggers...their sworn enemy.

Now I thought a bootlegger was a person who snuck a recorder into a concert and then sold his recording. Now, I'm aware of fan-remixed versions of released material (e.g. Luke's Live at Leeds mix), but in either case, "bootleg" implies "unofficial" if not "illegal." Since LIB...N is an official release from Apple, they can do pretty much what they want with it.

I can understand your disappointment with material being advertised as "natural" being mixed together from multiple sources. However, that practice in general isn't really that unusual. But if your big beef is with the fact that it's being advertised as being "how it was intended" I don't see any validity to that.

[Bennett Cerf]

Somehow I get the impression that mikenycLI would be unhappy with pretty much any new Beatles release.

A straight reissue of one of the Get Back lineups? What a ripoff! We already have that on bootlegs! This was rejected in 1969 with good reason! Another money grab by Apple!

A new compilation which is strictly "as nature intended" without edits and obvious remixing? What a ripoff! Who wants these sloppy performances? Another money grab by Apple!

A remaster of the original Let It Be? What a ripoff! There's nothing new here! We waited 15 years for this? Another money grab by Apple!

[Xenu]

So once again: has this leaked yet?

Surely it must be somewhere. After all, promos are out, and the release date's only two weeks away.

Yet internet versions are still fakes?

[Rspaight]

Haven't seen squat on Usenet.

Ryan