|
|
Post by onlooker on Sept 18, 2003 20:35:53 GMT
Here's the latest Faul project :
Beatles' 'Let It Be' Is Getting 'Naked'
Sep 18 2003 1:22PM
LONDON (AP) - A new version of The Beatles' album ``Let It Be'' will be released in November, the group's company Apple Corps announced Thursday.
``Let It Be...Naked'' strips the 1969 album of Phil Spector's lavish production effects, returning to billy McCartney's original idea for the recording. ``This
is the noise we made in the studio,'' McCartney said of the new version. ``It's exactly as it was in the room. You're right there now.''
``Let It Be...Naked'' mostly keeps the same track listing as the original album, which featured songs Let It Be, The Long and Winding Road, Get Back and Across the Universe.
Background dialogue, Dig It and Maggie Mae have been taken off the album, and Don't Let Me Down has been added, Apple Corps said.
Most of ``Let It Be'' was recorded in 1969 for an album which was to have been called ``Get Back,'' showing The Beatles returning to their roots as a four-piece rock-and-roll band. But the group was splitting up and the album was abandoned.
Spector was later brought in to convert hundreds of hours of tape into an album, renamed ``Let It Be.''
Ringo Starr told Rolling Stone magazine earlier this year: ``Paul was always totally opposed to Phil. I told him on the phone (recently), `You're bloody right again. It sounds great without Phil.' Which it does.''
``Let It Be...Naked'' is to be released by EMI Records on November 17.
Just notice what's being left off...
Background dialogue, Dig It and Maggie Mae have been taken off the album, and Don't Let Me Down has been added, Apple Corps said.
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that Dig It is not included. Revisionist Faul.
Onlooker
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 18, 2003 23:38:28 GMT
Faul just completing the "Anthology faking history" operation.
TG I have all the original (1986-1987) Beatles CDs.
Who can stop that guy?
|
|
|
|
Post by baldyslaphead on Sept 19, 2003 10:16:53 GMT
Faul just completing the "Anthology faking history" operation. TG I have all the original (1986-1987) Beatles CDs. Who can stop that guy? Hang on a moment - not for one nano-second is there any suggestion that the Spector version of Let It Be is to be deleted! The original version will continue to be sold! This new version is clearly identified as 'not the version released back in '69', but rather a re-imagining of how it might have sounded had Spector not been left to his own devices. Even if he (for some unknown reason) wanted to, there is no way that Paul/Faul could carry out this deception. What would he do? Burgle the house of everyone who owns a copy and replace it with the revisionist one?  I think even the most ardent conspiracy theorist would have trouble working that one! |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 19, 2003 15:52:07 GMT
-YAWN- Oh, hello. Just nodded off as the world media says the 'Let It Be' sessions shall be released without the Spector treatments. Any real Beatle fan has had the original Glyn Johns version available as a high-quality bootleg for some....34 years now. I've had it myself DIRECT FROM SOURCE WITH THE 'FORBIDDEN' CENSORED DIALOGUE on CD for a few years now.
Imagine the heart-warming consumer consideration Faul and Apple Corp. (might as well say faul & Yoko,eh?) are showing by getting it all ready for a NOVEMBER release; just in time for CHRISTMAS. -YAWN-
Much more interesting is the dialogue which is removed and forbidden. What could Faul be afraid of, does John or George actually CALL HIM FAUL in jest somewhere on there? Are there references to the impersonation of PAUL? Does some REAL Beatle instruct FAUL on how to play or TUNE his instrument? Points to ponder.
SQUARE FAUL DEPT. Also a bummer is paranoid, uptight Sir Faul deleting DIG IT from the track list. HELLO< WAKE UP YOKO,SEAN, OR JULIAN...that tune was OVER 10 MINUTES LONG on unedited film; they snipped it down to like 45 seconds for the originally released album; now -poof- it's gone for good. Wonder what John's stream-of-consciousness, ad libbed vocal contained which made CERTAIN PEOPLE UPTIGHT? FAUL CENSORS JOHN....never thought I'd see the day.
WHAT REAL FANS WANT DEPT. No one asked, but real, informed, serious Beatle fans would spend some CHRISTMAS MONEY on a 'naked' SGT. PEPPER album, the straight tracks of playing and singing, without the magical mescaline overdubs. Now, THAT would sound fresh! I recall an Abbey Road/george Martin TV special a couple years ago, and George had the MASTER TAPES cued up.....he faded in and out on the different tracks, and the vocals alone were PRISTINE AND BREATHTAKING.
Also would love some of the 40 hours-plus of raw 'Magical Mystery Tour' film...they only used 52 minutes of.....
'Let It Be' was originally titled 'Get Back.' So, Faul, let the manipulation and editing and censorship of the Beatles catalog BE, and GET BACK to Canada where you once belonged. -world peace now, Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 19, 2003 15:56:59 GMT
Ian, since you have the bootleg CD, could you tell us what all the censored dialogue is and also the FULL lyrics to "Dig It"?
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 19, 2003 17:06:31 GMT
PB, the Cd I purchased from e-bay is direct from source, and is so jam-packed with stuff I confess I've never had the time to listen all the way thru it yet.
I can tell you the 'raw' tunes without all the Spector crap are excellent. Especially 'across the universe' and 'I dig a pony.'
The cd I have seems like filmed, sound-code stripped (where you can hear the film crew announcing/identifying each shot or scene) rehearsals of many of the numbers.
A great deal of takes are devoted to George's 'I,Me,Mine'
and the song is followed from a shred of an idea to full tilt. One can hear John giving George ALOT of guff over that song; "we're a bloody ROCK band, not this waltz crap!"
The hilight for me, so far, is when Peter Sellers visits the set and tries to act all hippie/cool and keeps saying how sorry he was for not bringing any 'grass' with him, as he "knows how much you boys dig it." Then, John asks Peter if he remembers when he (john) gave Sellers some grass apparently in Trafalger Square, in London! Peter says "yes! that was some great stuff!" The band jibes Peter sellers and he doesn't even get it; very cool audio.
Another chilling part is when Yoko and John are talking about drugs with someone, and someone says they don't get much exercise, and Yoko replies, "shooting is exercise" and John jumps on that and repeats it, "Yeah! Shooting is exercise"! They were obviously talking about shooting up heroin, and John made a general announcement for anyone to "not leave their needles in the bathroom, please".......
Much of the sudio has Faul being bossy, John being the leader too, in parts. The music is excellent. The ultimate gem is when John is helping George with lyrics for 'Something." John actually SINGS the first verse himself...PURE BLISS. John had the greatest voice in the industry, in my opinion....
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Sept 19, 2003 23:12:02 GMT
Ian,
In "I dig a pony" the lyrics officially show "I dig a pony" at the appropriate place toward the end of the song, but John sings something else there that sounds like: "I low and lowly". If you can clarify what is said there, it's probably a clue of some sort. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 20, 2003 4:52:16 GMT
Byrds;
I have no idea, man. There are so many takes of the tune....they had to have practiced it dozens of times.
I'm getting what you mean, in him saying something else. It sounds to me (God knows I could be wrong) but it sounds like he's saying: "I....drove a lorry" which, in British vernacular a 'lorry' is a truck. Tow truck? Crashed vehicle truck? Hearse? Don't honestly know.
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 20, 2003 4:57:01 GMT
By the by, this is strictly in the land of personal opinion, but Bless his heart, John Lennon was ALWAYS truly 'Alternative' before even the genre had been invented and exploited.
I could easily believe someone like Kurt cobain could cover 'I Dig A Pony' and it would have sounded excellent.
I also feel 'Hey Bulldog' has always been way underrated and too easily forgotten...
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 20, 2003 5:11:33 GMT
yes i totally agree about hey bulldog. that song really should have gotten much more recognition that it did! it was the first beatles song that was ever my favorite
|
|
|
|
Post by Eggman on Sept 20, 2003 11:42:08 GMT
Agree 100%!!! I love this song!!! The lyrics are incredible!!! |
|
|
|
Post by TheeCavendeshLane on Sept 20, 2003 14:12:18 GMT
Very Interesting. I dont know whethere anyone has the original British version of Let It Be that came with the paperbook book which
was essentially a transcription of much of what was said during the recording sessions and contains much more spoken material that was on the record or in the movie. Its a photo book but with a lot of dialogue and shows the hostility and enmity towards Paul. John
hated Paul. And Paul acted like an ass and the dialogue showed that
he acted like an ass. I remember being sort of shocked because the Beatles were portrayed as sort of collaboration where Lennon and Mcartney sort of where each others muse and helped each write songs and so on. That is sort of one thing that I initially found so odd
about the photos in the Sht Pepper album, it seemed to me, naive of any 'clues' when I first saw the album, that they were for some reason featuring Paul ( he was so tall ) and I didnt like that and I didnt like thathe looked so different. I also will tell you for what it is worth that when I first saw Sgt Pepper's in the stores ( and the same wtih madical mystery tour ) I had the impression that the album covers were something of a puzzle or rhebus-- as if I was looking at a
'whats wrong with this picture' thing. There is somewhere for sure where John calls Paul either faul or Faux because I read it myself I just cant remember where I read it. This is the album where Faul's lyrics start to gibberish--over what we now know where the last years of the Beatles Paul's voice changes and his appearance changes and his personnae changes and his music changes and his lyrics become babble. Id like to know what happened to the hundreds of hours of Beatles tapes that they found in the Philippines a few months back.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 20, 2003 14:19:02 GMT
TheeCavendeshLane : [glow=red,2,300]WELCOME BACK![/glow] Please...John NEVER hated James Paul. He just hated Faul.
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Sept 20, 2003 21:46:18 GMT
Hundreds of hours of Beatles tapes in the Philippines?
Why were they there? Who found them?
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 21, 2003 15:16:14 GMT
CAVENDISH,
I do relate to what you're saying about the lyrical lobotomy that occurred when Faul came 'round. So painfully obvious.
I have often cited the dicotomy from the brilliant genius of 'Elainor Rigby' to 'silly love songs' and such. Faul's lyrics seem to lose what steam they have and deteriorate into 'La, La-la, la's" following the thin melody lines...on just about every song.
The emergence of Faul explains to me, in my personal life, why I felt such contempt for 'Paul' (now known as Faul) and basically scorned his lame-ass musical output.
By the 'Let It Be' era, I had turned away from thinking 'Paul' was cool at all. I was way more into Lennon and his 'cold turkey' material. I feel better now, as I realize it was FAUL I couldn't stand, lol!
So Cavendish points out a very critical, creative flaw in the continuity of song writing....Paul was brilliant, Faul was and is mediocre at best.
And, for my money, being a professional musician, I still maintain Faul buys songs from unknowns (and, many known song mercenaries): this accounts for the "good ones" which aren't total drek.
Song-buying proliferates in the industry, you just never hear about it. Aerosmith do it quite alot, which is why they have been 'reborn' in the last decade with commercial Top 40 hits and songs on movie soundtracks...
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 21, 2003 15:36:49 GMT
And MJ doesn't write his own material either - Quincy Jones writes it for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldyslaphead on Sept 22, 2003 9:12:18 GMT
Song-buying proliferates in the industry, you just never hear about it. Aerosmith do it quite alot, which is why they have been 'reborn' in the last decade with commercial Top 40 hits and songs on movie soundtracks... Which would be a fine thing to say, except for the fact that all of the Aerosmith albums contain full credits for the writers, with no attempt to hide them whatsoever. Diane Warren was, for example, the writer of the Armageddon track, credited clearly. |
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 22, 2003 12:42:59 GMT
BALDY- ;D
I understand your point, but you are misinformed on this topic. I am a professional musician. I have well over 150 songs Copyrighted in the Library of Congress, and have had several contracts faxed to me, wanting to buy outright this song or that song. In other words, I know what I'm talking about from a more 'inside' perspective. I also have had entertainment lawyers advise me on contracts offered.
You do not see unknown songwriters names on, let's say, an Aerosmith hit because Tyler/Perry BUY OUTRIGHT
the song. That is VERY different from purchasing the RIGHTS to perform/record a given song. Let me explain:
Aerosmith have a close-knit stable of known and unknown songwriters on their team. Mark Hudson, from the 70's group The Hudson Brothers, is among them. These guys write songs, run them by Aerosmith, and if the band likes them, they BUY THEM IN TOTAL from the songwriter.
This means THE SONGWRITER RELINQUISHES OWNERSHIP OF THE SONG, their name will NEVER appear on any credits as the author of that song. It becomes, in effect, a Tyler/Perry composition. If a song is gonna be a smash hit, like that lame power ballad for the 'Armageddon; movie, the price would be near $50,000. And since Diane Warren is such an established name in the industry, she can stipulate her name is credited. A little nobody like me, wouldn't have any industry stroke.
Also, when an artist SELLS THE SONG, that artist cannot PERFORM that song on record or during live performance, usually forever but some have negotiable periods, like for 5 years. Hey, you SOLD the song, it's not YOURS anymore! Dance with the Devil, feal the heat!
Now, say you have a great song, and you pitch it to a more established artist. I can LISCENCE that song to them, for say 5 years. I am permitting them the RIGHT to perform and/or record that song for that time period.
MY NAME appears as author of the song, I get a negotiated percentage of publishing and performance fees, and I can still play that tune at my own gigs. After the 5 years is up, they can renew, or end the agreement. Through it all, I RETAIN OWNERSHIP and AUTHORSHIP. You are taking more financial risk as your 'payday' is dependent on percentages. A million-selling hit means you are set for a long while; ask the old geezer who wrote 'Achey Breaky Heart' for Billy Ray Cyrus.
So there it is. One can liscence the rights to a tune, and see their name on the record, or one can SELL the song outright for a pretty penny, but lose their creative baby.
Hope that helps. Rock on- Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by baldyslaphead on Sept 22, 2003 16:23:04 GMT
So there it is. One can liscence the rights to a tune, and see their name on the record, or one can SELL the song outright for a pretty penny, but lose their creative baby. Hope that helps. Rock on- Ian Your point is taken, but the original contention was that Aerosmith's top 40 hits and movie soundtrack songs were as a result of hidden writers. I'm not debating for a moment that such things *could* happen - merely pointing out that the examples used to back up a contention were hardly the best. I know it's a bit off topic, but the fundamental point is valud - your arguements must be sound if they are to be worth anything. |
|
|
|
Post by kane1000 on Sept 25, 2003 0:00:47 GMT
please ian paul buys songs.........
he happened to buy my love
all the stuff on band on the run...
the well of unknown writers selling him classics is unreal..
why can't justin timberlake find all these "writers"
buy a few solo efforts and dig deep past the hits,,hell go get wingspan............daytime nighttime suffering is one of his best solo works and im sure not too many people here have ever heard it before....
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 25, 2003 0:05:54 GMT
I used Aerosmith as a prime example since they are the most obvious that spring to mind. Let's face it, the 'New' material sure isn't in the same vein as 'Last Child' or 'Sweet Emotion.'
And any viewing of the 'making of the Pump album' documentary movie will put to rest any questions that they didn't turn to professional lyric writers and songwriters. It's my opinion they BUY heavily their tunes at this stage of the game. Perry/Tyler are pretty much spent, creatively-speaking. (Just my assessment.)
They have what seems like a totally 'second' career and sound, much like the Stones reinvented themselves starting with the 'Some Girls' album....the stuff sells ok, but it sure isn't 'Under My Thumb' or 'Midnight Rambler.'
Bands buy songs from writers. Many do; many don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 25, 2003 0:09:27 GMT
please ian paul buys songs......... he happened to buy my love all the stuff on band on the run... KANE- Of that I'm super sure! It's quite obvious. I think I've said that before, too, a couple weeks ago. You are right! Faul buys songs by the drove! |
|
|
|
Post by MrMustard on Sept 25, 2003 0:13:08 GMT
please ian paul buys songs......... he happened to buy my love all the stuff on band on the run... the well of unknown writers selling him classics is unreal.. That's because Faul can't write for himself |
|
|
|
Post by kane1000 on Sept 25, 2003 2:36:23 GMT
wow..im glad you are so sure about that!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 26, 2003 3:00:18 GMT
wow..im glad you are so sure about that!!!!!!!!!! Kane, this is NOT the "Paul is God" site. If you're gonna repeatedly and constantly engage us as we offer personal statements and our opinions, it will get old very quick. You need to realize that we who assemble here share a common bond. If you don't agree with that premise, then 'Run Devil Run.' lol You probably really dig Wings' 'Mary Had A Little Lamb' too! |
|
I think even the most ardent conspiracy theorist would have trouble working that one! 
