Let it Be vs. Let it Be...Naked

I can't decide which to buy! i like the orchestrated version of across the universe but think the long and winding road was better left unchanged. For those of you who have heard both albums, which do you think is better?

 

well, of course the let it be naked sounds so much better because it was remastered just recently.... I still think the original let it be is good, and it takes a lot of crap from paul especially...... I think phil spector did a pretty good job on the album..

 

I have "Let It Be" but I havne't heard "Let It Be Naked".

 

do you like let it be?

 

I like "Let It Be", it's a good album, but I also have "Abbey Road" and I think it's better.

 

donno... let it be naked sounds a bit "too" naked to me.
I prefer the original, with all its 'problems'. The sound of the original also has more "air" in my opinion.. the naked version sounds a bit rough for my taste.

 

I never listened to "Let It Be Naked" but I don't care much for it. I have a feeling that the original "Let It Be" is better because it was the one released in 1970 and I always prefer songs made in the studio at their best take for release. For example, the "Ummagumma" album by Pink Floyd has both the studio and the live takes, I prefer the studio takes much more.

 

Let It Be...Naked is the better album, its also my favourite Beatles album (that's saying a lot).

The Phil Spectored-"Long and Winding Road" imo is pretty bad, probably the most overproduced Beatles song. I dont like the Naked version all that much but its much better. "Dig It" and "Maggie Mae" could actually be called the only bad Beatles songs -- they were both left off of the remake.

And probably the most important thing: Let It Be... Naked has "Don't Let Me Down," super super catchy to where it won't get out of your head for weeks and its definitely my favourite song of their's.

 

Phil Spector messed with the songs after The Beatles had recorded them, many of the Let It Be versions weren't what The Beatles had wanted. They just didn't really care.. John was pretty much the only one in the studio after Abbey Road, that's why Phil Spector had so much control over the album. (The songs were actually all recorded before the Abbey Road sessions).

 

My favorite song from the original album is the title track "Let It Be".

I know that song "Don't Let Me Down", I burned it off the internet a few years ago, it's definately one of my favorite Beatles songs, I was wondering what year it was from, I first thought 1969. Actually, wasn't "Let It Be" recorded in 1969? "Don't Let Me Down" is one the most depressing and sorrowful Beatles songs.

 

I say buy both. The Naked version contains nice and clean versions of Get Back and One after 909, which are certainly worth possesing. It also contains 20 minutes of studio conversations and rehersals.

The Original version contains the classic The Long and Winding Road, which I still prefer over the Naked version. But the absolute reason to buy the original is the title-track itself. The original Let it Be is superiour to the Naked version on every terrain except sound quality.

Let it Be was recorded early 1969, but was released in 1970, after Abbey Road.

 

I don't know, I love both... but I think that The Long And Winding Road and Across The Universe are MUCH better on Let It Be... Naked...

 

They are both good, I think I like the original better.

 

i think its kinda ironic that an album called "Let it Be" was the one that, in certain cases, is overdone with orchestration.

 

Paul's only real big beef with Spectors production was how loud the orchesstra and chorus were on Long and Winding Road...

that being said...let it be naked, mainly for the Two of Us and I Me Mine...

although... i love downloading bootlegs from the sessions [which are the most bootlegged sessions in history]

 

I think Let it Be...Naked would have been better if they left "dig it", "maggie mae" and the talking before "two of us" on there. I liked the original version of "don't let me down" better too, the Naked version seems a little too fast.

 

For example, the "Ummagumma" album by Pink Floyd has both the studio and the live takes, I prefer the studio takes much more.[/QUOTE]
WOW MAN, THOSE TWO SIDES ARE COMLETLEY DIFFERENT! IM PRETTY SURE THE SONGS ON THE LIVE SIDE WERE ALREADY WRITTEN WITH SYD BARRET, AND THAT SIDE WAS JUST A LIVE VERSION OF THOSE SONGS. HOWEVER I LIKE THE STUDIO SIDE MUCH BETTER AS WELL. BUT I THINK THAT STUDIO SIDE WAS ALL JUST EXPERIMENTAL SHIT.

 

actually, only astronomy domine was written with syd barrett. the other three were written after syd departed (or after he was left out of the band, depending on whose side of the story you listen to).

and I rather like the live side of ummagumma...... a saucerful of secrets and careful with that axe are leagues better live than in the studio....... those two just take whole new lives when they perform them live..... the studio side of ummagumma is mostly crap... the only bright parts are roger waters grantchester meadows and dave gilmour's narrow way pt 3...... the rest of it is just experimental garbage, doesnt mean anything.

 

I adore Let it be, but i've never heard Let it be naked..

 

oh well, i was just pointing out that the two sides have absolutley nothing to do with each other besides the fact they are on the same album.