smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Jocelyn Geboy <smussyolay@yahoo.com> |
| Subject | let me be confused (was Re: Let it be. busted) |
| Date | Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:41:44 -0800 (PST) |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (6.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
~~~~~~~~okay. even though i AM embarrassed, i'm going
to act like i'm NOT embarrassed to show my ignorance.
(and even though i've studied sociology, i get
confused with that ethnicity/race stuff, too. but i
DO think it's important to get it correct, as i'm not
latino/a, hispanic, black/african-american, native
american/american indian, or anything much than a real
mutt mix of euroanglo stuff. so what do i know?)
however, the ignorance of which i speak is of later
beatles work, intricate production details, and in
specific the let it be/let it be naked albums.
here's what i think i know: phil spector (officially
charged with murder today, the craziness in rock is
truly abounding) produced let it be. he's known for
intricate 'wall of sound' stuff.
then this 'let it be naked' record comes out. it's
produced by ____? no one? that's what i thought. i
thought it was what the beatles originally intended. i
thought that people sort of thought that phil fucked
up let it be or something all these years.
now...y'all are talking about this auto-tune (which
i've always been confused about anyway, to be
honest... i mean, where's my record deal, then?
where's everyone's record deal then? why not have
auto-tune on the local karaoke bar? takes all the fun
out of it?). i mean, that's not very 'naked' is it?
is that why people don't like it? how do you KNOW
there's auto-tune? another naive part of me is really
confused...the beatles needed auto-tune!??!?!! what?
then, there seems to be a *third* version? the
bootlegs?
clarification would be severely welcomed.
jocelyn
--- Robert Sutliff <Rsutliff@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> While you are undoubtably one of musical heroes I
> don't much agree with you
> here. I have no quibbles with bringing the sound up
> to date (I listened to
> Past Masters Vol. 2 last night and really wanted to
> grab the studio pan
> knob!). I even dug a good bit the mixes on the
> newish Yellow Submarine
> release. What I do quibble with is using musically
> inferior takes i.e. the
> version of Long And Winding Road on Naked. It's
> obviously an earlier take
> where the band hadn't quite come to terms with the
> tune. In particular,
> Ringo's drummming is just not there yet. His use of
> the ride cymbal on the
> Glyn Johns version (and yes the Spector version)
> much improves the feel of
> the song. Also, I didn't mention it earlier but
> Antares Auto Tune is present
> on everything. For God's sake, the Fab Four just
> didn't need that. Like
> everyone else in the world with a modern studio, I
> use Auto Tune, but only
> when I have to. It really adds an artificial
> ambience and once you've heard
> it you know it when you hear it. Still, I don't
> remotely hate Naked. I just
> don't like it even half as much as the Spector
> version.
>
> And yes, the music is timeless. I love that band
> more than every other band
> in the world put together. They were that good.
>
> Bobby Sutliff
> NP - I guess I've got to pull out Wackering Heights
> again.
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:41:42 -0500
> > From: "bob" <segarini@sympatico.ca>
> > To: <kingradio@pumpingstation.com>,
> <audities@smoe.org>
> > Cc: <canadianclassicrock@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Let it be. busted.
> > Message-ID:
> <001201c3afa6$b709a380$41aae2d1@sympatico.ca>
> >
> > We must have gotten two different versions of the
> CD...mine is a HUGE
> > improvement over the previous release and
> boots...not only that, but
> > bringing the sound up to date proves how timeless
> the music is, (there is
> a
> > difference, you know, between the quality of the
> sound of a record and the
> > quality of the music and songs contained therein),
> and will undoubtedly
> turn
> > yet another generation onto how good pop music can
> be.
> > Now if they only had the technoligy to improve the
> MATERIAL on a lot of
> > today's great SOUNDING records...
> >
> > bob
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Frank Padellaro"
> <kingradio@pumpingstation.com>
> > To: <audities@smoe.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 3:18 PM
> > Subject: Let it be. busted.
> >
> >
> > > I've just got my hands on Nekkid and let me tell
> you, I am really bummed
> > out. Let me start by saying that I was really
> looking forward to this
> > release, and I, like most others I know, was under
> the impression that
> Phil
> > wrecked a great record, blah blah blah.
> > >
> > > Well, I prefer his overproduced version to this,
> that's for sure. To
> > begin with, the mix just sounds messed up. The
> drums sound doubly
> > compressed, and the cymbals are all hashy and
> really offensive sounding to
> > me. The best thing about the mixes is how present
> and wonderful Billy
> > Preston sounds. But otherwise I have nothing good
> to say about them. The
> > drums are louder and more clear, but the warm
> mushy drums of the old
> version
> > are far more pleasing to the ear than the
> perfectly rendered current drum
> > mix, which lets you hear just how dead and awful
> that drum kit was for
> those
> > sessions. The vocals have a really crummy
> sounding reverb, which is a
> > marked difference from the pleasant reverb of the
> original versions.
> > >
> > > Lastly, I was absolutely horrified when
> listening to "Two of Us" to hear
> > one of the McCartney lines clearly pitch corrected
> with auto-tune. This
> was
> > such a foreign sound in a Beatles song, and it
> chilled me right to my
> core.
> > It sounded like some modern rock radio song for a
> split second. With my
> > ears tuned in, I heard several other moments of
> auto-tune clearly on other
> > parts of the record as well.
> > >
> > > One of my favorite things about the Beatles is
> how well McCartney and
> > Lennon, though not always perfectly in tune,
> always manage to sound
> > together. Now they've ruined that.
> > >
> > > This album is an abortion and I hate it!
> > >
> > > Anyone who is really interested in hearing the
> original recordings as
> > intended should grab one of the many various boots
> that are available of
> > Glynn Johns' original mixes. They are much richer
> and pleasing to my ear,
> > and will give you the same nice feeling of hearing
> Paul sing The Long and
> > Winding Road without a ton of Spectarian crap
> piled on top of it.
> > >
> > > What a Bummer,
> > > Frank.
> > >
> >
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.