Comment from: jungleland2 [Member] Email · http://www.ericleland.com
I got a boot DVD copy of Let It Be about a month ago and trudged through it for the first time in nearly 15 years. What a depressing movie. The band sounds tired and bored, the sound is horrible, the playing is uninspired, the lighting is even bad.

The rooftop gig is kinda cool, but by then I am too depressed to enjoy it.

The Beatles breaking up was far to painful to watch again and again on purpose.
10/22/09 @ 16:13
Comment from: dbuskirk [Member] Email
I'm revisiting the this week as well. Found this quote from John, talking about Paul complaints on Spector's work on the LET IT BE LP:

Despite the criticisms leveled at Spector over the years for his handling of the material, Lennon defended him in his famous Playboy interview 10 years later, saying, "He was given the shittiest load of badly-recorded shit with a lousy feeling to it ever, and he made something of it."

For film geeks only:
The film was shot on 16mm, whose image was crop at the top and bottom to make a rectangular 1:85 ratio. The video takes that image and crops it on both sides, mean that the image the remains has been cropped on all four sides, leaving just a square in the middle that we are viewing. I'm excited to see Jay's print if only to see the two sides put back on.
10/22/09 @ 23:32
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member] Email
I have always been in agreement with John's assessment of Spector's work on Let It Be. The album still sucks ass, but blaming Spector for that is just silly.

Wish I could be in Philly for the screening.
10/23/09 @ 00:13
Comment from: BigSteve [Member] Email
I had no idea Let It Be had been basically withdrawn from circulation. The Beatles have always had a case of Stones envy, and I think maybe they wanted their own Cocksucker Blues.
10/23/09 @ 09:50
Comment from: dbuskirk [Member] Email
I wrote about the film today over at Phawker.com:

http://www.phawker.com/2009/10/23/tonite-let-it-be/#more-17689

It definitely seemed different coming back o it after many years. I dislike Paul just a little bit more.
10/23/09 @ 16:34
Comment from: hrrundivbakshi [Member] Email
Thanks for that review, dbuskirk!
10/23/09 @ 16:52
Comment from: Mr. Moderator [Member]
Besides dbuskirk, were there any Townspeople in the house? I want to know how it went.
10/24/09 @ 03:56
Comment from: dbuskirk [Member] Email
What, am I an unreliable witness?

Actually, I wasn't there either. Stuck home with lil' Ringo last night....
10/24/09 @ 10:51
Comment from: pudman13 [Member] Email
Why dislike Paul? The movie (and everything else--the bootleg tapes, the books) proves that he's the only one there who had any interest in giving their fans anything of quality, and I think he should be respected for that.
10/26/09 @ 10:14
Comment from: dbuskirk [Member] Email
I can see that reading of Paul, why be so down on someone who trying to make things happen? Have you seen LET IT BE recently? My feeling is that he's the one who is pushing the Beatles machine to produce at a time when they might have been better off taking a breather (there is such a sense of exhaustion with LET IT BE). That whole thing of making the fiancee's dad the head of the business thing was supposedly a source of friction as well.

It is a personal thing as well, no doubt. Something about the guy just bugs me, as much as I do admire much about his talent. Last time I saw The Mayseles' Beatles doc, it seemed like Paul was already fond of hearing himself talk in '64.

I'm filled with all sorts of almost irrational warmth for the other guys (I once had a dream I sat with Lennon in Dirty Franks, and all we talked about was how much we liked George's music). But I think if I was on a desert island with Paul we'd end up like Mifune and Marvin in HELL IN THE PACIFIC, with a different ending.
10/27/09 @ 03:10
Comment from: pudman13 [Member] Email
The reason I posted was that I saw LET IT BE recently for the first time in about 30 years, and also read the entire book about the Get Back sessions, and listened to several bootlegs of the sessions themselves.

Beatles' fans generally fall into John or Paul camps, and I'm a Paul guy, mostly because John's flippancy and generally negative worldview just doesn't jibe with my own values. Paul could be a pain in the ass, and was as arrogant as any genius would be, but without his push, ABBEY ROAD would have ever happened, and it's my favorite Beatles album. It's odd to realize just how much lesser was the quality of their songwriting during the LET IT BE period, but most of that is Lennon being completely out of it (and I blame his drug use every bot as much as I blame his Yoko fixation), and ABBEY ROAD shows that they still had it in them. Also, the Get Back sessions include snippets of some of Paul's best solo songs, stuff like "Another Day," "Back Seat of My Car," and "Every Night," so he clearly was still in a very fertile songwriting period.

Paul's biggest fault, I think, was his dismissal of George...but Lennon was actually even MORE guilty of it, if you pay attention.
10/27/09 @ 11:07
Comment from: dbuskirk [Member] Email
Yeah, the pessimism John exhibits in "All You Need Is Love" always brings me down.

Are you sure you're not confusing John with Randy Newman? They were both friends with Nilsson...
10/27/09 @ 12:40
Comment from: Oats [Member]
Yeah, the pessimism John exhibits in "All You Need Is Love" always brings me down.


...or "The Word" for that matter.
10/27/09 @ 12:41

Comments are not allowed from anonymous visitors.

« Artists Badly in Need of Some ScrutinyAll-Star Jam »