Replies

Yes, their double LP is probably their most disjointed, but in a sense it also shows where they were at that time, with Ringo and George having quit temporarily during the recording process, John off with Yoko in their own little world, and Paul fluctuating between hard rock and doltish dottering ditties.

The original version of Let it Be (IMHO) is an underrated follow-up, when you consider it was begun six weeks after the release of The Beatles and the group came together to play it (mostly) live in the studio and shout it from the rooftop, literally. The chatter in between songs is a nice complement to the chaos of its predecessor and the songs fit together better than those of the double album. I can't wait to get my clutches on the new version that came out yesterday, although I would have preferred it if they left on "Maggie May" and "Dig It."

It seems people either love Let it Be or hate it. I fall in the former camp. The between-songs chatter, the Phil Specter production, the loose feel (from the live performance), and the tension that "Sweet Loretta Modern's" constant presence e brought to the thing all combine for a perfect mix. And let's not forget the songs themselves -- some masterpieces, some underrated gems.

Let me know what you think of the new one. It's disappointing that "Dig it" and "Maggie May" are excluded. ......"Like a Rolling Stone, like the FBI, and the CIA, BBC, BB King...." ....Those numbers add character to the whole.