cuz john "burning in hell" lennon was a terrible person and he contributed a good deal to phil's downfall.

He didn't. The Beatles simply couldn't do a Spector record.

Naked is so much better

because of gay wall of sound
however I kind of like how it sounds and it stands out in the discography
naked version is for plebs

Because all of his energy went into All Things Must Pass instead

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

Weren't the recordings terrible? And Phil actually managed to make a half decent album out of them?

In any case, I don't think Let It Be is terrible. Naked is better, I'll admit.

The illumanti

The original plan was to return to their roots and record the way they used to, with minimal overdubs and such. But by the time it was done they were all fed up with each other and just wanted to move onto the next thing, so John and George gave it to Spector so at least something would come out of it, even if it wasn't the back-to-basics sound they wanted.

>>61771821
It's 10 times better than the first two acetates.