Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (181)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • butifull!

  • Lets be honest this is a briliant song - one is a classsic and one is a masterpiece with lavish strings upon it, The very use of piano elevates its  emotiveness. Personally I do prefer the orchestral take but - its all a personal thing. Regardless it still sounds as hanuntingly brilliant as it very first did in - 1970? Kudos.

  • @4busterzbabz learn to appreciate.

  • best version

  • this version is the best, hands down!

  • Oh, I like both.

  • This version is nice, but Spector did a fantastic job. His is better.

  • I like this version, thanks for posting.

  • IT SHOULD BE "NEVER KNOW" NOT "ALWAYS KNOWN" DAMMIT. Sorry, beautiful song though.

  • I feel like something is missing. 

  • @lazrpo most certainly autotuned. If you listen to it closely you can hear the computer flickering subtly between two scale degrees. The mixer turns it off for some of Sir P's slight vocal glissandos. Autotune is almost universally employed in the industry today, it is, however, used to different degrees.

  • Sure, the Phil Spector version is a very dynamic and interesting version, but this sounds so raw and emotional. This actually sounds like The Beatles, the LIB album version sounds so overproduced that it takes the charm and feeling out of the song. And keep in mind, I listened to the LIB version since I was 5 years old (I'm 20 now). I heard this a year ago and I was shocked at how different the original version was and how much better it sounded.

  • Comment removed

  • @lazrpo I think both versions sound good but it would be nicer to have a compromise of the two. Like more acoustic guitars, some bass and drum fills

  • Thank you. This is great! Spread the love.

  • personallly i prefer Spector´s production but hey, it´s incredible we can enjoy both.

  • Sorry - I like the Spector vesrions better - the vocal is far superior for one thing.

  • @famachris Really? The orchestra gets quite overwhelming at some points, and practically drowns out Paul's voice- which can be heard and appreciated to it's full extent in this version.

  • @PaulSaysShezam Well, Paul's voice is actually auto-tuned here.

  • @BonJoviBeatlesLedZep And you know how exactly?

  • @c4r50n1 Look it up. Look at the comments. Listen carefully. You can hear it. It's not the crappy obvious autotune that T-Pain uses but it's still autotune. It was at Paul's request. The more and more I listen to this, the more I dislike it. The Anthology version (the album version without Spector) is really my personal favourite.

  • Clean! Beautiful! Naked!

  • Never cared for this song in its Spector incarnation. In fact, Let It Be is my least-favorite Beatles album, probably because of Spector's overzealous approach.

    This version, however, is absolutely phenomenal.

  • Much better than the Long and Winding Road with Phil Spector

  • this is the REAL let it be album...the way the beatles INTENDED it to be...therefore its a masterpiece

  • hearing this version makes me think that specter was very useless in this album

  • Thats Billy Preston playing electric piano, like in the video.

  • Hang on.... this is just the bloody film version, but it's so damn good.

  • @MsRedfi You're right, but look up the origin of the remixes on wikipedia, and you'll see that the unavailability of the documentary for the album on DVD was what started Paul on this project to remove what he felt was Phil Spector's heavy-handed production of the songs and resulted in this album.

  • Keep in mind that this was done in 2003. The conventional wisdom is that this is how it was "supposed" to sound in the first place, but the technology wasn't as readily available in 1970 to. It's possible that it wouldn't have sounded this good if it had been done the way Paul wanted it done back then. Either way, both version sound great, for different reasons. I'm glad we have both, regardless of what kind of human being Phil Spector is.

  • Ive always liked the long and winding road but i knew there was something wrong with it...

    and now that ive heard this version...oh i know what was wrong with the original...

    FRICKEN PHIL SPECTOR!

    this...is why paul is the professional musican and not spector. spec has no idea...

  • @rollingstonesgirl99 paul actually left the beatles because of what phil spector did to this song

  • @theDENIMMAN i wouldnt blame him for it. this is probably what caused him to lose his marbles.

  • @rollingstonesgirl99 Well, to say Phil Spector doesn't know music is mad fucking IGNORANT.

  • @djfakt uhh helloo? did i say that? he totally shitted all over this piece and he was IGNORANT for that. hes obviously in the music bizz for a reason but he sucked when it came to let it be. maybe you should like re read things before being an ass.

  • Spector could have spent his time at the prison computer better than creating 3 accounts...

  • The original version - you can hear Lennon playing base - wrong notes - sliding around on the base, looking for the correct note? At the time of recording, McCartney didn't give a toss about it! Spector had to call Macca to get him to refer an arranger for it....and he had to ask Ringo in to add some percussion to it. It was very much an unfinished work - that Sir Paul simply walked away from - 35 years later - he gives a crap??!! A bit late, Sir Tight Ass.

  • Not only did Phil Spector murder an album, he even murdered an actress!

  • This is so much what it should have been like on the original recording. Had those strings not been recorded... This is as honest as it gets, no need for sugarcoat it with sad string arrangements.

  • Paul wrote this letter expressing his strong dislike for the Phil Spector version of this song:

    Dear Sir,

    In future, no one will be allowed to add to or subtract from a recording of one of my songs without permission.

    I had considered orchestrating "The Long and Winding Road" but I decided against it. I therefore want it altered to these specifications:

    [goes on to say what he doesn't like about the Phil Spector version]

    Don't ever do it again.

    Signed

    Paul McCartney

  • I prefer the album version but this has a wonderful feel to it.

  • The Latest Beatles album

  • Both are very nice, but the original does much wonders for me though.

  • the only thing i prefer is Preston's groove at 2:22

  • I definitely prefer the ending to this one.

  • I love this version. It was how Paul wanted his song to be.

  • this version and the one pf the video were they are playing on studio, is not the same? The album version, is clearly a huge difference, but between these two i mention?

  • This version is so intimate, featuring the piano prominently. Beautiful indeed. The leslie-ed guitar should have had more presence in order of not making it sound too nasaly, and Preston should have played a better solo. Maybe just a tad of orchestra should have been added, but definitely not the huge bombastic Spector arrangement.

  • @drkam6 I agree. This version sounds almost too....naked. I don't know if Paul had overdubs in mind or just the way it is.

  • @SuperGogetem

    this is the way paul wanted it, and phil spector put his "Wall of Sound" style on it.

    i prefer this one over spectors version

  • It's a much loved song anyway...but if this version had been the original release it would stand right beside "Hey Jude" and "In My Life" as among the very best Beatles songs...

  • fuck spector

  • it's incredible what McCartney have been sued spector for improve him song, two versions are good, but this sounds so rare, i don't like too much

  • The best version is the Give My Regards To Broad Street version. I think it has more of the "Ray Charles' ballad"element that he was looking for. The naked version is very empty, and quiet, with Lennon's bass mistakes. The Let It Be version ian odd bag, as it doesn't really feel like a ballad, but sometimes it works, and then it com pletly overthrows the band and you can only hear Paul and maybe Ringo.

    In my opinion the '84 version is the best, as it has a great ballad mood Paul was going for.

  • Ill call this the McCartney version, i believe it is more in mood of the time, i didn't like the Spector version because it didn't need all the orchestration and sounded like too much

  • Spector version is superior by far.

  • @MAGICO240 Personally I like this one because of the fact it was supposed to be like this and more simple.....but i do not have that much of a problem with Spector's version either.

  • One person was left standing there.

  • I love Spector"s version!

  • @mamajango hell yeah!

  • I LOVE this. But(I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for this), like John, I love Spector's work. I'm sorry people, just my opinion.

  • @BonJoviBeatlesLedZep Actually John didn't like what Spector did to Across the Universe.

  • @FriendlyShadow1 Well, he didn't like a lot of stuff with Paul on it. :\

  • @FriendlyShadow1 Well, actually, he did like what Spector did on that song. He hated the WWF version of that song and praised Spector's work on the album overall. Well, now I have changed my opinion. I love it less now that I've heard the Anthology version of the Long and Winding Road

  • I never listened to the Phil Spector 100-piece orchestra version. I listen to this one all the time.

  • The sound of the guitar and piano sounds much more peaceful and musical than the orchestra and the choir. Phil Spector's version is just overkill.

  • Oh my word, the autotune on this version is appalling. Great to hear the song without strings and choir (and harp!), but why the desire to tamper with McCartney's voice?

  • @onfiremusicman I don't hear any autotune in this recording... and if this was actually autotuned, the...erm... remixer (?) did a bad job; McCartney hits some flubbed notes in this.

  • Wow. I always liked Let it Be, but this is a revelation. Much better without Spector.

  • Honestly i like both versions!

  • Phil Spector really Shit this beaurtiful Masterpiece

  • This version sucks because it uses auto tune

  • @beatlesdoorsfan actually it doesn't, amazingly they managed to do this masterpiece without autotune

  • 1 do not like is that Phil Spector

  • The first time I heard this version, it brought tears to my eyes. It still does. It's just so beautiful and amazing.

  • This is a lot more mellow than the overdone, epic fairytale original, done by Phil, which is sort of what The Beatles were aiming for. Hard to find a medium with this kind of song.

  • Artist: Beat Less

    lolwut?

  • I dare say the original is much better.

  • Once I heard this version, I could never listen to the original again.

  • @tropicalnards112233 I like this better than the Phil Spector version.

  • @tropicalnards112233 I know what ya mean. This is truly the original.

  • I'm more than certain that someone's autotuned Paul's voice here, which is a shame because with a raw vocal this would be a perfect arrangement of the song.

  • @FlameClaw2 I'm fairly certain McCartney himself produced this, I don't think he would autotune his own voice. He has more respect for himself than that.

  • @Zimnyification As far as I know, he produced this with Paul Hicks, the same guy behind the Good Evening New York City album, which was also clarly heavily autotuned in parts (even though he denied it).

  • @Zimnyification they didn't have the technology then...they may have had a more less advanced piece but overall to be famous you had to be good...

  • ....underneath the likes and dislikes for me it says:

    Artist: The Beatles

    Playing at Martyrs' Chicago on 06/01/11.

  • like a real concert. I can feel his real voice. and even if the world is all fake and liars, I like real thing and truth. I live for the fruth.

  • Phil Spector's version is far superior in my opinion,but there is room in the world for both.

  • I very much prefer the original version with the orchestra, this sounds too bare.

  • Prefer this version!! Beautiful, really beautiful! U can really appreciate the sound of the melody!! :') THANK U! =)

  • so so beautiful.

  • I always felt that Spector's arrangement just didn't flow quite right. The one, however, flows perfectly :)

  • sounds different without the orchestration, it lacks the sad feelings that it brings. still a good version though.

  • I like both versions. I think that the first one is just as good as this one.

  • if there is god outside in this world : listen : you inspired the guys ; )

  • Paul McCartney was qouted in saying "Phil Spector picked up this song and shit all over it"

    Well put, Macca.

  • @Theawesomegirl5 And John Lennon said quite the opposite, saying that Spector took the "sh!ttiest load of badly recorded sh!t ever, and he made something of it". This is the better version though, without all the Spector strings and such.

  • I love this version soooo much more.

  • my soul just cried

  • I'll agree with Ringo: This version has absolutely blown me away. However, the edited version is still admittedly alright.

  • Spector RUINED this song.........PERIOD!

  • 1 person didnt travel down the the long and winding road

  • @JTF987 You must mean, one person DID travel down the long and winding road lmao

  • @Imallskillz you know, that makes much more sense haha

  • Crikey! If ya closed yer eyes....you could just imagine The fab-4 singing this in an intimate, mellow setting, like a nice Holiday Inn Lounge...and you're one of the few, the lucky to be there....

    Phil Spector, go screw yerself, boy!!!

    Thanx fer this, m8..

  • This is such a great song :) although I've got to admit I prefer Spector's version, this one is a brilliant rendition, and it is how Paul wanted it so kudos to him, but the Spector versions orchestration just feels epic... you can just sense that feeling that the 1960's was coming to an end in Spector's version, its almost like a eulogy...

  • I know I'm in the minority but I dont mind Spec's orchestra ish

  • sweet

  • This is best version with just piano and no orchestra

  • Spector disliked this version...

  • @butchersgreat spector also liked to shoot girls. I'm gunna side with paul on matters of taste I think.

  • a ver diganme como no iva estar enojado paul con phil ahhh!!

  • Who ever dislikes this has NO taste in music.

  • @phddddd, yeah in my opinion whenever john would down pauls writing, it was his way of handling the jealousy he had. i think in private, and ive heard some interviews when he slipped up and said it, was a tremendous fan of pauls song writing.

  • Wow. This is the first time I've listened to this song without Spector's input, and I have to say... I definitely have chills.

  • I can see why McCartney was so angry at Spector after he messed around with their recordings. This is a gem.

  • Lennon is in the studio watching two spectacular songs -- Let It Be and Long and Winding Road -- written byMcCartney. How could he later think anything other than Paul was a superb songwriter. John's song denigrating McCartney's songwriting is an unworthy assessment, and demonstrates a one-sided meanness on the part of Lennon. This song, the Long and Winding Road, is one of the finest contributions to pop music ever, and ranks with Brian Wilson's better output.  And I'm not even a PM fan!

  • So good that nobody ever pressed the dislike button

  • I think this is the only song I prefer with Spector's orchestra. This version just seems... unfinished somehow.

  • SE HIZO JUSTICIA !!!

  • so was this the original version?

  • @wiisalute This IS the original version ^^

    The other one is edited =/

  • @M126X the edited one was the Phil spector version right? somehow paul didn't want it. he even wrote a note that said "never do it again"

  • @wiisalute Yup. Paul didn't wanted it cause it wasn't as they intended it to be =/

  • i think this sounds more "dressed" than "naked" with all the autotune. as pitchy as paul mccartney sounded in the original version, it still sounds more heartfelt than this version! sorry but this kind of ruined the song for me..

  • @doubleDdog09 totally agree, the autotune completely defeats the point of this project. But at least it allowed paul to brush the massive chip off his shoulder

  • Just a beautiful song, naked or dressed.

  • Why is it that the newly remastered albums sound very thin compared to everything on Let It Be Naked?

  • so much better than the original... absolutely beautiful. It's more like the version Paul plays live nowadays, which is my favorite of all. :)

  • I think Spector's edits were fine except for the female chorus.

  • This is the first video I've watched that has aboslutely no dislikes...and it should stay that way.

  • @xxkewldudexx It should have, but someone has no respect for music

  • this version seems so much more true and personal to paul

  • So beautiful. You can here Paul's voice properly and George's guitar. Damn you Spector.

  • Shame on Phil Spector for messin' with this song, right, gang? God bless!

  • sorry false alarm they stuck it all together in one file. beatles 4ever!!

  • Just grabbed this, but the bonus CD is AWOL, please help me out!

  • Wow, a myriad of opinions. Interesting that some prefer this version, stripped of orchestrations lyric changes. Others the full on overdubs.

    In the Spector version one can hear the guitar with a leslie on it ( George's 'sound' for alot of Beatle songs ), it's there listen closely bu the piano is buried.

    But Overall being partial to Orchestrations - I am a big progressive music fan- I like this version better. i think the mix could have been done way better but it is what is.

  • This song doesn't need more layers.  This version is so much better than the Phil Spector orchestral editited original, not to sy that that one wasn't good. It's just the simplicity of the original that makes it so beautiful.

  • @sickvirus You have no idea what you have just said. This was not another way just to get money. This whole album is the original recordings, so even some of John's songs are different. Paul was the best out of the 4. He was the most talented musician out of them. He played every instrument at least once in a song.

  • i actually like the version that was originally released, I know that wasn't the most original version but the extra arrangements added more layers and depth to the song.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • I like this album better than let it be. I still like let it be but i like let it be naked better. GETBACK PHIL SPECTOR AND YOKO

  • The biggest contrast between the naked and spector versions is definitely found on this track. This one feels more meaningful and natural than spector made it. He kind of turned it into a tailored pop song.

  • awesome! thanks for posting

  • @juresaiyan you have to be kidding. phil spector trashed this song with that (yet to be cliche) 70's pop horns and womens backing vocals. he basically invented shitty 70's ballads and ruined the beautiul song that mccartney wrote, speeding up the breakup process of the beatles.

  • i always thought the orchestra added something special to the song - actually, it kinda took things away.... i like this version a lot better :) there's just something more real and more beatle-like about it.

  • This sounds so amazing on vinyl.

  • I really don't like the Spector version (the orchestral sound is overkill),  but this is lovely.

  • @Dreamer00 The orchestra was overkill. It wouldn't have been that bad if it were for say a live version that Paul wanted.

  • Spector's version was alright, but this version evokes so much more emotion within me. I think it's the fact that you could hear Paul McCartney's vocals crisp and clear, and all the heart and soul that goes into it without getting distracted by the elaborate orchestra arrangements and choir singers that made this such a beautiful version.

  • I actually like this version better, I can actually hear Paul's Piano playing!

  • @ThatsGoodTelevision I agree. Spectors version grew on me and I do like it but I prefer this one. Before hearing this version, I didnt initially like this song, since I had only heard Spector's version, and I thought it was a little overdone and felt out of place with the other songs in the album.

  • This version sounds truly well for rock bands who want to cover it.

  • So beautiful. I love the piano! Spector absolutely trashed this song with his editing.

  • @madelinealexander22

    I AGREE with you and everyone else here. I NEVER liked this song until I heard this version. It was never a favorite (I prefer the Beatle's 66-67 acid period) - but at least I like it now. I believe Phil Spector's "wall of sound" was actually a "wall of syrup" (and you can quote me)

  • @PicnicHikeMusic

    I'm probably going to end up quoting you on some occaision! haha. I'm glad that others agree with me. It's a beautiful song (if not more beautiful live - wow!) and it's a shame that not many people know it in it's true form!

  • @madelinealexander22 U R RIGHT ABOUT THAT; THE BEATLES SHOULD OF DONE THERE OWN MIX ON THIS BACK IN 1968 MYKE C

  • @madelinealexander22 I have to agree on that statement.

  • Sublime. It does sound quite different without Phil Spector's orchestral treatment.

  • @Merseyrock Better in my opinion, the way it should sound, according to the Beatles that is.