The Beatles
Let It Be... Naked

THE REVIEW

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that much of the Beatles' post-breakup music productions are mostly excellent marketing operations. Among these, "Real Love" had reached the peak of musical vulgarity, first by passing off a Lennon track as unreleased, which was not unreleased at all, then overdubbing the surviving members' virtuosity onto it.
Not a first, see Natalie Cole (argh!), but still a macabre operation.

After other proofs of great class, see the fundamental Oedipal-hamletic McCartney-Lennon or Lennon-McCartney doubt, now that the Beatles are slowly reuniting underground (forgive the not-so-Oxfordian comment, but given the context... ), a naked version of Let It Be emerges. Naked because it's stripped of the orchestral arrangements, the choirs, and the effects desired by the album's producer, Phil Spector.
Did we need it? According to what's read almost everywhere, it seems so.

The recording is justified by the fact that the Beatles did not love the embellishments desired by the producer, called by EMI to complete the unfinished work of the Fab Four, who were by then in open conflict. In particular, it seems McCartney did not appreciate the orchestral arrangements of "The Long And Winding Road" at all.
Is it believable? Hmm.
Given Ringo Starr's stature and since McCartney is effectively the guardian of the Beatles' artistic legacy, not being able to be contradicted by Lennon and Harrison, some doubt came to my mind.

Let's not tell ourselves fairy tales. We are facing yet another marketing operation.

Then the fact that the album presents more than a reason for interest is another matter.
In fact, it's different from the original. Beyond the restyling that has cleaned up the sound, the tracklist has been modified, both in the order of the songs, by excluding "Dig It" and "Maggie Mae" and introducing "Don't Let Me Down".
The album also features some dialogues of the Beatles in the recording studio. It's all completed by photos and unreleased materials, included in a bonus CD, which can satisfy the most varied fetishes, across the universe.
But all this does not justify an operation that seems altogether unnecessary for understanding the musical history of Her Majesty's baronets.

Ah yes, history. An important keyword.
"If we had the technology back in 1969 that we have now, we would have been able to release 'Let It Be' the way we wanted" McCartney stated. It's known that history does not agree with the hypothetical periods of unreality. It went differently.
Regarding the Beatles, what they represented, their history, Let It Be dressed says much more than naked.

If you really can't do without it, don't buy it. Maybe EMI will learn something. As for the album rating, it can't be anything but five because they are still immortal songs.