Depends on how long you've had the original LP
5
By beatalls
If like me you have been listening to these songs since 1973, then I think you will enjoy this as a new way to hear these songs. Some have more differences than others, but all are different than the original released versions. To my ear it makes some of the instruments stand out more, such as the drums and bass, both of which were played by McCartney. The biggest difference is for Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five which other than a few harmonies is really just an instrumental backing track, as Paul added the vocals later. I've always liked that as a different way to hear artists songs and like it here. Would I say that this release is not for the newcomer who has only listened to the original (but they should come back after more listens) a few times-probably. But if you are a long time fan this will open up new ways to enjoy this classic.
Naked…..again?
3
By MPLU11
This album reminds me of LET IT BE NAKED from 2003. Paul’s project to simplify and eliminate the Phil Spector trademark Wall Of Sound off the original 1970 release. Like that first “naked” album, it sounds punchless and syrupy. It’s okay to listen to historic music from a band led by the legendary Paul McCartney. But being it’s a little expensive plus the watered down songs do nothing for me, I’ll pass on this obvious money grab.
What a band!!
5
By Electric Skydog
Such a great band with so many intricate musical moves. I have listened to these amazing songs over and over. Paul, Linda and Deny were very special together!
What's the Point?
2
By Dan Hiland
This release proves why some music needs to be dubbed.
Not sure why
4
By still BB
Is there a reason for this? From the snippets, doesn't sound noticeably different than the original.
Wings
5
By ikoo712
Denny Laine. RIP
