Talk:Let It Be (song)

Added 'amen'

I just added an explantion pointing out that "Let it be" indeed means, or translates to if you will, "Amen." I am sure someone here will jiggle it around in the best way as desired.

All of these articles on the Beatle's songs are very well-written, it's a great section! Cheers!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 July 2007

Please see my comment under the Amen heading, below. I created a new heading only because I hadn't noticed your comment, since the standard is to add comments at the bottom of the page. Please see Help:Talk_pages#Using_talk_pages regarding that point and about signing your comments. --rich<Rich Janis 01:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)>

General discussion

I like to see it made possible to link the article on the song, "Let It Be" to itunes.com and/or to Yahoo Music. (Is it possible now to link to free song clips on itunes.) That's what a song is all about, the music.

Does anyone have an authoritative source demonstrating the origins of this song? I'd like to have an interview with Paul and/or John linked to here. - McCart42 01:41, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Rather than the Spector version having a "different" guitar solo, isn't it double tracked? i.e. a second solo has been overdubbed onto the one we hear on the single. I don't know about you guys but I think on all the other versions the guitar sounds like an elastic band, only on the Spector album is it a hair raising moment! :-) --kingboyk 12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The solo on the Spector version is definately different, just listen! The source for this info come from the Lewisohn books (I've added the refs to the article). I agree the January 70 solo is the best, although I don't like the Spector mix. simonthebold 11:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

why the clean-up tag?

? Badgerpatrol 02:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Err... for the reason clearly stated in my edit summary!

{{cleanup}} - the stuff abt versions and solos is confusing. Let's have in b&w how many versions there are (4 I think?) and how the solos differ.

--kingboyk 13:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Much much better now! :) Finally it all makes sense. --kingboyk 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

...another parody...

I believe the Rolling Stone's parodied 'Let It Be,' with their album 'Let It Bleed.' Can anyone verify this?

The only way you'd know is if you've heard both songs, but I personally don't see any resemblances.

Radical AdZ

The resemblance is supposed to be in the title. Though, I also think it is unlikely that the Stones intended "Let it Bleed" as a parody of "Let it Be." I don't know the recording histories very well, but the Stones' album was released one year before The Beatles'.

John & The Yippies

I re-inserted the alleged "second hand blog entry nonsense". First of all, most of the stuff and interpretation written about The Beatles are second hand; second, I think it's an interesting testimony to the political change and awakening John was undergoing at the time - which would eventually make him an enemy of Edgar Hoover and have him deported from the States (just as he was collaborating with the very same Stewart Albert). And besides, so what if the song is Paul's, not John's? He was still entitled to apply his own interpreatation as he sang it - just as we are entitled to our own interpretations as we listen. —This unsigned comment was added by 138.40.149.75 (talk • contribs) .

Reply:

Paul sang Let It Be, not John. As a rule they mostly sang their own songs (with some exceptions). The article is about the song Let it Be and not about John's supposed political leanings. The band were naturally left-wing and Labour supporters (this is well documented). John toyed with communist ideas and other radical philosophy. He gave his answer to the leftest revolutionaries in the song 'Revolution' released over a year prior to this song. I think this hearsay should be removed a it is not NPOV and no sources are cited. Possibly if some evidence can be found then it could be included in the John Lennon article. simonthebold 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's trivia and as far as I am concerned only aggrandises the writer of the blog. This is an article about the song, not a dump for every last piece of hearsay and trivia ever uttered about it. I fully support what Simon says too; in particular, it was a McCartney song, so secondhand claims by Lennon are irrelevant even if true. --kingboyk 16:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is the original performer?

This article was very informative. However I am not sure who performed it originally? I think it was John Lennon, maybe this information could be in the introduction if somebody knows... - Abscissa 05:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sure it was originally sung by Paul. He wrote it.

Paul obviously. Listen to the voice, how could you not know. Plus, by this time John and Paul always sang lead on their own songs--since Paul write it, he sang it (the two have very different voices so you should be able to tell).

Wrong Chord

The one at 2:59 is not at all a "wrong" chord! It's just not exactly identical to the other repetitions of that fragment, but it can be understood as a more complex harmonization. --- Gabriele, 10/22/06

Chords

The song begins with C G A minor F. Lots of songs use this, including Break Away by Kelly Clarkson, Superman by Five for Fighting, Can You Feel the Love Tonight by Elton John, and Dammit by Blink 182. What song first used this chord progression? There are a list of very popular songs that use it; I'm just curious.

Linda's Only Beatles Performance?

The article claims that Linda's backing vocals on 'Let it Be' is her only performance on a Beatles record. Mark Lewisohn's book is cited as a source for this claim, so perhaps it is true. But I'm quite certain that Linda also performed backing vocals on 'Birthday' from The White Album. And in fact, the Wikipedia entry on tha song mentions Linda (along with Yoko) as one of the female vocalists on that song. In any case, there is an inconsistency here: either 'Let it Be' is not Linda's only performance on a Beatles' album, or she didn't actually perform on 'Birthday'. Someone should fix this.

"Final" Song?

Am I the only one that finds this pun a little bit out of place or distasteful. I understand that this information may be useful in the article, but making the pun in the title seems to belittle his death?

Fair use rationale for Image:Letitbe single.jpg

Image:Letitbe single.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added fair use rationale. John Cardinal 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice one, John. --andreasegde 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen

I'm removing the Amen section, which was added by the edit of 12:27, 2 July 2007 81.149.36.207, for the following reasons. So far, the section makes a good observation, which would be appropriate for a review or an editorial. To make it encyclopedic, I believe that it would have to describe (with appropriate citation) The Beatles' intent, or, at the very least, if that intent is subject to speculation, it should cite the independent researchers who are trying to resolve that issue, rather than appear as the editor's opinion. Also, unless The Beatles' intent was specifically directed at the song, the point made applies to the album title, so I suggest that it would be better placed in the Let It Be (album) article (again, with appropriate wording & documentation). Finally, on a minor formatting matter, if this point is restored it should use quotation marks (not apostrophes) around the word Amen, just as quotation marks are used elsewhere in that paragraph (see WP:MOS#Quotation_marks). --rich<Rich Janis 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)>

I believe with the deletion. John Cardinal 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Nominee

I have nominated this article to be a Good Article. I think it is very well done, and passes. FamicomJL 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not digging the sprawling lists at the end of the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Cover versions list should only feature artists that are well-known. --andreasegde 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have cut down the lists, because trivia is frowned upon. Sorry. --andreasegde 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's looking very good. --andreasegde 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with a few that have been removed because "well known" is subjective but I think if you're going for GA and beyond, I would simply remove both sections of Cover Versions and Cultural References altogether, because you're right, lists are frowned upon. I applaud your work so far. ♫ Cricket02 02:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave notable covers and cultural references in. Yes, they are lists in the generic sense of the word, but they are not what the WP policy is trying to prevent. More importantly, cover versions and cultural references are a measure of the importance of the song to other artists and awareness in the general public of the song. Trimming the lists to notable occurrences makes sense, but deleting them entirely is not necessary or desirable. John Cardinal 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, but maybe we should wait and see what the reviewer has to say. (It would be nice to convert the lists into text, but it would probably end up being as long as the article; who played on them, chart positions and so on...) --andreasegde 09:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I only cut out the ones that were not mentioned specifically in Wiki, or had no external references. --andreasegde 09:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Song sample

I put one in. Boy, was that tough work (having never done it before, and I had to do it a few times...) --andreasegde 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems to have been deleted, and I don't know why because the original filename was removed from the infobox (so I can't find its page on Images/Media for Deletion). Can someone else upload a sample of this song? –Edward Tremel (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferry Aid

I find it strange that the Ferry Aid page directs to here. It is surely worth some kind of article, if only because a large group of musicians got together to raise money for victims of a disaster. I wonder if other charity records have a page? I would think so.--andreasegde 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lennon

If Lennon hated the song so much, why did he allow the whole album to be named after it? Something fishy here, methinks... --andreasegde 10:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say that Lennon hated the song. The relevant part says that he "was not fond" of the song, and I think that characterization is an accurate way to summarize his opinion at least as it was expressed in the 1980 Playboy interview. Certainly, there are other ways to characterize his opinion, but the quote is there and so readers can form their own opinion. Why did Lennon agree to name the album Let It Be? Don't know. I am not aware of any source material about it. I suspect that as a practical matter, the album had to be named for the film, and Lennon either felt that the film title was apropos given the status of the band or just didn't care enough to fight about it. Maybe he didn't like Let It Be less than he didn't like Get Back. Maybe he thought Let It Be was crap and wanted it named after a McCartney song rather than one of his. Maybe he liked it in 1969/70, but by 1980 his opinion had changed. In any case, I don't think there's anything fishy. People are complex and situations are complex and multiplying people times situations leads to tangled webs, including the WWW and WP! <g> John Cardinal 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I was only being humourous about it, if truth be told. Although, after listening to/reading a few Lennon interviews I feel that the real truth was always hidden between themselves, and what came out in the press was something different altogether. If you look at this video, it's hard to believe there were so many "troubled sessions", although there were probably a few backbiting comments made - as in all bands... Both Lennon and McCartney said that they were "just a nice little rock 'n roll band". Harrison said that working with McCartney and Starr on the "Free as a bird" song was nice because, "they don't look at me as if I'm a Beatle." The pressure must have been incredibly hard to take.

On a lighter note, you should watch this: "What If the Beatles Were Irish?" by Roy Zimmerman. :) --andreasegde 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I have a history of not knowing when you are joking... I agree that what the press/public got was usually filtered pretty heavily. They were pretty good at that, even early on. Re the pressure: I can't imagine what it was like. Yes, the adoration was probably nice, but living under siege for years can take an enormous toll on someone. I think it was Lennon who said something to the effect that The Beatles traded their nervous systems for fame and fortune! John Cardinal 15:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was George on the Antholgy DVD, and how right he was. Sorry about confusing you with the humour stuff, but when I write something that sounds nice, I'm being nice (re; the comment about me supposedly being sarcastic that you very nicely replied to on my talk page.) If I sound a little bit like Victorian-era Sherlock Holmes ("The chase is afoot, Watson!") then I'm definitely being silly, and should probably be sent to bed without any supper. (See? I'm doing it again... :) --andreasegde 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists

I have condensed the list by grouping together the various artists in their musical styles. I hope it will suffice. --andreasegde 16:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Cover versions

I have been asking around and I have found a few versions of the song, but my conscience doesn't want me to upload them. I'm sorry - they're just nowhere near the original. If anyone has heard a really great version, I might be tempted to upload it if they can tell me who sung it, which record label, etc...--andreasegde 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned the mess I made with the quotation marks and italics. I have also taken a few "Let It Be"s out, as they seemed repetitous. --andreasegde 09:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Aretha/Wexler

Can someone check the reference for the Wexler citation on the comments that allege the song was originally intended for Aretha? I've read almost everything about Macca that there is to read, and I've never heard it was intended for her, and so I think the Wexler info may not support that claim. The part about The Beatles reacquiring the rights is not correct; songwriters don't have to reacquire rights. This whole section is dubious and poorly written. John Cardinal 19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned this rather spurious declaration and have added it to cover versions. I checked the internet very carefully. (She waited two years until she could study the lyrics? I don't think so...) --andreasegde 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I found this: "Inspired by the church-born soul of Aretha Franklin, an anxious Paul McCartney started writing "Let It Be" in 1968, during the contentious sessions for the White Album. Is that POV? Yes, and that's it... --andreasegde 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

My favourite Beatles song...here's a GA pass, with a few suggestions, as always.

• "Single by The Beatles from the album 'Let It Be… Naked'" (infobox) - This should note the original album, not the remix or whatever it was.
• Lead ends with two full stops. Also needs a minor touch up and copyedit.
• "It will be alright, just let it be.[5]" - No need to italicise, we get the point that it's the song title.
• ""an intimate bioscopic experience with THE BEATLES".[9]" - Don't need the caps, just put in in normal case.
• "Anthology version" section should be expanded or merged into others.
• I've done a bit of minor copyediting just to make it read a bit better - help me out :)

 — H₂O —  09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I thank you kindly, Sir. --andreasegde 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential Cover Version Addition?

I was wondering if anyone else thinks that it would be worthwhile to add the cover version of this song from the recently released movie "Across the Universe". The version is of a high quality and has become immensely poplar. I was going to add it myself, but wasn't sure whether it would be acceptable, seeing as the section is for "Selected Cover Versions". EmilyELewis (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Piano Accomp

Deleted it because it added nothing but a single individual's personal reaction to the intro. On top of it all, the piano transcription given was incorrect. No offense, but this reads like a bad analysis paper: It does not present any objective analysis (harmonic, rhythmic, etc.). InFairness (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)