Talk:Let It Be (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phil Spector: Producer[edit]

I examined the original record label, the back cover of the LP, back cover of both issues of the CD and the cassette. There is a "thanks" to George Martin. There is also a thanks to several other people. There is no indication that George Martin PRODUCED this album. Zero. This is the album page and should be strictly following the LP notes.

Why is this even up for discussion? I think people are confusing "recording" with "producing." You are correct and ppl should stop changing it. Glyn Johns or George Martin "recorded" it - that's it. This article is about the album Let It Be and the album was produced by Phil Spector. Most Beatles' fans are aware Spector was brought in after the fact and I think it is more than note-worthy to discuss this in the article but the sidebar should list Phil as producer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellobeatle (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "why is it up for discussion"? You started this discussion and just replied to yourself (and didn't sign either post by the way). Just for the record, I don't think anywhere in the remastered album booklet does it say "produced by Phil Spector" either. Also, George Martin produced "Get Back" and "Let It Be" then Phil Spector re-hashed them for the album. I think as a comprise and to deliberately snuff Spector's legacy, the people who wrote the booklet didn't credit the producing to anyone. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs[edit]

I think it would be helpful if there was a complete list of songs (covers and all) that were recorded during the sessions. If anyone has a list of that, it would greatly improve the article.\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.122.9 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sessions were VERY long (actually and psychologically - I've seen the movie!) and the list would be long as well. If we did put it in Wikipedia, it is probably long enough to put as a separate "list" article. A discussion of the types and highlights might be useful here. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an Amazon.com review of the book cited it's noted that many/most of the "covers" weren't -- they were just snatches, so I don't know about the covers. If the covers are to be listed -- where's the citable source for the info? travisburtonTravisburton (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

review on the first paragraph[edit]

I noticed that in a few months the first paragraph has turned from a positive review to a negative review. Would it be better at least the first information presented not be based on a wikipedian or outside reviewer's opinion? Artistic value is usually a very subjective matter. --Fs 02:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Let's break the paragraph down:
Much of what became Let It Be was recorded in early 1969, with production by George Martin, before the release of the Abbey Road album.
Entirely neutral, statement of fact.
However, the Beatles were unhappy with the album and it was temporarily shelved.
Easily verified, statement of fact.
Let It Be was later "re-produced"
Fact
(some critics have said overproduced)
It might be better if some sources were quoted, but I think the release of Let It Be... Naked proves the point. (Personally, I prefer Spector's version, but personal opinion of Wikipedia editors is what we are trying to avoid). McCartney was sufficiently aggrieved with Spector's version to do something about it 30 years later, and he was able to convince the other surviving Beatles too.
by Phil Spector and, in 1970, it became the Beatles' final release.
Fact.
Let It Be is sometimes seen as one of the Beatles' weaker albums, though, as critic Richie Unterberger notes, "a substandard Beatles record is better than almost any other group's best work."
Again, we could maybe use some citations of reviews, but I don't see anything non-neutral here. When was the last time you ever heard a professional reviewer single out Let It Be as one of the outstanding Beatles albums? Never, I'd guess. I don't think we can avoid reporting the disappointment of the Let It Be project - it's encyclopedic and needs to be reported.
At the end of the day, this is a wiki, so go ahead and make changes you see fit - or propose them here. --kingboyk 12:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, folks. I'm new here. But I've been in newspapers a million years. I am totally freaked at this whole Wiki entry. Virtually all the information in it needs to be attributed. I also note a reference to John's already having quit at one point, but the time doesn't gibe. I "was there" when McC's album came out. I do know that, like George, John was ready to quit and maybe did a quit "overnight." But is all this appropriate in an encyclopedia article.

I think that very specific scenes and interactions in the actual film (it was awful -- I was at the Atlanta premiere) are appropriate to be cited -- but only objectively, not with any interpretation added.

Something specific -- I just changed the "lede," taking out the quibble about whether it's the 11th or 12th. That kind of little stuff just isn't supposed to be that far "up top" in a piece of writing. In an encyclopedia article it's not necessary at all.

Hey, I just retired, so that's why I'm revved up here. I remember from the movie being not surprised but jarred to hear Abbey Road stuff (though I was supposed to know that). I think there's a need -- though I don't know that the pure info is there -- to try to suggest just when some of the "big" songs -- from White Album, Abbey and Let it Be all -- really came into being.

Now I have also been a college English composition teacher -- including doing many classes online -- and I have always told students they are not allowed to use "reader-written" encyclopedia material. I may have suggested to an individual (but not to the whole class that, if they will be careful, they can use that kind of info for an introduction and then go to a "valid" reference.

I also changed some punctuation, especially putting commas and periods inside quotation marks. That's how we do in the U.S. Even if you're writing about Englishmen you still do that. What if you're writing about Frenchmen -- or even worse, RUssian or Iranian with whole different racks of type.

As I think about it, I'm pretty close all the Beatles stuff -- teenage and early 20s when it was really happening. This info here all seems "believable" but it still isn't referenced. I believe there's even the statement that "Teddy" (or is it "Teddy Boy"?) might have been left out because McC whispered that it was promised to the breakaway album. At that point the Wiki contributor is -- one of two things -- 1) allowing him/herself a glimpse into McC's mind or 2) using the idea of someone who is not attributed.

I lost my point somewhat in graf above. I meant to emphasize that there's no "objective characterization" of the content that differs considerably on Let It Be and A. Road. Where, in fact, did the spunk come from that's on A.R.? And how did George finally come out? (Of course, years later, I still heard John grousing about McC wanting to "rehearse everybody for his little rock opera on the back side." I remember that quote almost to the word -- it's "so John." But I'd have to search before using it. Though it would be a major source; probably R. Stone. I have "Kum Back" -- pretty bad but at least no Spector ("Spectre"?) So, maybe a little more "big picture" stuff along with the minutiae.

By now I may seem pretty negative and cocky but I would like write and/or enhance some Wiki articles by way or learning how the whole shebang could be better and, uh, legitimate.

But, tell, if I go through and "bust" a sentence into two shorter, clearer sentences without coming here is somebody going to just redo it? What about changing "in the meantime" to "meanwhile," a basic editorial tenet simply to cut down on wordage, one of a handful of the most common editorial basics.

By the way, what IS the source for this info. I may be "talking" to you out there right now. As it is, either almost all paragraphs -- or, if the sources are much more diverse -- all sentences need to have a number behind them. Which, of course, we don't do.

As it is right now, I have to consider that, except for "encylopedic" basics like dates and such, this whole article is plagiarized. Consciousness or lack of consciousness is immaterial and earnestness and dedicateness doesn't make any difference.

I guess you folks have encountered someone who has a big problem with Wiki but would like to play if he could be made to feel more comfortable.

travisburtonTravisburton (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live album[edit]

Why not Let it Be is a live album? --Mr. Manu 01:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only some of the songs were done live (i.e. Dig a Pony, One After 909, I've Got a Feeling), but the rest were from recording sessions. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is New Adventures in Hi-Fi. This album was also partly recorded live. Maybe it would great to mention that the some of the rooftop concert was used in the final recording in the top section? Alec scheat (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let It Be guitar solos[edit]

I am completely confused on the guitar solos of the Let It Be song. I have no idea which one came first, which one was approved or disapproved by the producers. I think a Beatles expert needs to explain this better. One thing I do know is that this version of Harrison's guitar solo is the best of all that I've heard. It simply flows with the song perfectly yet I can't find it on any of the albums! I know for a fact it wasn't on Let It Be or Past Masters II---Secret Agent Man 19:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it is as follows. During the Get Back Sessions, when the final version of the song was recorded George felt like he hit a few bad notes and was unhappy with his solo. Because the Beatles were trying not to overdub on this album it was just left alone. When the project was scrapped it was forgotten. This version I believe is found on the album version of "Let It Be." Later, when the tapes had been given to Phil Spector and the Beatles had dissolved, George went back into the studio and recorded a new solo for the song, which he liked better. This version is found on the single version which is found on "Beatles 1." Unfortunately the YouTube video is gone. My source for this information is "Revolution in the Head" but I read it awhile ago so I might have confused some parts. Additionally I once heard yet a third version of the solo on the radio, which the deejay said was "special" and never said why it was special. This may in fact be the version with a few bad notes, and the one from YouTube, but that I cannot tell. Signed, theBraveToaster 19:54 13 September 2006

Talking between songs[edit]

Who did the talking/intros of songs? Like at the end of Dig It? Was it one of The Beatles? Kinda sounded like Eric Idle or someone else lol. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 02:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the various Beatles' voices you hear. Paul did the "That was 'Can You Dig It?' by Georgie Wood" bit. Danthemankhan 00:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was John who did the Georgie Wood bit. It says to in the Dig It article. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(album)[edit]

Why isn't this (or equally well the disambiguation page) on Let It Be instead of on Let It Be (album) and Let It Be (disambiguation) respectively? It seems odd to have the main page just redirect to a subpage. -Senori 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know in general pages should not contain dab words unless the "main slot" (Let It Be in this case) is occupied. However, in this case there are 3 Let It Be's by the Beatles - an album, a song and a film. I felt that it would be better to make it clear that this article is about the album by so naming it. Let It Be is a redirect rather than a dab page because dab pages are a last resort; in this case it seemed reasonable to deliver the Beatles album article to anybody typing in "Let It Be", as my disambiguation work showed that this accounted for most incoming links. Crazy I might be, but there's my rationale :) --kingboyk 10:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just quickly looking at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, this doesn't seem to be quite the established way.
Beyond that, however, having Let It Be (album) on Let it Be would accomplish the same as having Let it Be redirect here, and have the advantage of fewer disambig titles appended. -Senori 20:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Senori. I remember thinking the same thing, but I don't recall if I ever mentioned it anywhere. Let It Be (album) should be moved to Let It Be. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current setup is wrong because the redirect is reflexive and Template:Redirect is being misused. There are two correct scenerios:

Neil Aspinall?? ... George Martin??[edit]

I noticed an unfamiliar name credited along with Phil Spector as a producer of the album. The name is Neil Aspinall and his personal article says he was the Beatles' road manager. It also notes he "even contributed to a few Beatles recordings" but the production of Let It Be is not on there. Maybe it was just omitted but if he did indeed help produce Let It Be that would appear to be his greatest achievement. Browsing IMDb, I noticed he was listed as one of the producer for the Let It Be film so perhaps that's the source of confusion? Secondly, is there any specific reason why George Martin is not listed as a producer. I suppose he didn't produce the Let It Be album per se but my understanding is he originally produced most (if not all) the tracks that were later compiled onto said album. Probably the easiest way to verify this is for someone who owns a copy of the album (sadly not I) to check the credits.--Lairor 06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second you don't know Neil Aspinall is? You must not be a very big Beatles fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection of the page history it seems that while Martin and Spector used to be listed as producers that was changed for an unspecified reason on Jan. 18 '06 by 68.251.58.119. I'm going to go ahead and replace "Neil Aspinall" with "George Martin".--Lairor 06:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Preston!!![edit]

What about poor old Billy Preston? He was brought in to play on this album and he is not mentioned once on this page. His page talks about his work with the Beatles. I think this needs to be included. --theBraveToaster 19:54 13 September 2006

Billy Preston even appears in film of the live performance on the Apple Records rooftop, so his contribution to this album should be properly acknowledged.ROG 19 19:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics Links[edit]

The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question. I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken. In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics. If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so. The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 04:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine?[edit]

According to the article: "Aside from original songs ultimately released on the Let It Be album there were others that were early version of songs that appeared on Abbey Road, including... others {that} would eventually end up on Beatles solo albums, including John Lennon's 'Jealous Guy' (called 'Child Of Nature' at the time and originally written and rehearsed for the White Album) and 'Imagine'..." It is my understanding that "Imagine" was written on a white piano in John and Yoko's apartment in a spur-of-the-moment creative run. It's one of the anecdotes that Yoko relates on a regular basis. I don't think it was rehearsed in the Get Back Sessions, although I could be wrong. I won't remove it, but I'm pretty sure the article is wrong on that point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notahippie76 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Disastrous album?[edit]

I've read many articles that say the Get Back sessions that led to the recording of this album were "disastrous" and from bootlegs of the sessions it's apparent there was a bit of group turmoil there. But I also hear so often that the album was a disappointment. I've listened to this album in both its original form and the Naked form and I try to find something wrong with it but it's just a damn good album, and very underrated. What's everyone's thoughts on this? Rogerthat Talk 11:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's undestandable that the sessions were disasterous. I've only seen clips of the movie Let it Be and you can see the tension. No one seemed to want to be there, except for Paul, who being his typical self tried to boss everyone around in the studio. That being said, the environment during the recording should not reflect the product. Now, the Get Back sessions are what Let it Be the album came from, and they were the result of the four brilliant musicians playing in a studio without the bells and whistles they had become used to, and without any sense of a group dynamic. I think the White Album set the ground for the fact each thought they had music the others wouldn't let them hear. So getting back to your question as to why people think Let It Be is a dissapointment, I think it has to do with the reputation around the production of the album and the fact it was the last one they released. After the masterful Abbey Road people wanted another breakthrough. That being said, Phil Spector did a fantastic job making the fragmented sounds of the Get Back sessions into a fluid album. He chose to include Across the Universe and One After 909 while everyone else, including the perpetual complainers George Martin and Paul washed thier hands of the album. I haven't listened to Let It Be..Naked--and have no intention to--but do find it interesting that Paul signed off on Spector's involvement, his "butchered" title track was the Beatles last #1 single, and he has had no qualms including an orchestra on his concert shows. So Let It Be is a great album, what we;d expect from the Beatles. Was it what they envisioned as they recorded their "unplugged" sessions? Did Spector use the opportunity to flex his studio muscles on the world's greatest musicians, the ones he idolized? Can Paul ever Let It Be? Who knows, but the album has some great tunes, and no silly love songs! JohnGedsudski9 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"I haven't listened to Let It Be..Naked--and have no intention to."

A rather revealing sentence, I find. Someone who's already made up his mind about what is true/wrong, good/bad; and have no intentions of having his own perceptions shaken by doing any research.

Paul has criticized Phil Spector's arrangement on 'The Long and Winding Road', but not Spector himself. Spector just did what he was paid to do. Paul didn't LIKE the result, but when he complained to Allen Klein, he was just ignored.

I have listened to both versions, and I guess they both leave a little to be desired. --84.208.224.234 (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been considered the Beatles greatest album."[edit]

By whom? This statement definitely needs a citation, otherwise it's just POV.

Should compilations be included in infobox?[edit]

At this writing, there is no 'next album' in Infobox as this is the final original album and a Wikipedian believes compilations should not be included. What do you think? Steelbeard1 14:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Let It Be → Let it Be (album) — Both the song and the album are equal in importance. If the song "Let it Be" has the "(song)" ending, then shouldn't the album have the "(album)" ending? Not to mention, the "it" in "Let it Be" shouldn't be capitalized. I was planning for the pages "Let it Be" and "Let It Be" to be disambiguation pages because, of course, there is also a film as well. —— ObentoMusubi - Contributions - 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Need to way for the bots to clean up the links from the template before moving the dab pages. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened? The move has occurred without discussion? I think Let It Be should be an article as most of the other items derive from it. I would prefer a merge of the Beatles articles rather than the current state. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moves that an administrator believes are reasonable and not likely to be opposed don't have to wait for 5 days. This happens all of the time. In this case, there are many articles about 'Let It Be' and from looking at the pages that were linked there, it was clear that most were not about the album. So the dab is clearly needed. In fact, there are still some links where it is not clear what the intended target of the link should be. In fact even though it was a redirect, Let It Be (album) had a large number of links! If there is a notable feature in all of this, it may be the 'Get Back Sessions' which appear to be notable in and of themselves and no article. All of the articles seem to be reasonable in length and clearly notable so I'm not sure that combining them would be the best approach. If combined, it can become a mess if there is a link about the song and that topic is buried in a larger article. If someone wants to expand the dab page to be more, then that is a discussion in and of itself. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, I've moved it back. Please leave the page where it is until the debate has concluded (which I predict will see the album remain the primary topic). --kingboyk (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been good to explain that earlier since the discussion was set up above. I can see your reasoning and you must not have thought it likely, but I oppose. Yes a dab page is needed, but there should be a Beatles-related primary article. I'll await further discussion in case I am the odd man out. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that the main name space is for the primary use or a dab page. In this case, it may be hard to determine if there is a primary use. As to it being a Beatles page, remember that the primary use may very well be the phrase 'Let it be' meaning leave it alone. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Let it be" and "Let It Be" are not the same so that's a red herring.
According to my edit summary of the time, when I put the album article at Let It Be it was because most of the incoming links were for the album.
Oppose move per Jwy; "Let It Be" is primarily a Beatles topic and should have a Beatles primary article; the album article is the most likely candidate. --kingboyk (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Band on the Run (album), Band on the Run (song); Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (album), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (disambiguation), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song). It's normal for the album to be considered primary and the song secondary. Granted, there are other uses for "Let It Be" but imho all the most notable uses are Beatles-related. Thus, the album becomes the best choice for me. --kingboyk (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move; I agree with kingboyk's position. "It" in "Let It Be" should remain capitalized. The word represents the subject and is not an article or preposition. John Cardinal (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Getback-3.jpg[edit]

Image:Getback-3.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

March 1969 confusion[edit]

I'm a little confused by the Get Back Albums section regarding the March 1969 mixes. The entry for the original acetate says it was done by Glyn Johns in March 1969, who then played it for the Beatles who had lost interest.

The next section says that Paul and John gave free rein to Johns in March 1969 to do as he wished with the Get Back session tapes.

Is the original Glyn Johns mix the result of that March meeting? If so, then the statement about the disinterest of the Beatles doesn't seem correct. And the discussion of the March meeting should be moved to before the description of the original mix.

If not, it would be good to have some wording placing the original acetate mix in a specific point in March and say something about why Paul and John reconsidered their lack of interest and encouraged Johns to go ahead and try to salvage the sessions. Jlhollin (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection[edit]

For about a week now, an anon IP user has been gong through Beatles' albums removing the Scaruffi reviews from the infoboxes without leaving an edit summary explaining why. I have asked for an explanation but since it's a floating IP, don't really expect to get one. This is unacceptable and I have now had to semi-protect this article for a week in the hope that whoever it is gets the message that these edits are unacceptable. If you want to alter the article in this time and can't, please leave suggestions below. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

Are rock and rock and roll are two different genres? And if so, would this album be considered both? User:WesleyDodds say it is redundant. What is the consensus here? Helpsloose 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of cause rock and rock and roll are different. It's quite obvious if you listen to it. This album, to be quite honest, doesn't really fall into either, but oh well if you try to make a change, it's reverted --77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Songs released as singles from this album[edit]

Only one song from this album was released as a single, "The Long and Winding Road". While "Get Back" and the title song are on this album, they were previously released as alternate versions completely different compared to the versions heard on this album. So they do not count as singles from this album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2009

Sure they do. They're the same songs aren't they? Juts different versions. --124.40.63.122 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I think this is a valid argument as far as "Get Back" is concerned (the single was released over a year before the album), I'm not sure it holds up as well for "Let it Be." The LP and single versions are not "completely different" - at least not in the sense that, say, the "Revolution" single and "Revolution #1" are. Despite variances in mixing and editing, both versions of "Let it Be" are derived from the same basic track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.82.196 (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they are still different mixes. That's why the single versions of "Get Back" and "Let it Be" are included in the Past Masters compilation. Steelbeard1 (talk)
Steelbeard1, I agree with you that the single versions are different from the album ones (hence the need to issue them on the Past Masters compilation). But isn't this common practice for a fair number of singles, to be edited from their album version (often to cater to the special demands of mainstream FM radio airplay)? For example, consider Queen's The Miracle album with its single I Want It All. The single and album version for I Want It All are distinctly different (intro and solo part from the album version were cut down, and a new a-capella intro added), yet it counts as a single for the album, in particular in the album page's infobox.
--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The edited versions you talked about for single release were edited from the longer album mix. "Let It Be" was given two different mixes. The version first released as the single was the George Martin mix. The version on the Let It Be album is a different mix produced by Phil Spector. So, once again, the title track on the Let It Be album was NOT released as a single. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rooftop Concert[edit]

The rooftop concert should have its own page. It was an important event in Beatles history and there is no reason why it should not have its own page.

Information to include on the page: Facts about the planning of the concert; the songs played; official and bootleg releases of the concert; and the use of the performances in Let It Be (both the film and the album) and Let It Be... Naked.

Mclay1 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized discography[edit]

According to the packaging of "The Beatles Stereo Box Set," which is really the definitive Beatles collection, the band released "13 original studio albums." I know Wikipedia has always said that The Beatles made twelve studio albums, but I think we should consider changing that to fit what EMI says.

I disagree: EMI are concerned with marketing, whereas an encyclopedia is concerned with facts. WP articles are based on reliable sources which tell us that Magical Mystery Tour was not a studio album at all but a US compilation. If anything, we should tighten up our use of the term "studio album" which is used indiscriminately in places to include MMT. PL290 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If correct that should probably be reflected in the Magical Mystery Tour article itself, which currently doesn't mention "compilation" at all. 2601:197:A80:DC40:1495:7A2:FA1B:AEB9 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews[edit]

Somebody has added a review that is not from a notable website. The review is not very long and has not been viewed many times. The user did not edit in the review correctly so I attempted to fix it but it is not consistent with the others. Should the review be simply deleted? Mclay1 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover[edit]

I want their to be a section on the album cover. I was going to start it but i wasn't quite sure how controversial it would be and where to put it even! Could someone else tell me if this is a good idea, if so make one.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a good idea if you have enough information, which I don't think there is. There isn't an interesting story behind the cover like there is for some of the other albums. If it was going to be added, I would put it as a sub-section of "Completion and release". McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Get Back” Album cover picture…[edit]

Is the picture used to represent the aborted “Get Back” version of the album the actual concept version prepared? Artwork for the “Get Back” LP has been shown and sold at auction over the years, and it looks to me like the picture used here isn’t that (wasn’t it to have the Apple logo, rather than a Parlophone box? And George’s jacket wasn’t maroon, but has been coloured for this artwork). I’d happily be proved wrong, but my guess is that it’s either fan art, or the cover from a bootleg, and really shouldn’t be here? Jock123 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the cover saying "with Let It Be" when in the 2021 box-set the cover says "with Don't Let Me Down"? Ful Ox (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC-5:00)

Beatles RfC[edit]

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre war[edit]

@Piriczki, Radiopathy, and GorillazMonkeyZ: So, there's a war going on over genre here. In reverting back to the stable and accepted "rock, pop", and supplying refs from AllMusic and Discogs, even my edits were reverted, saying something about internet sites not being reliable. Someone else said to look at the guidance on what reliable sites for genre were supposed to be (without linking to it). When looking for such guidance to give to one of the users I reverted, I couldn't find anything definite, except that AllMusic seemed to be acceptable in some conversations and articles. The idea that "internet sites" are not acceptable seems like a non-starter – Wikipedia would have almost no references if that were true. The key is editorial quality, and AllMusic and Discogs seem to qualify in that regard. Comments? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic does more editorial work, and creates more internal content than Discogs, which accepts rather too much user input without oversight. Other sources are good, too, such as Rolling Stone, Beatles books, Grove guides, etc.
The current edit war is powered by what I think is a sockpuppet of blocked editor Mrwallace05, who also contributes as IPs from England. It's good that you reverted to a stable version. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case why do we need to use the band's default genres? We have sources that say 'rock'. And the band's default genres don't always work with every album they put out- for example Metallica's genres are currently 'heavy metal, thrash metal', whereas albums like Load come nothin close to thrash. You need to find source to backup the addition of pop to this album, and until then it should just stay rock, as the given citations suggest. Though I'd argue against the addition of multiple subgenres (I've noticed additions of rock and roll) as "rock already covers all these, an it would be nice to keep the genres section short and simple, and clutter-free. TheamDreaterxXx2334 (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC) TheamDreaterxXx2334 (talk) 06:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC) (Suspected of sock of Mrwallace05)[reply]

Since there aren't any sources/articles yet, shouldn't the genre-box stay blank? Only until sources are found of course... Shikari 123 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC) (Blocked as sock of Mrwallace05)[reply]

Final studio album[edit]

Hello. I made a change to the first sentence but it has been reverted. I shouldn't have just changed it because it's an important article so I apologise for that. Can we discuss it here and reach a consensus please? The problem is that the first sentence in the article reads, "Let It Be is the twelfth and final studio album by the English rock band the Beatles"; which can be misinterpreted to mean it was the last studio album they recorded (amongst other erroneous things!). I changed it to, "Let It Be is the twelfth and final studio album to be released by the English rock band the Beatles, though not the last studio album they recorded (see Abbey Road)". This was reverted with the following comment:

"Unnecessary. It is understood the numbering is by release date. And "to be released" sounds like it will be released in the future".

To which I respond,

1. I don't think it is understood that the numbering is by release date. This is an encyclopaedia entry and it should be assumed that the reader knows nothing at all about how The Beatles albums are numbered.
2. On the one hand you're saying that people reading the article are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to understand that the numbering is by release date; then in the next breath you're saying that they're too stupid and ignorant to know that "to be released" means it has already been released, even though that is clear from the context of the entire sentence. That would be someone with an erratic intelligence and an eclectic volume of knowledge to say the least???  ;-)
3. Even if people do understand that the numbering is by release date, that does not solve the problem; which is that it was the last album released but not the last album recorded.
4. People could certainly misinterpret my new sentence; I do actually agree - 100% - that you are right about that. However if my new sentence can be misinterpreted to mean that the album is yet to be released, then obviously the current sentence - "Let It Be is the twelfth and final studio album by the English rock band the Beatles" - can ALSO (how do you 'do' italic text???) be misinterpreted to mean that the album is yet been released, AND it can be misinterpreted to mean that it was the last album they recorded. The point being that the first sentence definitely needs to change somehow.
5. My new sentence could be changed to - "Let It Be was the twelfth and final studio album to be released..." - or, alternatively - "Let It Be is the twelfth and final studio album that was released..." - or, something completely new could be developed. I don't really care what the final decision is but obviously the opening sentence cannot remain as it is.
6. Someone might argue that my concerns are covered elsewhere in the article; which is true. However if you perform a search for Let It Be on Google, then along with your search results you will receive an infobox which provides a summary that is taken from, you guessed it, the first sentence in the Wikipedia article. That is how I came to be here. The problem is that some people may have their existing, erroneous understanding reinforced by that infobox, while others will have a new, erroneous understanding implanted. If you see what I mean?
-)

Over and out... FillsHerTease (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I did the revert, and I'm open to other opinions, but please wait for more opinions than yours or mine before making changes. Beatles articles have a lot of editors with varying opinions. Aside from that, a couple of comments. First, I did not even remotely suggest that readers are "stupid and ignorant" or "intelligent and knowledgeable". Please don't put words in my mouth (or edit summaries). Secondly, you said, "obviously the opening sentence cannot remain as it is"; it will either remain as it is or be changed depending on whatever consensus or lack of consensus emerges here. And finally, please do not use the phrase "to be released"; that suggests that the release will be in the future. Sundayclose (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lede should probably note the anomaly (recorded before Abbey Road but released after), but it need not be in the first sentence. It gives insight into the band at the time (my interpretation: With "Let It Be" they headed down hill, when they realized that, they pulled it together one last time for "Abbey Road." Why they released it later would be useful to describe here. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should certainly tell the reader in the lead section that the album's release chronology is different than the recording chronology. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Sundayclose...
1. Sure thing. I agree and I apologise again for making the change without discussing it first. That won't happen again...
2. I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth so I apologise for that too if I gave that impression. I was simply trying to point out that we have to assume people are either ignorant or knowledgeable - not both - so we can't assume on the one hand that the numbering system is understood, then assume on the other hand that they don't know that Let It Be has already been released. Surely if they know one then they know the other? That's all I was trying to say. I think we have to assume people are ignorant - not knowledgeable - in the true sense, not in the insulting way people use it on the Internet! :-)
3. I am stating my opinion that the opening sentence can be misinterpreted - in three different ways - and that it therefore needs to change. I figured that the IMO was a given! I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth again but I don't see how you could think that my new sentence could be misinterpreted - which I agreed you were right about - and then think that the existing one can't be misinterpreted too. Therefore I assume you must think the opening sentence must be changed too? Again, I am obviously stating my own opinion but it seems pretty clear that the existing first sentence is a problem - for the reasons I have outlined - and that some sort of change is necessary.
4. Yes, I agreed with you that my new sentence could be misinterpreted - as can the existing one, which is why it must change - and I have suggested "Let It Be was the twelfth and final studio album to be released..." - or, alternatively - "Let It Be is the twelfth and final studio album that was released...", neither of which can be misinterpreted. I'm happy for any agreed sentence which resolves the issue with the existing one, and the ones with my initial change.
5. I really don't want to get into a fight. Once again I apologise for any misconceptions. Please just know that if I appear to be being overbearing, or putting words in your mouth, or whatever, then that is not intentional and it's no where I'm coming from. I really just want to have a nice discussion and then do something or not depending on what the consensus is. I assure you I am not one of those people who is going to keep fighting if everyone disagrees with me, or anything stupid like that. OK? I think we got off on the wrong foot and I'm sorry about that. Please let's start again? I'm just expressing my opinion and I will be happy with whatever the outcome is, even if I disagree with it...  :-)
----
In response to Jwy, aside from the fact that the existing sentence could be misinterpreted in three distinctly separate ways - which is obviously a problem - my main concern is that not everyone comes to the actual article. As per my Point 6 above, if you do a Google search then you end up with an infobox which includes the first sentence from the article and ONLY the first sentence. As the existing sentence can be misinterpreted, surely it needs to be changed? That's how I came to be here. I did a search on Google for Let It Be and then, when the results came back, there was an infobox which said ""Let It Be is the twelfth and final studio album by the English rock band the Beatles". I thought to myself, "hang on, I thought Abbey Road was the final studio album" - which it is, from a recording perspective - then clicked on the link to come and read about it. That is the problem; the first sentence can be misinterpreted, so people who currently think Let It Be was the last album they recorded will have their erroneous belief solidified by that infobox. Do you see what I mean? IMO that is a problem and therefore the sentence needs to change. Fair enough?
----
The Wiki page for Abbey Road basically has the same problem; assuming that people agree there is a problem! The point being that if we agree on a change here then Abbey Road will need to be changed too. I'm just wondering if it might be better to have this discussion regarding both album articles at the same time. Is that possible? That way, if it is determined that a change should be made, it can be made on both pages simultaneously. On the other hand, if it is decided that no change is necessary, then we can avoid someone else potentially starting the same conversation over on the Talk page for Abbey Road and going through all of this again. If you see what I mean? Let's just nail this sucker for both albums at the same time and change them both or leave them both?
Over and out... FillsHerTease (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'll be more brief in my future edits I promise! :-P

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Let It Be (album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Right, last time I checked, there were no copies of an album called Get Back sent out. So how can there be an album cover? It looks like something a kid did in Photoshop.

Last edited at 16:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 21:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Double A-side single or A- and B-side for Long and Winding Road / For You Blue[edit]

Freshacconci, I think Piriczki might be right. I wrote/expanded "For You Blue" quite recently and discovered that the single was quite clearly a traditional A- and B-side release. What happened is that most chart compilers chose to combine the sides, presumably to acknowledge the amount of airplay the B-side was receiving. I'm not sure what we do elsewhere in such cases(?), but I'd say it's correct to list the single as "The Long and Winding Road" only. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States in the 1960s it was sometimes common for singles, particularly those by popular acts such as the Beatles, to become two-sided hits. At the time, all three major singles charts (Billboard, Cash Box, and Record World) listed each side of such records separately. In November 1969, Billboard and Record World changed their methodology by combining the points for both sides of the record to more accurately reflect its proper position on the chart. Subsequently, if a B-side achieved sufficient popularity to appear anywhere on the chart it would be listed along with the A-side, regardless of its popularity relative to the A-side. This does not make it a double A-side—that is determined by which side or sides the record company decides to market or "plug". On the Cash Box chart, which still listed sides separately, "For You Blue" only appeared for two weeks peaking at No. 71. This pattern continued with some solo Beatles releases where B-sides such as "Deep Blue", "Oh Woman Oh Why" and "Snookeroo", to name a few, appeared on the Billboard chart as a "tag-along" with the A-side. Conversely, a record that is specifically marketed as a double A-side such as "Hi Hi Hi" b/w "C Moon" or "Mull of Kintyre" b/w "Girls School" does not compel publications to list both titles together, or at all, on their charts. Piriczki (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article re-write?[edit]

Anyone opposed to a major re-write of this article? As it is the the article follows the standard narrative of the "back to the roots" album but ignores some of the details that are over looked by that over-simplification. For instance, some sources trace the genesis of the project to the performance of "Hey Jude" with an invited audience that was filmed by Michael Lindsey-Hogg for a promotional video. The December 1968 concerts announced by Apple aren't mentioned at all. And the original idea of a televised concert, which would be the album, with a documentary on the making of the TV special, is mostly absent from the article. McCartney's push to go back to touring, playing small clubs, might be out of context here. That idea was supposedly raised in September 1969 at the same meeting where Lennon announced he wanted a divorce. Also, Glyn Johns' original "fly on the wall" concept for an album from the Apple sessions, for which he purposely selected early, inferior takes, is not given much detail. I also think the suggestions that the Beatles "rejected" the various Glyn Johns versions might be inaccurate in that the delays and re-workings were due to delays in the film and changes to the album needed to fit the film. In a May 1969 interview Lennon was saying the album was finished and would be out soon. In a March 1970 interview, George Harrison seemed to still be referring to the Glyn Johns version when talking about the pending release. Piriczki (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, go for it. This is a Top importance article that's currently rated a C on the quality scale – there's room for improvement, to put it mildly. I'd noticed the puzzling omission of the December '68 Roundhouse bookings also.
One thing I'd really like to see (because it bugged me big-time when I read through the whole article a year or two back) is the two Get Back track listings moved out of the main text and down to follow the official, Let It Be track list. The text in the Get Back albums section can instead carry links to subheadings under Track listing – e.g. #First Get Back album.
I've always wondered whether we should take much of the detail on the Twickenham rehearsals to a separate article, sort of like Collapse of Smile. Right now, getting on for a third of the main body (i.e. forgetting the lead and everything after Charts/certifications) is devoted to the abandoned rehearsals, yet I believe I'm right in saying that nothing recorded at Twickenham appears on the final album, aside from some scattered dialogue. If you agree, mention of Twickenham could be condensed into two or three paragraphs. Makes sense to me because a) with almost every second having been recorded if not filmed, Twickenahm is covered exhaustively by sources so would easily qualify for a dedicated article; b) the rehearsals are more relevant to the film anyway than to the album; and c) it's not as if there isn't plenty to cover in this album article without dwelling on the abandoned rehearsals/TV special. Off the top of my head: the Apple Studio sessions; Johns' repeated attempts to compile a satisfactory album; Abbey Road, Lennon's "departure", and the Beatles' estrangement from McCartney (and from one another to a lesser extent); Klein's deal with United Artists, and Spector's salvage job; controversy surrounding the latter and Beatles' break-up; general ignoble aspect of the album's legacy, LIB Naked … There's a fair bit to cover. JG66 (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know the name of the reporter and tabloid that first reported the alleged Lennon/Harrison fistfight? I was looking at it recently but can't find it now. There was also some suggestion that Lennon wanted to sue him for libel. Piriczki (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to address the way we handle this in the article (at least, the last time I looked at it). Because, the idea that Harrison and Lennon came to blows is clearly bs. Perhaps this is what you're referring to, from Sulpy & Schweighardt's Get Back book (p. 206, reporting on a conversation on 22 Jan at Apple Studio): "John asks Denis O'Dell if they can sue over an article written by Michael Housego which had appeared in the previous day's edition of The Daily Sketch. Titled 'The End of a Beautiful Friendship?', this publicly reported the fight between John and George that had occurred on the 10th … and suggested that the two Beatles might have even thrown some punches at each other. It's this detail that offends John … and he explains that The Beatles have never come to physical blows except for one instance in Hamburg (which he and George laugh about). John then says how much he likes the photo of George which illustrates Housego's article, and pokes fun at Housego's representation of The Beatles (John, it should be noted, doesn't come off too well in Housego's report)." JG66 (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's the source I was looking at. I was thinking of describing Harrison's reason for leaving in more general terms. He was kind of in a sour mood from day one (Jan. 2) and it probably wasn't any one particular argument that did it. Piriczki (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit presumptuous. I recall reading Sulpy & Schweighardt say something similar ("a sour mood from day one"), early on in their book, where they talk about how having his songs regularly overlooked by Lennon and McCartney had left "deep psychological scars", or something similar. From looking more widely across the sources, I don't buy it; and besides, Harrison talked about his walkout at length, many times. He was really upbeat after his trip to LA and New York, having jammed with the Wrecking Crew, met Sinatra and Delaney Bramlett, appeared on the Smothers Brothers' show, hung out with Dylan and the Band ... The thing that brought him down was returning to the Beatles to find McCartney dictating things, again, and Lennon's situation (obviously hooked on heroin, and allowing Ono to intervene more than ever). So it's that return to White Album-style dysfunction that brought him down – and he'd spent the previous two months growing musically, which I don't think one can say of either Lennon or McCartney.
While other writers give a much more sympathetic view of Harrison at this time, Sulpy & Schweighardt seem wedded to the idea that McCartney's behaviour is beyond reproach (where other sources definitely do not). I found it interesting to read the pages covering Harrison's absence, where Sulpy & Schweighardt say that McCartney's comments show he actually supports Harrison in his stand regarding J & Y but that this only comes to light a) after Harrison has quit, and b) when Lennon's not around to hear McCartney saying it. As I understand the situation, it's that sort of mind-gaming that left Harrison so disenchanted. In the same way, Lennon's disparaging comments about Harrison's new songs can't be taken at face value: firstly because he's so supportive of Harrison's songwriting very soon afterwards; and secondly, because what was really bothering Lennon is the unflattering remarks about Ono that Harrison had felt the need to pass on from his hip buddies in New York. (Some sources also point to Lennon's resentment at Harrison's productivity, forging creative links so easily with Dylan, Clapton, the LA crowd, etc.) So it's definitely more than Harrison being in a funk from the start. Plus, Harrison consistently pinpointed his walkout to McCartney's overbearing attitude, along with the context: happy, productive time spent in the US, vs miserable atmosphere at Twickenham with the "John and Yoko factor" and ever-present film cameras.
But it's this sort of level of contradiction and intrigue that makes me think the Twickenham rehearsals deserve a separate article. Thanks to Michael Lindsay-Hogg's cameras and "spy" mikes, they're the most comprehensively documented sessions, or any sort of activity, of the Beatles' entire career. They've been heavily discussed and analysed, as you know, and the band members had plenty to say about them too. JG66 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say just chalk it up to Harrison being in a funk, I was thinking more of describing the problems you mention above leading up to it as opposed to just saying he quit because they had an argument before lunch on Friday which seems to be emphasized in many sources. The other issue I was thinking about are the contradicting accounts. In Anthology Ringo says Harrison argued with McCartney and then left without telling them. Reports at the time indicate it was Lennon. And then there's the "see you round the clubs" quote although Lindsay-Hogg says he said that to the film crew not the Beatles. Of course McCartney was an ongoing problem that wasn't limited to that day, that week or even that album. I hate to try to get into specifics only to have to say "some sources say this while other sources say..." Somebody must be wrong. Piriczki (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I appreciate it's difficult. (Or, I was going to say: "Aha, welcome to WP The Beatles"!!) I'd say some background and context is important, to mention Harrison's fruitful time in the States. Then, with the walkout, we should say that he attributed it to McCartney's attempts to dominate, but that the exit followed a blazing row with Lennon. I think that's all we can do: according to Harrison (and Starr, and Lennon [in the Wenner interview?]), he walked out because of McCartney. Unless we also indulge in some speculation re Lennon and Ono being the cause – and I think I'm right in saying that all the sources who do are following a line first introduced by Sulpy & Schweighardt in 1997.
With the parting remark, I believe that was to the crew, yes. He also said the others should advertise in the NME for a new lead guitarist, but rather than to any of the Beatles, I think that comment was made to Mal Evans or Neil Aspinall. JG66 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Let It Be. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Let It Be. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC[edit]

1,602 views out of 2,727 is 61.2%, that isn't a clear primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved – option A. This is a procedural close, because this RM landed in the Malformed requests section. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  13:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Following consensus at Talk:Let It Be (Beatles song) which was recently moved from Let It Be (song) per my nomination, I figured I would open up a second discussion. Several users in that RM felt that the album article (here), does not qualify for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact it was the last thing noted on this talk page, that "1,602 views out of 2,727 is 61.2% isn't clear primary topic". Some, including myself, felt that the song is simply more well known so it should be the primary topic. So I think we should come to a consensus about what the real primary topic is.

Now, consensus organisation will be a mess otherwise, so I will make the options easy to state. The consensus of the last RM was that we can't have primary disambiguators, so as a result of that, those will not be options (there are multiple songs and albums with articles named Let It Be).

Please state one of the following before your justification:

I am interested to see the consensus and I will not respond to any comments, please write below this line. Thank you Lazz_R 18:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Option A - Move Let It Be → Let It Be (Beatles album) and Let It Be (disambiguation) → Let It Be. I agree evidence suggests that the song is primary topic, but I'd like to stagger the implementation to avoid a disruptive result of an immediate primary swap, due to incoming links/search engines. Disambiguate all, allow time for internal links to all be fixed and for incoming links to adjust. Allow at least a 3-6 months for us to get solid traffic statistics for the disambiguated titles to do a final determination. -- Netoholic @ 19:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A - verbatim as above Move Let It Be → Let It Be (Beatles album) and Let It Be (disambiguation) → Let It Be. Not sure that the song is primary topic, but even if it is as per Netoholic we should at the very least stagger the implementation to avoid a disruptive result of an immediate primary swap. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A while the album does get more views, its not overwhelming [[1]] and there are more than just those. As noted PT swaps cause internal and external link problems so I'd say have no PT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pageviews indicate the album is the clear WP:primary topic, even more so if considered as a broad concept in conjunction with the song and film. The song is clearly not the primary topic, even if we were to assume everyone viewing the song's article mistakenly went to Let It Be first. Station1 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A > C > B (where C means oppose). I think the song is what many people think of when they hear the term, but pageviews and WP:CONCEPTDAB are on the side of the album. Therefore I think there is a strong case for no primary topic here. Failing that, I'd rather have the album be a concept DAB than the song be primary by a small margin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

so, Boldness is perhaps (over)due[edit]

I stopped by to look up a factoid being discussed. Though I've been around WP editing for months, I was surprised at how much this article is bulked up with essay that makes no attempt at providing (or even hinting broadly at) the source, so I'm unable to seek further background to the described situation.

I bought the LP new about a year after release ($3.99), and I'd like the topic to be treated with respect. Instead, much of this article belongs properly in a periodical, or on a fan-forum site or someone's blog. Though often intriguing, the factoids peppering Let It Be (Beatles album) are largely not encyclopedic and cannot bear any weight of further inquiry.

I will proceed cautiously, of course; larger passages that aren't clearly sourced will be blanked awhile, in hopes that some Maniac hovering nearby will notice, pull down the appropriate must-have book of Beatles fandom, and set things right. If such remain for months, without revision or even Talk Page comment, I will assume nobody cares.

However, once so deleted, passages CANNOT simply be reverted and pasted up again without full and clear sourcing; this statement should be considered the start of a grace period. Seeing as

Unsourced material may be challenged and removed

holds throughout W'pedia, this Talk topic constitutes a general challenge, and I will subsequently present longer article passages for public comment. If after blanking a couple of weeks passes without comment here, those parts will be deleted.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of "Long and Winding Road" single in infobox[edit]

The single versions of the songs "Get Back" and "Let It Be", as I see now, are not too dissimilar to be removed as a single from the singles tab. However, it should be stressed that "The Long and Winding Road" / "For You Blue" single should not be included in the singles tab, due to the fact that it was not properly released in the United Kingdom, due to it being a U.S. exclusive single. No other main catalogue Beatles page refers to U.S. exclusive tracks as apart of their singles tabs. ----TheZapingNinja (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this here, TheZapingNinja. The guideline at Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles states that the parameter provid[es] concise information about songs on the album that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album. Promotional activity for extremely popular albums may continue for a long time, and songs from the album may be released as singles a year or more after the album's initial release ... For complex release scenarios where it may not be obvious that a single was released as part of the marketing and promotion of the album on which it appears, seek consensus on the talk page for the album.
With regard to "Get Back"'s possible inclusion, this comes under "complex" scenarios, imo, because the album had such a long, drawn-out history when it was being hyped (one could say, advance-promoted?) in the music press throughout 1969, which was part of the reason the eventual release received such criticism. Since March '69 when the "Get Back" single was released, or perhaps before then, the album was to be a back-to-basics, "honest" collection of recordings. When it does finally appear, it coincides with the acrimony of the break-up announcement, and the LP and film are seen as commercially exploiting a turn of events that has left fans and most commentators pretty devastated. In the UK, the inclusion of an LP-size book containing supposedly pretentious commentary from David Dalton and clearly antagonistic quotes from the sessions, the lavish boxed packaging, and an ultra-high retail price to match, combined to rub the recent break-up in everyone's face and, worse, make it a grand commercial event. All this is according to Bob Woffinden's book The Beatles Apart, anyway. So I can see a valid reason to include "Get Back", although I appreciate others may think otherwise.
In the case of "The Long and Winding Road", I can't see there's any grey area: it most definitely was a single issued to promote the album. The fact that, across all the Beatles album articles, it's the only example of a US/non-UK single being included is probably because it is the only example of such a release(!). One might think that "Nowhere Man" should appear in the infobox at Rubber Soul and "Eight Days a Week" at Beatles for Sale, but although they were singles in the US (and many other countries, but not the UK), they weren't singles issued to promote those albums in the US – they didn't even appear on those albums in the US (and For Sale wasn't released there at all, anyway). The US was easily the largest market; in terms of the 1960s, it's generally said that the only "major markets" were the UK and the US, and I believe that perspective governs our treatment of singles in this particular area. (It's certainly borne out in talk page discussions over the years, way outside of WP:Beatles; perhaps the approach needs to be formalised, if it's not already – we should all be clear about this and not operating individually.) Conversely, "Michelle", "Norwegian Wood", "Nowhere Man" again, and "Girl" were hit singles in various countries around the world in early 1966 and all seem to have appeared on the Rubber Soul LP in those countries; but we don't include these singles in the album infobox because we're only concerned with the major markets – UK and US. In the same way, "Ob-La-Di [etc]" doesn't appear in the infobox at The Beatles, even though that was a single in pretty much every country in the world except US and UK. "Oh! Darling" was a 1970 single in Japan, apparently, but it's not included at Abbey Road.
That's my take on all this. And, incidentally, it seems vaguely relevant to infobox treatment for the individual songs: Nowhere Man (song) was a major hit, RIAA gold record, etc, so it's most notable release would seem to be as a 1966 single. And even though I had originally thought otherwise when we discussed it for a while, "Ob-La-Di" was not a single in one of the two major markets so it gets type=song (rather than type=single) treatment in the song article. (Don't want to overly complicate the discussion here, but this whole issue overlaps with what I've raised at WT:BEATLES#Changes regarding singles chronologies and second infoboxes in song articles and need to add to further there.) JG66 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review timeline[edit]

Seems strange to lump in reviews contemporaneous to an album’s release with retro sore reviews. What a newspaper said about Let It Be in 1970 in the context of what was going on in the world socially and musically is a completely different thing than a blogger writing about it for a catch-all website in the 2000s. 1970-era reviews clearly fit into “critical reception,” but retrospective reviews belong more under a “legacy” heading, don’t you agree? Morganfitzp (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get Back[edit]

The version of Get Back on the album is not the recording from the rooftop concert, though it does have Lennon's "audition" comment from the concert added to the end. So there are three tracks on the album from the concert, not four. MFlet1 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles performed "Get Back" 3 times at the rooftop concert. Are you saying none of those performances ended up on the album "Let It Be?" 73.167.238.120 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a reliable source that they performed and recorded the song three times on the rooftop. Not three times total, three times on the rooftop. And that one of those performances is on album. Sundayclose (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They played it three times on the rooftop, see The Beatles' rooftop concert, but none of them is the one on the album. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page for the Twickenham sessions[edit]

Should we have a separate article for the Twickenham sessions in January 1969? Not only was it a notable event in the history of the band, it was a Smile/Lifehouse–style abandoned project (both of which have pages here), and the available tape and film footage get no end of coverage in books and music magazines.--HighlyLogicalVulcan (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighlyLogicalVulcan: Lots more detailed coverage of the Twickenham sessions should still be able to fit in this article. We have about 85KB of free space for readable prose before a split would be warranted. Although I imagine a dedicated article for Twickenham would allow useful details like the songs the band rehearsed on a given day. ili (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add Planned Date of 2021 Re-Mixing[edit]

Shouldn’t the exact date that the 2021 remixing is coming out on be included in the section, re-releases, instead of just having 2021? 1993SDBC (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for making this request. Sundayclose (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October of 1968?[edit]

In the first para of the Recording and production section is said: "Lennon and his partner Yoko Ono had descended into heroin addiction after their arrest on drugs charges in October … " That’s 1968, right!? I’m only 99% sure, 1% not, otherwise I’d have edited it in. As it stands, it could do with the year being added, as the mention of “October” seems to come out of nowhere. Boscaswell talk 05:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Front cover photo of Paul[edit]

Paul's hair was not like this during any of the January 1969 film. Was it taken at a different time? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "Instead, the front cover of the “Let It Be” album featured four individual pictures of each of The Beatles taken by photographer Ethan Russell during the Twickenham Studios rehearsal sessions in early January of 1969" Pauls head hair and beard appear to be basically the same length in the photo as in pictures such as here and here and here. The only difference I can see is that the part is less pronounced in the Let It Be album cover image, with hair of that length it's fairly easy to see how in the moment it could change how it lies on the head (depending on how Paul might have leaned his head or run his fingers through it). There's nothing in the image to suggest that it wasn't taken at the same time, and looks enough like other photos from that time period that I have no reason to doubt that source that says that it was. --Jayron32 16:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison leaving[edit]

"During lunch on 10 January, Lennon and Harrison had a heated disagreement in which Harrison berated Lennon for his lack of engagement with the project." Peter Jackson's 2021 The Beatles: Get Back suggests that Harrison simply walked out before lunch, announcing he had quit the band (although there were no cameras at the lunch venue)? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The event you describe is cited to a reliable source already, and the two events (the lunch disagreement and Harrison's walking out) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. --Jayron32 15:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let it Be Film page deleted[edit]

I just noticed that the article for the Let it Be film no longer exists. In my mind, the film is a piece of lost media that was partially replaced by the Get Back doc but is still a large part of the history of the band.

The Beatles was one of the only bands I knew of that had a wikipedia article for every single album, song, film, and otherwise. There seems to have been a culling of pages related to the Beatles, and so I guess I'm wondering, why? Even The Long and Winding Road, a #1 hit single, no longer has an article dedicated to it. Is it really not relevant enough to warrant its own page on the site? In the grand scheme of things, it might not be very important. I just find it very strange that multiple wiki pages have been deleted altogether for seemingly no reason. 2601:543:4201:5260:C1E3:60D7:5188:4DD (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is still there, see Let It Be (1970 film). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move over at the song article[edit]

You are cordially invited to participate at Talk:Let It Be (Beatles song)#Requested move 12 December 2023 :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Let It Be (Beatles song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Let_It_Be_(album)&oldid=1208151755"