Talk:Let It Be... Naked

message: A friend of mine has a bootleg CD of this album that he loned me, and the total running time of the album comes to thirty-six minutes and forty-three seconds, with numerous discrepancies between the track listing times listed at this article. Does anyone know what could have caused this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.84.114 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I listened fly on the wall and around the 6th minute their are a few Imagine notes should we add this to this page? H-J
Whoever keeps undoing the edit linking "John's Piano Piece" to "Imagine"  Needs to listen to the album.  Identical chord progression.  It would not have been included if it was not an early working version of the song.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.141.21.101 (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia, you need a reference to support your claim, it can't be original research. The album booklet calls it "John's Piano Piece" not "Imagine". Until you can find a reference, I will continue to undo your edits. McLerristarr (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Having listened to the original, full-length track, I'm certain that this is just John improvising. The only real resemblance to "Imagine" is that he employs the same playing style. Tymime (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Imagine

message: I'm sure when it first came out the bonus CD was said to actually be a DVD, can anyone else remember this?
--Jimmyjrg 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do. Kind of dissapointed when I got the CD.--Wanna Know My Name? Later 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD?

message: The "Track notes" section of the Wiki article seems to be lifted verbatim from the  article by Matt Hurwitz. Kudos for at least crediting the article, but it's still plagiarism without Hurwitz's name attached to his words.
-- IKUnderhill 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track by Track notes 

message: Is This version of Let It Be really high importance?  I've not changed it and I strongly support ALL official Beatles albums released at the time getting "High" but this really was Macca getting revenge on Phil Spector wasn't it?  I'd categorise it as a vanity project.  My vote is to downgrade the importance one notch & leave the original Let It Be on High where it belongs Megamanic 05:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is significant. Since the album release Paul said that the original recordings were better. Also, the "Let It Be" album was done without the Beatles' support. "Naked" was done with this, except with John, obviously. --Wanna Know My Name? Later 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't have an opinion about the importance grade. Regarding all the Macca-bashing, what's the point? In his defense, everything I've read said that John and George selected Spector, and Paul was not involved in that decision. Paul did not object to Spector's involvement, Paul objected to not having any input to the process or to the changes made to his songs. There is a famous memo that is reprinted in Anthology that describes exactly what Paul didn't like, and given that it was written at the time he found out, it seems like solid evidence of his position. Let It Be... Naked may be a vanity project, but many Beatle fans have sought out bootleg versions of the Glyn Johns mix and the other pre-Spector mixes and so Naked gives them something they evidently want. I am glad that Paul is deciding what gets released and not Macca-bashers. John Cardinal (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance

message: This page needs to be moved to Let It Be... Naked with three unspaced full stops as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. McLerristarr (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Blues rock is one of this album's genres - is it acceptable to use the same source used to back up the original Let It Be album's "blues rock" addition, since this album is just a different mix of that one? Y45ed (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the twelve-bar blues characteristic of blues rock? The issue I have with the source you're referring to is that it never explicitly labels the album as blues rock. Everything is implicit. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 15:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  12 Bar Blues is just a common style of blues, it isn't essential for something to be called blues rock. It will be close to impossible to find a reliable source that focuses on this specific album's genre, since it is just a different mix of the original Let It Be. Will this source be reliable for the this album? Y45ed (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, 12 bar blues is the essential structure which must be present in order for a blues categorization of any kind to be made. Don't make the mistake of searching for sources that will back up your personal opinion; rather, base your opinion on a preponderance of reliable sources. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 15:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  While i still believe that a 12 bar blues pattern is not essential for something to blues rock, you will find that One After 909 and For You Blue on the album do follow this pattern. Y45ed (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't see the problem with this... Why does it matter if it's me who did it? A reliable source is a reliable source. The source clearly talks about it as blues, and no other genre. Y45ed (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem which you fail to perceive is that your good faith is now potentially in question. Collaborative motives are expected to dominate your activity here, and anything perceived as duplicitous and/or individualistic contravene the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 17:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Blues rock

message: I spotted two or three cases where the article claims that Spector's overdubs have been removed. Here's an example: "For the title track, the original take 27a was used for the bulk of the song, but two edit pieces were flown in from take 27b ... as per all other tracks, all orchestral and choral overdubs were removed".
As I understand, this album was compiled from the original studio tapes. Therefore, there are no overdubs to remove. Is that correct? What I think it means is that this time around, no orchestral overdubs were added, which is rather different from saying they have been removed. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.157.119 (talk • contribs) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
I think you're right. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overdubs removed? 

message: This is how it should sound.  Paul wrote LWR, he has final say on production.  Also, there was no good reason to leave 'Don't Let Me Down' off the original.  If this is truly not up to par, then the bar is far too high ... but then again, the Beatles set the bar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.154.30 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked is the way it was intended. 

message: I have this album and I don't mean to be subjective but I think that John Lennon didn't do too bad on Let It Be and The Long and Winding Road. I don't know why Ian MacDonald described Lennon's bass playing as "atrocious to the point of sabotage." I think that John did just fine. I guess it's possible that studio technicians may have corrected his mistakes or Paul McCartney may have removed John Lennon's bass line and replaced it with his own bass part.--Kevjgav (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A Fender Bass VI is not fretless.  And I doubt that they are playing a fretless bass.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

text: And Beatles Gear by Andy Babiuk doesn't mention a fretless bass.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what Ian MacDonald was thinking when he credited Lennon on fretless bass. In List of the Beatles' instruments it doesn't list a fretless bass. I don't think that MacDonald knew anything about The Beatles' instruments. Paul McCartney used a Hofner 500/1 (essentially a semi-acoustic bass) and a Rickenbacker 4001S, and on occasions, John Lennon and George Harrison would play a Fender Bass VI. None of these instruments are fretless.--Kevjgav (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But MacDonald doesn't make any mention of Lennon playing a fretless bass on the track – at least not in the 1998 edition of his book. MacDonald does make a lot of mistakes and/or draws some rather blinkered conclusions, usually in McCartney's favour (his statements on McCartney being unaware of Spector's involvement at the time and on Lennon's behaviour being "appalling" are typical examples, in my opinion). But I can't see that we can lay the "fretless" issue at his door. Unless it's something that he added in the 2005 edition maybe? JG66 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The naked producers would have cleaned up John Lennon's bass playing on "The Long and Winding Road" if there was anything wrong with it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of John Lennon's bass playing 

message: The Naked version does NOT include the chatter, e.g. "I dig a pygmy, by Charles..." and "I'd like to thank you ...". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chatter 

message: As a contemporary interview with producer Rick Rubin (certainly a Notable person) seems relevant, I’m posting Rubin’s views. Please stop deleting them—they are not my opinions and the factuality ofRubin’s View’s is irrelevant: they factually are Rubin’s views. I am not saying that Lennon always had a doubling effect on his voice: Rubin is. I’m not saying that there was production on it: Rubin is. If you want to get in an edit war, do it with Rubin: I’m just reporting what a notable producer and avowed Beatles fan said about the production of a Beatles album. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contribution makes no sense, with praise abruptly followed by criticism. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  My intent to show a mixed review, although leaning more on criticism than praise. Should this info go in a different section? Is Rubin non-notable on matters of production or specifically Beatles production? Why keep deleting the Analog Planet citation at the end, when it’s just in keeping with the other sourcing in the list: that alone feels a little overzealous.--Akhenaten0 (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that the addition makes no sense. It could be phrased better, but it is introduced as "mixed feelings", so the combination of praise and criticism makes sense (to me). I do think, though, we could and should find a "mixed" professional review or two and include comments from those. Naked was fairly controversial, coming soon after the media storm about the "McCartney–Lennon" credit reversal, and it was seen as an example of McCartney continuing to mould the Beatles' legacy to his satisfaction. And it has to be said that, for a Beatles release in the 21st century, the album's critical and commercial reception was very poor, so this article should reflect that. JG66 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several problems with this contribution. The first is that it is derived from an interview. Interviews are often poor sources because the respondent is answering questions off the top of the head without time for consideration and certainly not time for fact checking. Responses may be based on an inaccurate memory or a mistaken assumption. Respondents often don't fully explain themselves and interviewers rarely ask for clarification. All of these issues are present here. Some of Rubin's responses don't make much sense without further clarification. In comparing Let It Be Naked to Let It Be he singles out the song "Two of Us" which is odd since of all the criticisms of Phil Spector's work this track is usually exempt if not praised. And of all the new mixes on Let It Be Naked, this one probably has the fewest differences, if any, from the original. Exactly what particular opinion or critique is being conveyed to the reader by citing this particular track? Or does Rubin just like the song? He also mentions artificial double tracking and effects that "make the John Lennon sound." The "John Lennon sound" was the work of Geoff Emerick who, along with his sound, was absent from these recordings. Is Rubin unaware that there was no ADT or other effects used during these sessions? Was he aware that this was the approach the Beatles, particularly Lennon, wanted, according to George Martin, a producer who actually knew Lennon and was there. Is Rubin speculating that Lennon wouldn't have liked his vocals on either album? Or just the later album? Is he saying that the vocal sound was inconsiderate of Lennon or that releasing the album at all was inconsiderate? Is he saying that ADT and other effects should have been added to Lennon's vocals on Let It Be Naked? Rubin's comments are pure speculation based on a inconsistent interpretation of the Beatles recording history. The only opinion he clearly expressed here is about "The Long and Winding Road." I would leave that in and dispense with the rest. Piriczki (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not here to argue Rubin's correctness, but it does seem from the interview, off-the-cuff though it may be, was from the point of view of someone who had thought about it. Yes, it is speculation, but it is his speculation. As for "Two of Us," that's why I cut it out—I wanted to focus on Rubin's most striking claim. Talking yourself about Emerick seems more WP:OR than just making a note of it. A strong opinion about the work by a notable person seems relevant to me, but certainly I am not a producer, nor a Beatles researcher, nor a Rubin researcher. My apologies.--Akhenaten0 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rick Rubin Interview 

message: "Also, whereas the original album track featured Lennon beginning to play the song's final guitar riff one beat too early, this version mixes the error out, leaving a clean outro."
While this is true in the rooftop concert, I believe this was fixed for the Let it Be album. So this should be removed. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but was it fixed for the Let It Be album? Or was it just fixed for Let It Be... Naked? If it's the latter, then I disagree with the information being removed. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 13:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Dig A Pony

message: "This marks the second appearance of the track in its correct key as recorded..."
"A remix of the original version recorded on 4 February 1968, played at the correct speed..."
I would argue that the term "originally recorded" would be more appropriate than "correct". When the album was originally mixed and mastered, it was decided the song sounded better slowed down. That's the way it was released; to me, that makes it the "correct" speed and key. Rmhand (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the wording "correct speed" is correct - though I wouldn't object to "originally recorded" (but then the first "original" in that line would have to go). If there were a debate about the production of Strawberry Fields or In My Life and various versions around, you would have a point. Then the published speed of those songs would not be correct. But since there is no such contention, Across the Universe remains a unique case. There is absolutely no basis to call the Spector production "correct". Str1977 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "Across the Universe" "correct" speed and key

message: Why is there a list of peak positions on some weekly charts in 2013? If the album was re-released that year, this article should mention it. —71.105.198.152 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weekly charts in 2013