Talk:Let It Be (album)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Phil Spector: Producer

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: List of songs

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Talking between songs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neil Aspinall?? ... George Martin??

message: 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)
thread_title: Billy Preston!!!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 04:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Imagine? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Disastrous album?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should compilations be included in infobox? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  March 1969 confusion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Semi Protection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Genres 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rooftop Concert

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Standardized discography

message: 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)
replies: text: I removed it. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Album cover

message: 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)
thread_title:  “Get Back” Album cover picture… 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beatles RfC 

message: Substituted at 21:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: , I think  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Double A-side single or A- and B-side for Long and Winding Road / For You Blue 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130309100925/http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yamag/album2409/al_beatles.html to http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~yamag/album2409/al_beatles.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716110547/http://entamedata.web.fc2.com/music/music_a1970-74.html to http://entamedata.web.fc2.com/music/music_a1970-74.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006222356/http://www.everyhit.com/chartalb3.html to http://www.everyhit.com/chartalb3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Failing [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]

message: *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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title:  so, Boldness is perhaps (over)due 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Review timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Get Back 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page for the Twickenham sessions 

message: 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)
replies: text: . Thanks for making this request. Sundayclose (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Planned Date of 2021 Re-Mixing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  October of 1968? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Front cover photo of Paul 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I disagree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrison leaving 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is still there, see Let It Be (1970 film).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let it Be Film page deleted 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move over at the song article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress