This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Let It Be (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 15, 2004. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
On 12 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Let It Be (Beatles album) to Let It Be (album). The result of the discussion was moved. |
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.
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)
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? travisburton Travisburton ( talk) 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
travisburton Travisburton ( talk) 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not Let it Be is a live album? -- Mr. Manu 01:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 ( talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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? R o gerthat Talk 11:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
By whom? This statement definitely needs a citation, otherwise it's just POV.
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)
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. —— Obento Musubi - Contributions - 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.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)
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)
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.
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)
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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? Hel pslo ose 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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:
To which I respond,
Over and out... FillsHerTease ( talk) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
– 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Let It Be (album) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 15, 2004. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
On 12 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Let It Be (Beatles album) to Let It Be (album). The result of the discussion was moved. |
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.
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)
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? travisburton Travisburton ( talk) 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
travisburton Travisburton ( talk) 04:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Why not Let it Be is a live album? -- Mr. Manu 01:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 ( talk) 03:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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? R o gerthat Talk 11:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
By whom? This statement definitely needs a citation, otherwise it's just POV.
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)
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. —— Obento Musubi - Contributions - 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''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.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)
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)
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.
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)
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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? Hel pslo ose 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
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
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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:
To which I respond,
Over and out... FillsHerTease ( talk) 07:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log •
target log |
– 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)