Talk:Let It Be... Naked

Question

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

Yes — the album was mixed in a variety of forms with differing mixes and running orders, before they shelved it and turned their attention to Abbey Road. Several of these versions were pre-released, and though none was deemed official at the time, several of them have found themselves reproduced as bootlegs despite the album finally seeing official release in definitive form over a year later. Key of Now (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Imagine

I listened fly on the wall and around the 6th minute their are a few Imagine notes should we add this to this page? H-J

Whoever keeps undoing the edit linking "John's Piano Piece" to "Imagine" Needs to listen to the album. Identical chord progression. It would not have been included if it was not an early working version of the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.141.21.101 (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, you need a reference to support your claim, it can't be original research. The album booklet calls it "John's Piano Piece" not "Imagine". Until you can find a reference, I will continue to undo your edits. McLerristarr (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Having listened to the original, full-length track, I'm certain that this is just John improvising. The only real resemblance to "Imagine" is that he employs the same playing style. Tymime (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DVD?

I'm sure when it first came out the bonus CD was said to actually be a DVD, can anyone else remember this? --Jimmyjrg 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I do. Kind of dissapointed when I got the CD.--Wanna Know My Name? Later 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Track by Track notes

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

A clarification about "Across the Universe": the animal sound effects weren't part of the original version of the song recorded in 1968. The animal sounds were added later only for a new mix of the song to be included in the album No One's Gonna Change Our World, a charity album for the World Wildlife Fund, therefore they were never "edited out" for the "Naked" edition of the album by Phil Spector. Reference: Lewisohn, Mark (1988). The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions. Hamlyn Publishing Group. ISBN 0-600-55784-7. -- Marcusbacus 16:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Which take is it really? The article says "For the title track, the original take 27A was used for the bulk of the song..." and this is audibly NOT the case. Just listen to the intro: on the original single, the Am-F transition chord (the one with a 'G' bass note) is played with piano's sustain pedal, while on this album's take it is not (it fades quickly, leaving a tiny gap before the Fmaj7 chord). The piano tracks are very similar, but there are enough minor differences of phrasing and intonation that they cannot be the same take. Unfortunately, I cannot now find the McCartney interview that I read at the time of the album's release, in which he stated that it was indeed a different take, but with Linda's backing vocal (the high sustained 'E' note in the intro) edited in because he had wanted to preserve her contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32B2:B600:F1BE:3D3:3BDD:1C3C (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as with the production of "Love Me Do", I've come across similar discrepancies and disagreement regarding the history of the track "Let It Be". The differences between each "official" version are discernible. Some of it comes down to the mix (the specific balance of instruments) itself, but other qualities seem to hinge on alternate takes and overdubs with no small degree of creative editing. Key of Now (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Importance

Is This version of Let It Be really high importance? I've not changed it and I strongly support ALL official Beatles albums released at the time getting "High" but this really was Macca getting revenge on Phil Spector wasn't it? I'd categorise it as a vanity project. My vote is to downgrade the importance one notch & leave the original Let It Be on High where it belongs Megamanic 05:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This album is significant as it (arguably) provides the definitive versions of some tracks over the Phil Spector mixes (e.g. The Long and Winding Road). Therefore I think high is apprpriate. Also it was sanctioned by all the remaining Beatles + Yoko. simonthebold 07:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is significant. Since the album release Paul said that the original recordings were better. Also, the "Let It Be" album was done without the Beatles' support. "Naked" was done with this, except with John, obviously. --Wanna Know My Name? Later 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "Let it Be...Naked" shouldn't be graded "high" in terms of importance. I vote it should be "low." It is a vanity project from Paul. First of all, the Get Back sessions were his idea in the first place. And no producer wanted or was able to make a fluid album with the fragmented mess that was left behind. Except for Phil Spector. By the way, he's the producer Paul agreed to work on the album. The above comment "Let it Be was done without the Beatles support" is an unsubstantiated claim. In fact both George and Ringo were in the studio while Spector mixed the subpar "original recordings." Ironically, Paul couldn't "let it be" and had to release his version of the album--though his criticisms of Spector's version never prevented him from collecting the Oscar for the album nor using a symphony when he toured. John--no surprises here--was the only Beatle who recognized the work Spector did in producing The Beatles last released album.

Georgie9 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Rewritten article

I've started a rewritten version of the article without the disputed material at Talk:Let It Be… Naked/Temp. How is it? You can expand it if you want to, but without the disputed material. Steelbeard1 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read/skipped through the major copyvio is the track by track notes. I think the other parts can be resurrected (although it started as almost a rewrite of the article it has since evolved into its own animal). I would be tempted to generalise the work on the individual tracks, cutting out the technical detail, and let links to the article give the particulars should the wiki reader want to know more. Changing the format would also be a good idea. More inline cites (especially to the quotes - which should also be cut down where possible) in the rest of the body would also help. If the article was the major (or only) source then it should be made clear by referring to it at all possible times. Is there any other sources we could use for the article?

I'm not really up on copyvio, so it may be that someone with a better understanding of it needs to add their tuppence. LessHeard vanU 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the last version before the notes on each track was added. You may wish to compare this with your current working model. If there are not too many differences then perhaps we could rollback to this version. You may like to note the name of the editor of said last "no big copyvio version"... ;~) LessHeard vanU 22:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to that version is fine with me. Steelbeard1 11:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked at the reaction to someone being lazy and cheating. It should be regarded as simple vandalism, and reverted. What's the big deal? egde 23:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:66.245.17.143, User talk:Misza13 and User talk:64.142.36.76 made it a big deal. BTW, Andreasedge, what's your opinion of those who make destructive edits who use only IP addresses? Steelbeard1 02:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hung, drawn and quartered? That would be about right. BTW, I have changed my user name... egde 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

SteelBeard1 in my opinion is not being constructive. I've repeatedly tried to speak intelligently with him.(see his talk page for more, as well as my talk page where he basically says anyone editing wiki pages anonymously isn't a real wikipedian and hence deserves no respect). But he wishes to read things in his own way. Rather than dragging out this debate, and not believing in deleting things myself, I'll simply say that he asked another user what they thought of "destructive edits using anonymous IP Addresses". He then crowed on my talk page how another unrelated user suggested drawing and quartering. Well geez, they don't approve of destructive edits. Who would? What Steelbeard omits is that the edit I made was not "destructive", it simply replaced the page with the COPYRIGHT VIOLATION notice, as per Wikipedia policy. Ironically after he restored the page, ANOTHER unrelated user marked the page as COPYRIGHT VIOLATION, and the offending material is now gone.--64.142.36.76 12:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you are the antagonist on this issue. A responsible editor would simply revert the disputed material with the last edit without the disputed material. Steelbeard1 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now deleted the copyvio article and restored it to the last version before the insertion of the copyright material. LessHeard vanU 19:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Move

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

Blues rock

Blues rock is one of this album's genres - is it acceptable to use the same source used to back up the original Let It Be album's "blues rock" addition, since this album is just a different mix of that one? Y45ed (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are the twelve-bar blues characteristic of blues rock? The issue I have with the source you're referring to is that it never explicitly labels the album as blues rock. Everything is implicit. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 15:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

12 Bar Blues is just a common style of blues, it isn't essential for something to be called blues rock. It will be close to impossible to find a reliable source that focuses on this specific album's genre, since it is just a different mix of the original Let It Be. Will this source be reliable for the this album? Y45ed (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, 12 bar blues is the essential structure which must be present in order for a blues categorization of any kind to be made. Don't make the mistake of searching for sources that will back up your personal opinion; rather, base your opinion on a preponderance of reliable sources. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 15:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

While i still believe that a 12 bar blues pattern is not essential for something to blues rock, you will find that One After 909 and For You Blue on the album do follow this pattern. Y45ed (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, upon further investigation, it was actually YOU who added the Blues Rock genre change to the Let It Be article. You are trying to justify this genre addition on the fact that it exists in the other article! That's rather deceitful. Here's the diff to prove it: [1] ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 16:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this... Why does it matter if it's me who did it? A reliable source is a reliable source. The source clearly talks about it as blues, and no other genre. Y45ed (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem which you fail to perceive is that your good faith is now potentially in question. Collaborative motives are expected to dominate your activity here, and anything perceived as duplicitous and/or individualistic contravene the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates. ChakaKong^{Let's talk about it} 17:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. I would have listed Blues Rock as one of the album's genres as well. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 10:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Overdubs removed?

I spotted two or three cases where the article claims that Spector's overdubs have been removed. Here's an example: "For the title track, the original take 27a was used for the bulk of the song, but two edit pieces were flown in from take 27b ... as per all other tracks, all orchestral and choral overdubs were removed".

As I understand, this album was compiled from the original studio tapes. Therefore, there are no overdubs to remove. Is that correct? What I think it means is that this time around, no orchestral overdubs were added, which is rather different from saying they have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.157.119 (talk • contribs) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

I think you're right. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Naked is the way it was intended.

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

Request and suggestions for rewrite from scratch for this article.

This is a discussion-document outlining the true story of the LIBN project in a way which can be verified from recourse to available interviews with Beatles and Abbey Road personnel. I have not at this stage got references pinned down and trust that those with expertise can verify my outline proposition without recourse to references for the moment in knowledge that they exist.

I think there's a glaring problem with the article which begins with 'The project was overseen by Paul McCartney' and goes on to say 'is presented in a form which Paul McCartney considers closer to its original artistic vision'. While neither of these statements are untrue, they are incomplete and reflect an unqualified (and unqualifiable) supposition, widespread in media-commentary at time of release, that this project is a McCartney 'vanity' project.

Firstly, given the legal and management structure of Apple Corps, as is well known, it is not possible for Paul McCartney to direct projects autonomously. Indeed, McCartney's choice of material for the Anthology project had been vetoed by George Harrison on noted occasions ('Carnival of Light' being the best-publicised). George had also vetoed the title for the project which had remained since Neil Aspinall's first cut of the documentary in 1970 ('The Long and Winding Road) and both the Harrison and Lennon widows have vetos which were shown being exercised on film in the "All Together Now" documentary around the "Love" project. None of the ex-Beatles or their legal representatives can use Apple for 'vanity projects'.

Therefore, the article's strong reflection of the common supposition of McCartney's hand at its wheel means that it has been corrupted and a rewrite should start with a modification to 'The project was overseen by the surviving Beatles' or an equivalent in accuracy.

It may seem that here is a pernickety point which can just be altered but I ask for more than that. I ask that the LIBN project be wholly redefined. It has a quite different story than the media soundbite of 'Macca's revenge on Phil Spector' suggest and it is this story which Wikipedia seeks to tell. It is the story of the original 'back to basics' concept for 'Get Back'/'Let It Be' being freshly rebooted by The Beatles and Co using new technology.

Its origins are in the revisiting of master tapes by George Martin during the Anthology project. During this, he selected and released several unSpectorised outtakes from the 'Let It Be' sessions on the Anthology CDs of 1996.

In subsequent 1996 promotion for these Anthology CDs (included in part on an extras disc which came with the Anthology DVD boxed set in 2003 and on additional promotional material elsewhere), Paul McCartney and George Harrison are asked on video whether there is to be further output of unreleased material from the Abbey Road vaults. McCartney jokes that it would have to be called 'Scraping The Bottom of the Barrel' but also adds 'maybe a couple of things'. Harrison, by contrast, immediately makes reference to work-in-progress on three projects that will be completed by Apple beyond his lifetime: 'Yellow Submarine (Songtrack)', 'Magical Mystery Tour (DVD)' and 'Let It Be (Naked)'

It is also a matter of record that the production team since Anthology on all Apple Beatles projects have consistently described a situation of relative autonomy. It is THEY who call McCartney and Starr when they reach milestone points and all three Beatles have been interviewed expressing involvment, amazement and enthusiasm for what this team have been doing with restoration or remixing of Beatles material throughout 'Yellow Submarine Songtrack', 'Let It Be Naked', 'Love', the remasters and beyond. Their restatements of this autonomy continue with every new release.

Again, I haven't pinned these to evidence but I restate that an expert eye will have little problem verifying the above statements in outline.

Additional evidence of Harrison and Starr's close involvement with the LIBN project is in contemporary quotes and enthusing which formed part of the album package and in more extended form as part of the Let It Be Naked microsite at thebeatles.com. (The latter has been dead-linked for some years there but that I have just successfully had it restored by the design team for consideration along with this request so please have a look).

An overarching importance in this is that the original 'Let It Be' release provided the rationale for McCartney's first point of legal action to dissolve The Beatles, namely that his veto had been dumped. The basis of the reactivated Apple since the 90's has been restoration of the single veto which had marked all Beatles activity prior to the 'Let It Be' release in 1970. For this reason, a revision of this article has wider context.

'Let It Be Naked' was not and could not have been a McCartney project.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelk xsx (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 

@Michaelk xsx: Sorry, I reverted your edit without having read this first. Still, I think you're only part right at best.

Yes, any Apple project for decades now has been subject to negotiations involving all four Beatles or their widows/estates, in the case of Lennon and Harrison. And yes, McCartney's 1970–71 High Court case was built on his claim that he had been excluded from the decision-making with regard to Spector's involvement in the 1970 Let It Be release.

But, on the first point, what Beatles biographers and the media have commented on is the give-and-take aspect within the "Beatles family". For instance, with McCartney having been vetoed by Ono, Harrison and Starr to alter Lennon–McCartney songwriting credits to either McCartney or McCartney–Lennon on the Anthology project, in the mid '90s, he was then entitled to some leeway about a project further down the line. As Howard Sounes and others have written, Let It Be, particularly "The Long and Winding Road", remained McCartney's bugbear long after 1970: he did that song his way (not Phil Spector's) in 1976 on Wings over America, and again for 1984's Give My Regards to Broad Street; and the sparse original track appears on Anthology 3 in 1996. But that obviously wasn't enough. There's a McCartney biographer – I think it's Peter Ames Carlin – who comments that he stepped up his post-Lennon attempts to establish his legacy in 2000–01, particularly with Wingspan, and that Let It Be … Naked was another episode (the 2002 Back in the U.S. McCartney–Lennon controversy coming in between). So, while any talk of LIBN being a straight-out "vanity project" might be misinformed, a) many reliable sources do see it that way (and we are meant to reflect what's notable and prevalent about the subject of each article); and b) such a claim regarding the reissue project being McCartney-instigated is not so far-fetched, given the history and the compromises he appears to have had to live with during Anthology. Not to mention Harrison having vetoed the DVD release for Lindsay-Hogg's Let It Be doc, of course. (Would McCartney have just accepted that, do you think?)

Regarding Let It Be's importance in the High Court case: okay, but Starr testified that McCartney was fine about Spector's album when they each received an acetate on 2 April 1970. It was only close to a week after McCartney had left the Beatles on 9 April, according to Peter Doggett, that he voiced his disapproval of "The Long and Winding Road" to Allen Klein. Yet I've read much about how McCartney has since cited Spector's treatment of that song as being a cause behind his departure from the Beatles, and that he didn't even know Spector was working on the Get Back tapes. This last point is refuted by what Doggett has unearthed – because apparently, while McCartney had gone underground and not responded to messages from Apple about Spector's involvement, the other Beatles waited weeks before acting, until McCartney eventually did respond and gave his okay for Spector to begin work. Meaning, it's very easy to read McCartney's actions then, and most importantly his reflections ever since, as being indicative of the emotional turmoil he was experiencing at the time. Just as one hesitates before taking Lennon's acidic, Primal Therapy-inspired declarations to Rolling Stone in December 1970 as his last word on the Beatles, on George Martin, on Derek Taylor, on Neil Aspinall, etc., I can't help thinking that McCartney's (frequent) comments about Let It Be need to be accompanied by a healthy dose of salt. And one needs to consider the 2003 Naked project in that context. I say "one needs to" – I mean, commentators and biographers do.

I agree that the official Apple "message" of the reissue campaign should have a healthy presence in the article, but so should the widely held view that challenges the "party line" (a phrase Ian MacDonald used to describe the tone of the Anthology project in 1995–96). LIB Naked was a highly controversial release. Doggett writes, "it was accurately described by the New York Times as 'Let It Be with a fig leaf' – a pointless and faintly insulting project, widely ignored by the public". As much as that sort of commentary probably belongs in a Reception section, "History" still has to convey the background that contributed to how the world perceived the 2003 release, surely. I haven't read this article properly in a long while, but – just as a for-instance – it's currently underplaying the situation with that statement under "History": "McCartney's attitude contrasted with Lennon's from over two decades earlier." Both Harrison and Starr write positively of Spector's work, in the 2000 Anthology book, so in fact, McCartney's attitude contrasted with what all his bandmates appear to have felt about the original Let It Be album. JG66 (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@JG66: All thanks for this response, JG66. I'm a very intermittent wiki contrib and didn't even realise I'd performed an edit as I certainly intended to discuss. Apologies if this was out of order. I think what we'd probably agree on, as alluded to by yourself, is that the 'Reception' section might be the appropriate place to take up the controversial background aspects to the release but my suggestion regarding the article has been that it has presented this context upfront as a 'fact' of the release when it is not, obscuring the ACTUAL fact of the LIBN project having been undertaken fully within the meticulous negotiative and collaborative process of agreement that was the task of Apple's CEO, Neil Aspinall. In short, we have 'press speculation' leading the article, which is surely undesirable.

To restate my interest in making this suggestion, I have noted that speculation abroad concerning LIBN has moved further off the facts (which Wikipedia's mission is surely to root) in that a notion of McCartney's 'hand on the wheel' of LIBN (again, purely speculative and deriving from pre-existing 'break up' controversy, since it is established that CEO Aspinall commissioned the project, assigning Abbey Road staff with substantial 'production-autonomy' as is also in the record as not just a fact of the LIBN project but all of the Apple projects after 1990) has since led to the proliferation of further speculations-as-fact, including that he waited until Harrison was dead to initiate the project. While we can't address every such off-mark speculation, the fact that Harrison is the first to mention that a new 'Let It Be'-related project is forthcoming (in 1996, during promotion for 'Anthology 3' wherein the first deSpectorised versions of 'Let It Be' project tracks are presented) only serves to re-emphasise that the 'official' Apple story on LIBN is to be preferred over the opinions-presented-as-facts of journalists. I am well aware that there is pro and anti McCartney sentiment at large on this but it really isn't helpful that a Wikipedia article seeking to ground factual information, should find itself effectively promoting one of these positions against the availability of superior factual data concerning the process of the project. Again, I'd invite other researchers to look into the LIBN production process at Apple as I think there's an important distinction to draw out.

Please also note that after reading the reverted article again, I have flagged multiple instances where citation is needed. Of these, the assertion that McCartney recruited the engineers for the project is absolutely in need of a citation should one exist. I would present this particular assertion as argument for my suggestion that the article is presently verging on fictitious and may need substantial rewrite (I had mistitled this suggestion 'from scratch' alluding to the basic factual misrepresentation I'm raising). The engineers on the post-90's Apple projects have done many interviews (some cited in the article!) in which they detail how they came to get their jobs and in all instances they were cast by Neil Aspinall, originally for 'Anthology', his executive production and since retained. Michaelk xsx (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of John Lennon's bass playing

I have this album and I don't mean to be subjective but I think that John Lennon didn't do too bad on Let It Be and The Long and Winding Road. I don't know why Ian MacDonald described Lennon's bass playing as "atrocious to the point of sabotage." I think that John did just fine. I guess it's possible that studio technicians may have corrected his mistakes or Paul McCartney may have removed John Lennon's bass line and replaced it with his own bass part.--Kevjgav (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kevjgav Yes, although Lennon is correctly assigned as playing 'fretless bass' by MacDonald, the author doesn't seem to have the musicianly knowledge to understand that the use of 'fretless' instruments routinely results in off-pitch notes. To characterise a shortfall in precision during a live performance as an act of 'sabotage' is therefore fanciful in the extreme. Furthermore, since Lennon is seen in the movie intensely focussed on his playing for the track, this is surely another instance of opinion-as-fact, deriving from polar journalistic positions relating to the band's break-up. Michaelk xsx (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Michaelk xsx I didn't realize Lennon played a 'fretless bass' in those songs. In the movie he's playing a Fender Bass VI. But I did know that 'fretless' instruments have some off-pitch notes. I don't mean to change the subject here, but Pink Floyd used a 'fretless bass' in Hey You and the off-pitch notes are clearly audible in the intro. Is a Fender Bass VI a 'fretless bass'? I always thought it was six-string bass. This wouldn't be the only time the instrumentation in a Beatles movie or Beatles video was different from that of the studio. One such example is the performance of The Long and Winding Road in the movie where Billy Preston is seen playing a Hammond organ in the keyboard solo, but in the studio, he played a Fender Rhodes electric piano. Another is Hey Jude where the video shows in vision George Harrison playing a Fender Bass VI, but Paul McCartney played bass in the studio. I didn't mean to go off topic by the way.--Kevjgav (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A Fender Bass VI is not fretless. And I doubt that they are playing a fretless bass. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And Beatles Gear by Andy Babiuk doesn't mention a fretless bass. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what Ian MacDonald was thinking when he credited Lennon on fretless bass. In List of the Beatles' instruments it doesn't list a fretless bass. I don't think that MacDonald knew anything about The Beatles' instruments. Paul McCartney used a Hofner 500/1 (essentially a semi-acoustic bass) and a Rickenbacker 4001S, and on occasions, John Lennon and George Harrison would play a Fender Bass VI. None of these instruments are fretless.--Kevjgav (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

But MacDonald doesn't make any mention of Lennon playing a fretless bass on the track – at least not in the 1998 edition of his book. MacDonald does make a lot of mistakes and/or draws some rather blinkered conclusions, usually in McCartney's favour (his statements on McCartney being unaware of Spector's involvement at the time and on Lennon's behaviour being "appalling" are typical examples, in my opinion). But I can't see that we can lay the "fretless" issue at his door. Unless it's something that he added in the 2005 edition maybe? JG66 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The naked producers would have cleaned up John Lennon's bass playing on "The Long and Winding Road" if there was anything wrong with it. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Chatter

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

Remix album?

In 1969 Glyn Johns took the original session tapes and selected certain takes, mixed and edited them, and assembled an album titled Get Back.

In 1970 Phil Spector took the original session tapes and selected certain takes, mixed and edited them, and assembled an album titled Let It Be.

In 2002 Allan Rouse took the original session tapes and selected certain takes, mixed and edited them, and assembled an album titled Let It Be... Naked

Each album was mixed and assembled from scratch with different objectives in mind. None are remixes of an earlier album. Piriczki (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Piriczki: My reverts weren't in support of the album type being "remix", but against it being '"studio". Regardless, the issue here is a limitation of terminology — there are only 13 preset album types in the template and, of these, "remix" is really the only one that comes close to describing what Let It Be... Naked is. There's the option to set a custom album type, of course, and if you want to change it to something like "alternate recording mix" (which for all intents and purposes might as well be "remix"), then by all means go ahead do so. You could even blank out the "type" field if none of the prior options are acceptable to you. Just don't change it back to "studio" — studio albums are generally considered part of an artist's core output and are expected to contain new material; it's not a "none of the above" category. In general, if you feel something is somewhat inaccurate, the solution isn't to change it to something that is obviously wrong. Finally, regardless of what you change the "type" field to be, please make sure to also change it in the extra chronology template, so that at least the colors on the top and bottom will match. LifeofTau 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Life of Tau, Piriczki, Jc86035, TheFrog001: Can I suggest we go with "studio/remix album". It's not a very satisfactory categorisation, in my opinion. But if we do have to label the album in some way (and unfortunately Wikipedia's all about this sort of b-s categorisation), it at least reflects the message given in the track-by-track description in the article. JG66 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternate album mix seems OK to me, I didn't know it was an option. I just can't see using "remix" as this was a new album compiled from scratch, not a remix of the Phil Spector version. Oddly, Let It Be Naked is the only collection of this material that was intended to sound like a straightforward studio album. Piriczki (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Piriczki: It's not an option; the colour displayed is for values which the template doesn't recognize. A new definition could be added to {{Infobox album/link}} and {{Infobox album/color}}, although this page would probably be the only ever use of it. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jc86035: There's no need to add a new definition; a custom type like "alternate album mix" falls in the "other" category. The displayed color is allowed in cases like this. LifeofTau 16:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Piriczki: As you can see above, this is not a valid type. Why are you reverting this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I am reverting this because it is not a remix album. In fact, this is the only assemblage of these sessions that was intended to be a studio album. If a valid definition according to Wikipedia editors is required, then it should be "studio." Piriczki (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Setting a custom type is allowed in the template, as can be seen here. LifeofTau 23:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Life of Tau: No, it is not "allowed"--this adds it to a tracking category for articles with errors: Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Koavf: @Piriczki: Didn't know that – the template page shouldn't list "other" as an option if it isn't intended to be one; I imagine most of the pages in that category are the result of users making the same assumption I did. However, the current situation, which I believe looks like this:

User	Prefers	Will tolerate	Considers unnacceptable
Piriczki	Studio	Custom	Remix
Life of Tau	Custom	Remix	Studio
Koavf	Remix, Studio, etc.	N/A	Custom

is completely unstable. Perhaps an RfC will help resolve this. LifeofTau 08:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• It makes no sense to classify Naked as a studio album any more than it does Love or Anthology. If the "track-by-track details" are to be believed, then 8 out of the 11 Naked tracks source the same masters as Spector did. That makes it essentially a remix of the original Let It Be. There is no Beatles album called Get Back -- that was just the first name assigned to early draft mixes of Let It Be. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• I think the best thing to do is add |display_type= to the album infobox, and then fill it in as |display_type=Alternative album mix.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Glyns Johns' versions of the album were more than just draft mixes. An album master tape was completed and cover artwork prepared in May 1969 for release as Get Back in July. Johns completed another master tape in January 1970, adding two songs heard in the film and removing one not in the film, and the cover artwork was revised with the title now Let It Be. Phil Spector then came in in March and compiled his version of the album which was the one released with completely different cover artwork. Both Spector's Let It Be and Let It Be Naked were compiled from scratch from the same studio sessions and the engineers on Let It Be Naked used both Johns versions and Spector's version as a reference. Just because one came after the other doesn't make it a remix, and just because one is a studio album doesn't mean the other can't be too. What if the 2003 release had been titled Get Back? What would it be classified as then? Piriczki (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

My point is that Get Back doesn't exist as a real Beatles album. It's only a stillborn version of the album we all know as Let It Be. It wasn't uncommon for albums of that period to have completed masters or packaging that differed substantially from the final product.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Rick Rubin Interview

As a contemporary interview with producer Rick Rubin (certainly a Notable person) seems relevant, I’m posting Rubin’s views. Please stop deleting them—they are not my opinions and the factuality ofRubin’s View’s is irrelevant: they factually are Rubin’s views. I am not saying that Lennon always had a doubling effect on his voice: Rubin is. I’m not saying that there was production on it: Rubin is. If you want to get in an edit war, do it with Rubin: I’m just reporting what a notable producer and avowed Beatles fan said about the production of a Beatles album. --Akhenaten0 (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your contribution makes no sense, with praise abruptly followed by criticism. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

My intent to show a mixed review, although leaning more on criticism than praise. Should this info go in a different section? Is Rubin non-notable on matters of production or specifically Beatles production? Why keep deleting the Analog Planet citation at the end, when it’s just in keeping with the other sourcing in the list: that alone feels a little overzealous.--Akhenaten0 (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that the addition makes no sense. It could be phrased better, but it is introduced as "mixed feelings", so the combination of praise and criticism makes sense (to me). I do think, though, we could and should find a "mixed" professional review or two and include comments from those. Naked was fairly controversial, coming soon after the media storm about the "McCartney–Lennon" credit reversal, and it was seen as an example of McCartney continuing to mould the Beatles' legacy to his satisfaction. And it has to be said that, for a Beatles release in the 21st century, the album's critical and commercial reception was very poor, so this article should reflect that. JG66 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There are several problems with this contribution. The first is that it is derived from an interview. Interviews are often poor sources because the respondent is answering questions off the top of the head without time for consideration and certainly not time for fact checking. Responses may be based on an inaccurate memory or a mistaken assumption. Respondents often don't fully explain themselves and interviewers rarely ask for clarification. All of these issues are present here. Some of Rubin's responses don't make much sense without further clarification. In comparing Let It Be Naked to Let It Be he singles out the song "Two of Us" which is odd since of all the criticisms of Phil Spector's work this track is usually exempt if not praised. And of all the new mixes on Let It Be Naked, this one probably has the fewest differences, if any, from the original. Exactly what particular opinion or critique is being conveyed to the reader by citing this particular track? Or does Rubin just like the song? He also mentions artificial double tracking and effects that "make the John Lennon sound." The "John Lennon sound" was the work of Geoff Emerick who, along with his sound, was absent from these recordings. Is Rubin unaware that there was no ADT or other effects used during these sessions? Was he aware that this was the approach the Beatles, particularly Lennon, wanted, according to George Martin, a producer who actually knew Lennon and was there. Is Rubin speculating that Lennon wouldn't have liked his vocals on either album? Or just the later album? Is he saying that the vocal sound was inconsiderate of Lennon or that releasing the album at all was inconsiderate? Is he saying that ADT and other effects should have been added to Lennon's vocals on Let It Be Naked? Rubin's comments are pure speculation based on a inconsistent interpretation of the Beatles recording history. The only opinion he clearly expressed here is about "The Long and Winding Road." I would leave that in and dispense with the rest. Piriczki (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue Rubin's correctness, but it does seem from the interview, off-the-cuff though it may be, was from the point of view of someone who had thought about it. Yes, it is speculation, but it is his speculation. As for "Two of Us," that's why I cut it out—I wanted to focus on Rubin's most striking claim. Talking yourself about Emerick seems more WP:OR than just making a note of it. A strong opinion about the work by a notable person seems relevant to me, but certainly I am not a producer, nor a Beatles researcher, nor a Rubin researcher. My apologies.--Akhenaten0 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Dig A Pony

"Also, whereas the original album track featured Lennon beginning to play the song's final guitar riff one beat too early, this version mixes the error out, leaving a clean outro."

While this is true in the rooftop concert, I believe this was fixed for the Let it Be album. So this should be removed. WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes but was it fixed for the Let It Be album? Or was it just fixed for Let It Be... Naked? If it's the latter, then I disagree with the information being removed. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 13:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Across the Universe" "correct" speed and key

"This marks the second appearance of the track in its correct key as recorded..."

"A remix of the original version recorded on 4 February 1968, played at the correct speed..."

I would argue that the term "originally recorded" would be more appropriate than "correct". When the album was originally mixed and mastered, it was decided the song sounded better slowed down. That's the way it was released; to me, that makes it the "correct" speed and key. Rmhand (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Would someone argue that the "correct" version of Strawberry Fields Forever would have the tempo abruptly change one minute into the song? Or that George Martin's piano part in "In My Life" in "incorrect" because it we hear it at a different speed then it was recorded at? Rmhand (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

IMO the wording "correct speed" is correct - though I wouldn't object to "originally recorded" (but then the first "original" in that line would have to go). If there were a debate about the production of Strawberry Fields or In My Life and various versions around, you would have a point. Then the published speed of those songs would not be correct. But since there is no such contention, Across the Universe remains a unique case. There is absolutely no basis to call the Spector production "correct". Str1977 ^(talk) 17:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Weekly charts in 2013

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