Talk:Let It Be (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleLet It Be (song) was one of the Music good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 29, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 31, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Added 'amen'[edit]

I just added an explantion pointing out that "Let it be" indeed means, or translates to if you will, "Amen." I am sure someone here will jiggle it around in the best way as desired.

All of these articles on the Beatle's songs are very well-written, it's a great section! Cheers!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 July 2007

Please see my comment under the Amen heading, below. I created a new heading only because I hadn't noticed your comment, since the standard is to add comments at the bottom of the page. Please see Help:Talk_pages#Using_talk_pages regarding that point and about signing your comments. --rich<Rich Janis 01:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

General discussion[edit]

I like to see it made possible to link the article on the song, "Let It Be" to itunes.com and/or to Yahoo Music. (Is it possible now to link to free song clips on itunes.) That's what a song is all about, the music.

Does anyone have an authoritative source demonstrating the origins of this song? I'd like to have an interview with Paul and/or John linked to here. - McCart42 01:41, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

Rather than the Spector version having a "different" guitar solo, isn't it double tracked? i.e. a second solo has been overdubbed onto the one we hear on the single. I don't know about you guys but I think on all the other versions the guitar sounds like an elastic band, only on the Spector album is it a hair raising moment! :-) --kingboyk 12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The solo on the Spector version is definately different, just listen! The source for this info come from the Lewisohn books (I've added the refs to the article). I agree the January 70 solo is the best, although I don't like the Spector mix. simonthebold 11:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why the clean-up tag?[edit]

? Badgerpatrol 02:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err... for the reason clearly stated in my edit summary!
{{cleanup}} - the stuff abt versions and solos is confusing. Let's have in b&w how many versions there are (4 I think?) and how the solos differ.
--kingboyk 13:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much much better now! :) Finally it all makes sense. --kingboyk 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...another parody...[edit]

I believe the Rolling Stone's parodied 'Let It Be,' with their album 'Let It Bleed.' Can anyone verify this?

The only way you'd know is if you've heard both songs, but I personally don't see any resemblances.

Radical AdZ


The resemblance is supposed to be in the title. Though, I also think it is unlikely that the Stones intended "Let it Bleed" as a parody of "Let it Be." I don't know the recording histories very well, but the Stones' album was released one year before The Beatles'.

John & The Yippies[edit]

I re-inserted the alleged "second hand blog entry nonsense". First of all, most of the stuff and interpretation written about The Beatles are second hand; second, I think it's an interesting testimony to the political change and awakening John was undergoing at the time - which would eventually make him an enemy of Edgar Hoover and have him deported from the States (just as he was collaborating with the very same Stewart Albert). And besides, so what if the song is Paul's, not John's? He was still entitled to apply his own interpreatation as he sang it - just as we are entitled to our own interpretations as we listen. —This unsigned comment was added by 138.40.149.75 (talk • contribs) .

Reply:
Paul sang Let It Be, not John. As a rule they mostly sang their own songs (with some exceptions). The article is about the song Let it Be and not about John's supposed political leanings. The band were naturally left-wing and Labour supporters (this is well documented). John toyed with communist ideas and other radical philosophy. He gave his answer to the leftest revolutionaries in the song 'Revolution' released over a year prior to this song. I think this hearsay should be removed a it is not NPOV and no sources are cited. Possibly if some evidence can be found then it could be included in the John Lennon article. simonthebold 09:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivia and as far as I am concerned only aggrandises the writer of the blog. This is an article about the song, not a dump for every last piece of hearsay and trivia ever uttered about it. I fully support what Simon says too; in particular, it was a McCartney song, so secondhand claims by Lennon are irrelevant even if true. --kingboyk 16:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the original performer?[edit]

This article was very informative. However I am not sure who performed it originally? I think it was John Lennon, maybe this information could be in the introduction if somebody knows... - Abscissa 05:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it was originally sung by Paul. He wrote it.

Paul obviously. Listen to the voice, how could you not know. Plus, by this time John and Paul always sang lead on their own songs--since Paul write it, he sang it (the two have very different voices so you should be able to tell). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Chord[edit]

The one at 2:59 is not at all a "wrong" chord! It's just not exactly identical to the other repetitions of that fragment, but it can be understood as a more complex harmonization. --- Gabriele, 10/22/06

It's very likely a wrong chord as the right hand is played precisely one shift to the right - i.e. B, D and F instead of A, C and E - indicating Paul made a mistake; he plays an A with his left hand). Regardless, it's a pleasantly dissonant chord. (Protestnt 2022/01/02)

Chords[edit]

The song begins with C G A minor F. Lots of songs use this, including Break Away by Kelly Clarkson, Superman by Five for Fighting, Can You Feel the Love Tonight by Elton John, and Dammit by Blink 182. What song first used this chord progression? There are a list of very popular songs that use it; I'm just curious.

Linda's Only Beatles Performance?[edit]

The article claims that Linda's backing vocals on 'Let it Be' is her only performance on a Beatles record. Mark Lewisohn's book is cited as a source for this claim, so perhaps it is true. But I'm quite certain that Linda also performed backing vocals on 'Birthday' from The White Album. And in fact, the Wikipedia entry on tha song mentions Linda (along with Yoko) as one of the female vocalists on that song. In any case, there is an inconsistency here: either 'Let it Be' is not Linda's only performance on a Beatles' album, or she didn't actually perform on 'Birthday'. Someone should fix this.

"Final" Song?[edit]

Am I the only one that finds this pun a little bit out of place or distasteful. I understand that this information may be useful in the article, but making the pun in the title seems to belittle his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.231.84 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign you posts with ~~~~.
I am not sure what you are talking about, but I do know that one of The Beatles says "fucked it" in an outtake of "Let it Be".[1][2] I can't find any reliable sources that prove this, and even if I did I don't know if this fact is nontrivial enough to be included in this article. --Spunionztastic (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Letitbe single.jpg[edit]

Image:Letitbe single.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added fair use rationale. John Cardinal 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, John. --andreasegde 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen[edit]

I'm removing the Amen section, which was added by the edit of 12:27, 2 July 2007 81.149.36.207, for the following reasons. So far, the section makes a good observation, which would be appropriate for a review or an editorial. To make it encyclopedic, I believe that it would have to describe (with appropriate citation) The Beatles' intent, or, at the very least, if that intent is subject to speculation, it should cite the independent researchers who are trying to resolve that issue, rather than appear as the editor's opinion. Also, unless The Beatles' intent was specifically directed at the song, the point made applies to the album title, so I suggest that it would be better placed in the Let It Be (album) article (again, with appropriate wording & documentation). Finally, on a minor formatting matter, if this point is restored it should use quotation marks (not apostrophes) around the word Amen, just as quotation marks are used elsewhere in that paragraph (see WP:MOS#Quotation_marks). --rich<Rich Janis 00:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

I believe with the deletion. John Cardinal 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nominee[edit]

I have nominated this article to be a Good Article. I think it is very well done, and passes. FamicomJL 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not digging the sprawling lists at the end of the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Cover versions list should only feature artists that are well-known. --andreasegde 14:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut down the lists, because trivia is frowned upon. Sorry. --andreasegde 15:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's looking very good. --andreasegde 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly agree with a few that have been removed because "well known" is subjective but I think if you're going for GA and beyond, I would simply remove both sections of Cover Versions and Cultural References altogether, because you're right, lists are frowned upon. I applaud your work so far. ♫ Cricket02 02:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave notable covers and cultural references in. Yes, they are lists in the generic sense of the word, but they are not what the WP policy is trying to prevent. More importantly, cover versions and cultural references are a measure of the importance of the song to other artists and awareness in the general public of the song. Trimming the lists to notable occurrences makes sense, but deleting them entirely is not necessary or desirable. John Cardinal 04:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine either way, but maybe we should wait and see what the reviewer has to say. (It would be nice to convert the lists into text, but it would probably end up being as long as the article; who played on them, chart positions and so on...) --andreasegde 09:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I only cut out the ones that were not mentioned specifically in Wiki, or had no external references. --andreasegde 09:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song sample[edit]

I put one in. Boy, was that tough work (having never done it before, and I had to do it a few times...) --andreasegde 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems to have been deleted, and I don't know why because the original filename was removed from the infobox (so I can't find its page on Images/Media for Deletion). Can someone else upload a sample of this song? –Edward Tremel (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry Aid[edit]

I find it strange that the Ferry Aid page directs to here. It is surely worth some kind of article, if only because a large group of musicians got together to raise money for victims of a disaster. I wonder if other charity records have a page? I would think so.--andreasegde 09:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon[edit]

If Lennon hated the song so much, why did he allow the whole album to be named after it? Something fishy here, methinks... --andreasegde 10:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that Lennon hated the song. The relevant part says that he "was not fond" of the song, and I think that characterization is an accurate way to summarize his opinion at least as it was expressed in the 1980 Playboy interview. Certainly, there are other ways to characterize his opinion, but the quote is there and so readers can form their own opinion. Why did Lennon agree to name the album Let It Be? Don't know. I am not aware of any source material about it. I suspect that as a practical matter, the album had to be named for the film, and Lennon either felt that the film title was apropos given the status of the band or just didn't care enough to fight about it. Maybe he didn't like Let It Be less than he didn't like Get Back. Maybe he thought Let It Be was crap and wanted it named after a McCartney song rather than one of his. Maybe he liked it in 1969/70, but by 1980 his opinion had changed. In any case, I don't think there's anything fishy. People are complex and situations are complex and multiplying people times situations leads to tangled webs, including the WWW and WP! <g> John Cardinal 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only being humourous about it, if truth be told. Although, after listening to/reading a few Lennon interviews I feel that the real truth was always hidden between themselves, and what came out in the press was something different altogether. If you look at this video, it's hard to believe there were so many "troubled sessions", although there were probably a few backbiting comments made - as in all bands... Both Lennon and McCartney said that they were "just a nice little rock 'n roll band". Harrison said that working with McCartney and Starr on the "Free as a bird" song was nice because, "they don't look at me as if I'm a Beatle." The pressure must have been incredibly hard to take.
On a lighter note, you should watch this: "What If the Beatles Were Irish?" by Roy Zimmerman. :) --andreasegde 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I have a history of not knowing when you are joking... I agree that what the press/public got was usually filtered pretty heavily. They were pretty good at that, even early on. Re the pressure: I can't imagine what it was like. Yes, the adoration was probably nice, but living under siege for years can take an enormous toll on someone. I think it was Lennon who said something to the effect that The Beatles traded their nervous systems for fame and fortune! John Cardinal 15:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was George on the Antholgy DVD, and how right he was. Sorry about confusing you with the humour stuff, but when I write something that sounds nice, I'm being nice (re; the comment about me supposedly being sarcastic that you very nicely replied to on my talk page.) If I sound a little bit like Victorian-era Sherlock Holmes ("The chase is afoot, Watson!") then I'm definitely being silly, and should probably be sent to bed without any supper. (See? I'm doing it again... :) --andreasegde 15:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists[edit]

I have condensed the list by grouping together the various artists in their musical styles. I hope it will suffice. --andreasegde 16:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions[edit]

I have been asking around and I have found a few versions of the song, but my conscience doesn't want me to upload them. I'm sorry - they're just nowhere near the original. If anyone has heard a really great version, I might be tempted to upload it if they can tell me who sung it, which record label, etc...--andreasegde 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned the mess I made with the quotation marks and italics. I have also taken a few "Let It Be"s out, as they seemed repetitous. --andreasegde 09:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like Joan Baez' 1971 cover version better than the original. It uses the "There will be no sorrow" line from the film version, so it might be worth mentioning in the film chapter. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I jut saw there already is a Covers section. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aretha/Wexler[edit]

Can someone check the reference for the Wexler citation on the comments that allege the song was originally intended for Aretha? I've read almost everything about Macca that there is to read, and I've never heard it was intended for her, and so I think the Wexler info may not support that claim. The part about The Beatles reacquiring the rights is not correct; songwriters don't have to reacquire rights. This whole section is dubious and poorly written. John Cardinal 19:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned this rather spurious declaration and have added it to cover versions. I checked the internet very carefully. (She waited two years until she could study the lyrics? I don't think so...) --andreasegde 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this: "Inspired by the church-born soul of Aretha Franklin, an anxious Paul McCartney started writing "Let It Be" in 1968, during the contentious sessions for the White Album. Is that POV? Yes, and that's it... --andreasegde 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass[edit]

My favourite Beatles song...here's a GA pass, with a few suggestions, as always.

  • "Single by The Beatles from the album 'Let It Be… Naked'" (infobox) - This should note the original album, not the remix or whatever it was.
  • Lead ends with two full stops. Also needs a minor touch up and copyedit.
  • "It will be alright, just let it be.[5]" - No need to italicise, we get the point that it's the song title.
  • ""an intimate bioscopic experience with THE BEATLES".[9]" - Don't need the caps, just put in in normal case.
  • "Anthology version" section should be expanded or merged into others.
  • I've done a bit of minor copyediting just to make it read a bit better - help me out :)

 — H2O —  09:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you kindly, Sir. --andreasegde 12:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Cover Version Addition?[edit]

I was wondering if anyone else thinks that it would be worthwhile to add the cover version of this song from the recently released movie "Across the Universe". The version is of a high quality and has become immensely poplar. I was going to add it myself, but wasn't sure whether it would be acceptable, seeing as the section is for "Selected Cover Versions". EmilyELewis (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Accomp[edit]

Deleted it because it added nothing but a single individual's personal reaction to the intro. On top of it all, the piano transcription given was incorrect. No offense, but this reads like a bad analysis paper: It does not present any objective analysis (harmonic, rhythmic, etc.). InFairness (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel section[edit]

the personnel section needs to be better. Is that the personnel from the album version or single version? and where is the sax and cello etc? Helpsloose 22:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate infoboxes for single and album track[edit]

To avoid misleading interpretations because the single and album versions of this song are different, John Cardinal and myself came up with the solution of two separate infoboxes, one for the single and the other for the album track. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 solos are the same?[edit]

I've been playing guitar for quite some time now (not a year) but my music ear is developing somewhat... I've been comparing the film solo and the naked solo... many time repeatedly. I'm wondering... are they the same? I know the versions aren't the same with where the lyrics were placed,but the solos seem to be the same... are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.120.130 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Beatles Bible, the solos are different. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Aretha's version a cover?[edit]

How is Aretha's version a cover when she released her version before The Beatles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketlow (talk • contribs) 17:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not her song.74.234.103.211 (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not answer the question. If an artist releases the first version of a song how can that be a remake if there are no other versions released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.248.253 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Charles Cover[edit]

I don't know what this article has established as notable for the covers section, but I personally think the Ray Charles cover from True to Life is amazing. 75.93.212.49 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source for the song, stick it in. You don't have to ask before you edit that page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul is dead[edit]

For though they may be parted "PAUL IS DEAD" Böri (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen (1:07) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcBnJw-H2wQ Böri (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really Gospel music? I "Mother Mary" is his mother, it isn't really Christian, is it? Connor.martin.williams (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether this is gospel music. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for a mix of this song[edit]

They should release a Beatles version of this song identical to the single version but with the second overdub guitar solo from the album version. Also they should have the two overdub guitar solos playing at the same volume rather than the second one playing over the first. Without counting the additional editing that Phil Spector made, the only thing I find disappointing with the album version is that it doesn't have George Harrison and John Lennon's harmony vocals, not to mention Linda McCartney's crucial harmony vocal overdub except during the first chorus. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McCartney on backing vocals[edit]

The fact that Linda McCartney provided backing vocals for the single release of Let It Be only contradicts from information I found when reading the Let It Be album page.

Information I found while reading the Let It Be song Personnel

Information I found while reading the Let It Be album Personnel

Seeing as both pieces of information I've found clearly contradict one another. I feel we need to check which bit of information is correct. There are infact backing vocals heard during the first chorus on the album version.

I can make out what sounds like a third backing vocalist (Linda) along with the George Harrison / John Lennon backing vocals. But I want someone else to confirm whether this really is what I can hear.

The backing vocals are very faint during the first chorus of the album version, and for the rest, the backing vocals are removed completely. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I think I'll safely say that that is Linda, because it clearly isn't George and John on their own. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 11:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm a little late, but you're hearing right, C.Syde. Linda McCartney did perform backing vocals on both the single and album versions. I have many Beatles albums myself and I can also make out the sound of Linda's voice along with the voices of John Lennon and George Harrison. I agree that the additional backing vocals for the album version are Linda because it sounds like there is at least one other vocalist there besides Lennon and Harrison and I can't think of who else it would be other than Linda.--Kevjgav (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the article for Let It Be it says in the "personnel" section Linda McCartney - backing vocals on "Let It Be" just like you said, and you and I can both make out the sound of Linda's voice along with John Lennon and George Harrison and with all this being said I would say that it's Linda.--Kevjgav (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presence of an electric piano on single and album versions[edit]

I have heard all studio versions of this song and I can't help but notice that there is an electric piano heard after the second chorus and at the end of the song on the single and album versions. These are the only versions of the song where I heard the electric piano. Should there be any mentioning in the "single version" section of the article that an electric piano was overdubbed into the song? Who agrees and who disagrees? Explain.--Kevjgav (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Must I add that I heard what sounds like an electric piano on the single and album versions and I know the sound of an electric piano when I hear it. However, I would like someone else to verify that this was indeed an electric piano that I was hearing.--Kevjgav (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the anthology version, I noticed that there were no keyboards other than the acoustic piano.--Kevjgav (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, on second thought, I'll safely say that there is an electric piano on the single and album versions and will make that edit in the personnel section so that it reads, "Billy Preston-organ (except anthology release), electric piano (on single and album releases only)" and I hope you all understand that I don't mean any harm in my edits, but if anyone wants to revert my edit, knock yourselves out.--Kevjgav (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentation by version[edit]

There are four officially released studio versions of this song. The only version without Billy Preston's keyboard work is the "anthology version" while the only versions with the electric piano, orchestration and Linda McCartney's backing vocals are the "single version" and "album version." Also I have the original "Let It Be" album, Anthology 3, The Beatles 1 (which has the single version) and Let It Be...Naked. The "layered drumming" heard during the the third verse was not only Phil Spector's version, but I can also make out that sound on the "single version." The "layered drumming" (like the orchestration) is very faint in this version with Linda McCartney's backing vocals being more prominent than the other overdubs. With Spector's version on the other hand, there is a tape delay effect to the hi-hat during the second verse and a shaker along with more prominent "layered drumming" during the third verse which I hear Ringo Starr wasn't too fond of. The orchestration is also more prominent, and the backing vocals (heard only during the first chorus) and Billy Preston's keyboard work are the "very faint" sounds. Finally, the Let It Be...Naked version features the original instrumentation and actually sounds very similar to the single version, but a guitar is heard after the second chorus and at the end of the song instead of an electric piano and the production is much simpler.--Kevjgav (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestration on single and album versions[edit]

In this article and The Beatles Bible, I found two different bits of information that contradict one another.

This is the information I found while reading Let It Be (song)#Personnel-2 trumpets, 2 trombones, tenor saxophone, cello

This is the information I found while reading The Beatles Bible-2 trumpets, 2 trombones, tenor saxophone, cellos

I think we need to check on which bit of information is correct. The Beatles Bible says there are at least two cellos in the orchestration but this article says that there is only one cello. I consider the information in The Beatles Bible to be more accurate. But at the same time, I don't really know which is more accurate. I would like for other users to tell me what they think.--Kevjgav (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Let It Be (song)#Personnel has been updated saying that Peter Halling played the cello. I would like to thank whoever made that edit because that makes it more clear about who played what in the song--Kevjgav (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney on bass?[edit]

Can anyone verify that Paul McCartney played bass on the final takes? I have looked at every source of information I can find, and none of them say that McCartney played bass. Every site I have looked at says that John Lennon played bass on all versions of the song. I think that the claim of McCartney on bass for the final takes needs references to reliable sources because I can't find a site that lists McCartney on bass.--Kevjgav (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I provided indeed verify that Paul replaced John's bassline on the final release.61.69.217.3 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street[edit]

What about the Sesame Street sketch Letter B? 19:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Personnel credits[edit]

As with other articles on The Beatles, the personnel list here keeps getting reverted to many different reversions. But again, that personnel list for this song appears to be unsourced. Does anyone have the 2005 edition of Ian MacDonald's book? That's currently the source we cite for The Beatles song credits. If so, could someone please change the credits (back) to MacDonald's version?--Kevjgav (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed mention of "Wurlitzer"[edit]

I noticed the mention of Wurlitzer electric piano when The Beatles weren't really noted for that instrument, and were better known for the Hohner Pianet and Rhodes piano, so I edited that accordingly. Beginning in January 1969, they were mostly using the Rhodes (although the Hohner can be seen off to the side in the videos of The Beatles' rooftop concert) yet the electric piano on this song kinda sounds a Wurlitzer, AFAIK the closest thing they had to the Wurlitzer tonewise was the Hohner. Having said that, the electric piano on the original vinyl releases of this song was most likely a Hohner Pianet. But as not to contradict the info in the cited source, I edited this section to just say electric piano without being specific about the brand. The mention of Hammond organ doesn't seem to be as controversial since the Beatles made quite extensive use of the RT-3 early on, such as in Mr. Moonlight.--73.172.36.126 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the electric piano wasn't overdubbed until January 1970.61.69.217.3 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

See below as well. The white album sessions were indeed tense. See ML's account. What is not mentioned is what in particular started driving Macca round the twist. Hey Jude gives a hint. Again: see ML for more info. There was one person (not a Beatle) who was out of control. YO.

John's comments[edit]

I don't see why John insinuated that Paul was inspired by "Bridge Over Troubled Water" when he wrote "Let it Be", because a) The Beatles were recording in London and Simon & Garfunkel were recording in New York City, Los Angeles and Nashville and b) "Let it Be" was written and recorded prior to Paul Simon writing "Bridge Over Troubled Water", so it's impossible for McCartney to be inspired by "Bridge" to write "Let it Be". It's true that the songs were both number one hits in the United States during the same time frame, but I cannot detect any similarities other than being piano-based ballads. "Bridge Over Troubled Water" wasn't recorded - RECORDED, not RELEASED - until November 1969.61.69.217.3 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about death[edit]

I don't know this song has to do with death (other than it being written after Paul McCartney had a dream of his late mother, Mary McCartney, who died when Paul was 14 years of age) and looking at the "Origins" section, from what McCartney had described in an interview, my impression is that this song isn't really about death. Having said that, I'd be interested in knowing what the "songs about death" category is doing in this article. Personally, I'm considering removing it, but I'm not gonna do that without consensus first.--2601:153:900:43F0:3813:9EF8:FA5A:C703 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Composed of" or Comprised of"?[edit]

Giraffedata's version says "composed of" not "comprised of, but NovaBrunswick's version insists that "comprised of" is better. Furthermore, wikilinks should be kept as simple as possible, and NovaBrunswick's version has the original piped link beetles in place of the blended affix beetles, when the latter is the preferred style over the former. However, I also wanted to mention that beetles is a redirect to beetle, and so why fix something that's WP:NOTBROKEN?--2601:153:900:43F0:FCB2:84A4:246:C2B1 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 March 2019[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The prior title was redirected to this DAB. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 03:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Let It Be (song) → Let It Be (Beatles song) – Per WP:PARTIALDAB, conflict with Let It Be (Labrinth song) - as per current consensus at Talk:Hunger (Florence and the Machine song), there can be no primary topic for a disambiguator, no matter how important the Beatles may be. I don't personally understand the omission of the article in disambiguators only for songs by the Beatles, but I respect consistency with their other disambiguated song articles. Lazz_R 01:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 22:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There is no policy that requires disambiguation here. The Beatles song is far and away the primary topic in this case [3]. There are also more than 500 articles linked to The Beatles song [4]. See also WP:AINT and WP:IAR. Calidum 04:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SONGDAB: If two or more musical compositions share the same title, and disambiguation is necessary: requires disambiguation here. There aren't that many articles linked. Many of those are template links. In any case we could easily be lazy and not fix them all, just leave (song) redirecting to (Beatles song). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - While not a policy as Calidum required, here is a guideline - WP:INCDAB. A disambiguation is already not a primary, and as such should not be treated as such and the only thing that needs to be in our minds is our readers. A partially disambiguated page is always very confusing. Also, when disregarding an editor using in an essay in a discussion for an argument, it best not to use one yourself, glasshouse and such. --Gonnym (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there is a policy that requires disambiguation here: WP:TITLE. The current titling is probably just omission, since the other article was created 2014, though there was a failed push to make a separate rule for pop music albums and songs at odds with the rest of the encyclopedia about 5 years ago. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common sense, common name, and historic significance. Guidelines should guide until they don't. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, exactly how this is an improvement? © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This gets worse if it is adjusted to years. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Tbhotch's pageviews example. The Labrinth song gets only 2% of the views, so it's really a minor footnote rather than an relatively strong entry requiring mutual disambiguation. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is usually done, for example Yesterday (song) and Yesterday (Beatles song). Peter James (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the overwhelming WP:primary topic for songs titled "Let It Be". Just because the article title happens to include a qualifier, doesn't change the logic of getting most readers to the article they want on the first try, with hatnotes for the few who wind up in the wrong place. Station1 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom, there hasn't generally been consensus for PDABs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there is no such thing as a "primary" disambiguation. Move, fix links, and redirect to disambiguation page per WP:INCDAB. Furthermore, we should move the album to Let It Be (Beatles album) because between the album and the song on it, neither is primary. -- Netoholic @ 21:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per everyone. Honestly, I would sooner move it to Let It Be. Red Slash 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Let It Be and move the album to Let It Be (album). The Beatles song is the absolutely clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Netoholic is arguing for turning Let It Be into a disambiguation, not marking the song as primary. In any case, I am neutral between doing that and keeping the album where it is (as a sort of WP:CONCEPTDAB since both collectively form the undisputed primary topic), but very much oppose making the song primary per my cited pageviews below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The album is getting 61.2% of all the Let it Be topics, but it is sitting at baseline... In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Duke of Nonsense: Note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly says that any article with (dab) attached cannot be a primary topic by definition.... In ictu oculi (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Let It Be which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Let It Be (Beatles album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Which version of the song was used for track 26 of the compilation "1" (the album with a red background and a yellow "1" in its cover)? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bass dispute[edit]

I see that someone changed the bass credit to Lennon. Although Lennon played bass on the early takes (his bass parts can be heard in film version, Anthology version and "Naked" version, and is seen playing bass in the film) when The Beatles prepared the song for release, they recorded overdubs on 4 January 1970. During the overdub session, McCartney replaced Lennon's bass part with his own, at the behest of producer George Martin. The sources in the article clearly state that the bassline on the commercially released version is McCartney.2601:153:881:3D60:20B8:607:5095:C668 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone changed the bass credit again to Lennon, also deleting the sources that confirm it was McCartney (not Lennon) who played the bassline on the commercially released version. But I edit with my phone and don't have the same interface as desktop editors, so I don't know how to restore the references when reverting any edits in which references are deleted.2601:153:881:3D60:F0D0:F139:279F:A94F (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my edit [5] has done what you wanted. signed, Willondon (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2023[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, let it be. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several months after the song article was moved by an RM on the grounds there cannot be a primary topic of songs titled "Let It Be", an RfC modified WP:INCDAB to read In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. Basically, that policy ground is now faulty. In 2022, the Beatles song took 99.5% of the pageviews to songs with this title, and the Beatles album took 99.3% of pageviews to albums with this title. These articles are the pretty clear INCDAB primary topics, and should be moved back to their original titles in accordance with the policy change. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A PDAB redirect is the worst of both worlds. If Let It Be (song) is the same article as Let It Be (Beatles song), then why would we keep the unnecessary disambiguation in the title?
Also, the aforementioned Hey Jude (album) situation is the result of a poorly performed pagemove; links should be updated, and the page retargeted to Hey Jude (disambiguation). 162 etc. (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this RfC discussion? I can't seem to find it. Gonnym (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the basis for the current WP:PDAB guideline, which was updated in late 2019. 162 etc. (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This should always have been the policy on matters with dominance of this magnitude. BD2412 T 20:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support slightly more concise dab. The Beatles song and album are by far the primary song and album with this title. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Station1 (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This famous band[edit]

The article introduces "Let It Be", a song by the English rock band the Beatles.

Is it now necessary to identify the Beatles as English? Or as a rock band? It's by the Beatles. 'Nuff said. It's a sad and sobering day when the Beatles need introduction. JifiDeWiki (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Let_It_Be_(song)&oldid=1216899885"