Recorded: 4 February 1968 - 1 April 1970
Producers: George Martin, Phil Spector
Engineers: Glyn Johns, Martin Benge, Ken Scott, Peter Bown, Phil McDonald, Jeff Jarratt,
Released: 8 May 1970 (UK), 18 May 1970 (US)
John Lennon: vocals, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, lap steel guitar, bass guitar, organ, whistling
Paul McCartney: vocals, acoustic guitar, bass guitar, piano, electric piano, Hammond organ, maracas, whistling
George Harrison: vocals, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, tambura, maracas
Ringo Starr: drums, percussion, svaramandal
George Martin: Hammond organ, shaker
Billy Preston: Hammond organ, electric piano
Linda McCartney: backing vocals
Uncredited: 18 violins, four violas, four cellos, harp, three trumpets, three trombones, two guitarists, tenor saxophone, 14 choristers
Tracklisting:
Two Of Us
Dig A Pony
Across The Universe
I Me Mine
Dig It
Let It Be
Maggie Mae
I've Got A Feeling
One After 909
The Long And Winding Road
For You Blue
Get Back
The Beatles' last album to be released, Let It Be was mostly recorded in early 1969, prior to Abbey Road. The music was produced by George Martin, and was then prepared for release in 1970 by Phil Spector.
Following the often fractious sessions for the White Album in the summer of 1968, Paul McCartney realised The Beatles were in danger of fragmenting further if they continued to work independently of each other. Since the death of Brian Epstein on 27 August 1967 he had worked hard to keep the group motivated, and towards the end of 1968 he hit upon the idea of filming a television special in front of an audience.
We started Let It Be in January 1969 at Twickenham Studios, under the working title Get Back. Michael Lindsay-Hogg was the director. The idea was that you'd see The Beatles rehearsing, jamming, getting their act together and then finally performing somewhere in a big end-of-show concert. We would show how the whole process worked. I remember I had an idea for the final scene which would be a massive tracking shot, forever and ever, and then we'd be in the concert.The original idea was to go on an ocean liner and get away from the world; you would see us rehearsing and then you'd finally see the pay-off. But we ended up in Twickenham. I think it was a safer situation for the director and everybody. Nobody was that keen on going on an ocean liner anyway. It was getting a bit fraught between us at that point, because we'd been together a long time and cracks were beginning to appear.
Anthology
The effort was to be a continuation of the back-to-basics ethos the group had adopted since Lady Madonna in February 1968. That single had marked a move away from The Beatles' elaborate studio experimentation of 1966 and 1967, with a return to more straightforward rock and roll, and much of the White Album and the Yellow Submarine soundtrack had followed in a similar vein.
Reconvening in January 1969 at Twickenham Film Studios, The Beatles began work on what was initially known as the Get Back project: the concept was a chance for the group to get back to their roots, with perhaps a return to live performance for the first time since 29 August 1966.
In a nutshell, Paul wanted to make - it was time for another Beatle movie or something, and Paul wanted us to go on the road or do something. As usual, George and I were going, 'Oh, we don't want to do it, fuck,' and all that. He set it up and there was all discussions about where to go and all that. I would just tag along and I had Yoko by then, I didn't even give a shit about anything. I was stoned all the time, too, on H etc. And I just didn't give a shit. And nobody did, you know. Anyway, it's like in the movie where I go to do Across The Universe, Paul yawns and plays boogie, and I merely say, 'Oh, anybody want to do a fast one?'
Lennon Remembers, Jann S Wenner
The plan, vague as it was in the early stages, was to perform one or more live shows, but with an added dimensions of a television show and record release. The January 1969 sessions began as rehearsals for a concert which was to be filmed, which they hoped would yield enough suitable material for an album.
The rehearsals were filmed at Twickenham by Michael Lindsay-Hogg, who had previously directed promotional films for Paperback Writer/Rain and Hey Jude/Revolution. Although none of it was intended to be released on record, on snippet of dialogue was included on Let It Be: John Lennon's announcement that "Queen says no to pot-smoking FBI members" prior to For You Blue.
Nonetheless, many hours of rehearsal and performance were filmed at Twickenham from 2-14 January 1969. The audio was captured by the camera crew on mono Nagra reel-to-reel machines, as it was expected to be used on the film soundtrack. It is due to these Nagra reels, which were also rolling at the Apple Studios sessions from 21-31 January, that so much of The Beatles' works in progress from the Let It Be sessions survives.
Paul had this idea that we were going to rehearse or... see it all was more like Simon and Garfunkel, like looking for perfection all the time. And so he has these ideas that we'll rehearse and then make the album. And of course we're lazy fuckers and we've been playing for twenty years, for fuck's sake, we're grown men, we're not going to sit around rehearsing. I'm not, anyway. And we couldn't get into it. And we put down a few tracks and nobody was in it at all. It was a dreadful, dreadful feeling in Twickenham Studio, and being filmed all the time. I just wanted them to go away, and we'd be there, eight in the morning. You couldn't make music at eight in the morning or ten or whenever it was, in a strange place with people filming you and coloured lights.
Lennon Remembers, Jann S Wenner
Let It Be, Naked or Not has two of Paul's most long winded and nail scrapes aganst the blacboard. After seeing Anthology this past week, i forgot how he was the most annoying of the Beatles. Let It Be and Long and Winding Road could have ended a lot soone, but no, the camera's were rolling. Let It Be was a recording of the breakup of a band and these two songs were the blueprint.
If you don't like Paul McCartney then you don't like the Beatles. Let it Be and Long and Winding Road are too of Paul's masterpieces -as well as being two of the best songs on the Album. Really silly post..
Being brand spanking new to this particular Beatles site, I was just fixing a whole wear the rain gets in, when I suddenly found meself wonderin', In 2003 there was mention that the Let It Be film was about to be released. This film was last screened on British BBC2, Television in about 1982. A Saturday, If I recall... But is it any closer to being released. Any ideas???
Engineers started remastering the film a while back but decided the film was too "controversial". Paul and Ringo do not want it released either. I doubt it will be released any time soon, especially during Paul, Ringo, Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison's lifetimes.
The whole album and sessions and film and all is so polemic!
Here's why LIB doesn't work for me - and this may be picky but here goes: because it is supposed to be the soundtrack to a movie and was intended to replicate the feel of live performances, the problem I have is this - listen through head phones and notice how many times John's voice is on one side and his guitar is on the other side.
This completely wrecks the feel of a live performance. At least for me.
Sorry I can't help but notice it.
Does anyone know if Paul fixed this on LIBN - I don't have that CD.
It shouldn't really make a difference. With multitrack recording, a live performance can be taped with simultaneously-played instruments routed to different tracks, which can then be mixed to different parts of the stereo spectrum. Of course, that's not to say that all of the LIB performances were live - there were a number of overdubs added once they'd thrown the 'live' concept out of the window.
There are the overdubs done by spector onto three songs, the overdubs done by paul, ringo and george onto the song let it be and of course I Me Mine was recorded as though it were on the white album or abbey road (which was in fact a very good idea, they should have recorded the whole album in that way and it should have been produced by George Martin). Are there any other overdubs?
"marked a move away from The Beatles' elaborate studio experimentation of 1966 and 1967, with a return to more straightforward rock and roll, and the White Album and much of the Yellow Submarine soundtrack had followed in a similar vein."
I wouldn't say much of the Yellow Submarine soundtrack was back to basics. There were 13 songs: 2 were repeats from previous albums/singles, 7 were George Martin's orchestra songs, 2 were George Harrison's songs neither of which sound back to basics, so that leaves 2 new Lennon-McCartney songs which could be called back to basics.
And certainly not all the White Albums was back to basics – Revolution 9, Wild Honey Pie.
I was referring to the 'new' songs on the YS soundtrack, though it probably needs clarifying. Certainly Hey Bulldog and All Together Now were a step away from their sound of 1967, though the George Harrison songs clearly aren't.
As for the White Album, you're right that there were some complex recordings on there, but nothing like to the same degree of Sgt Pepper or Strawberry Fields Forever. Much of it is fairly straightforward, thought with liberal doses of Beatles magic.
"And, let us not forget, even if the collection wasn't The Beatles' best, for many lesser bands these songs would have constituted a career peak."
Couldn't agree more. When fans always talk about this isn't good or whatever, what we really mean is compared to The Beatles' other stuff it isn't as good, but it is still amazing.
Sorry Joe, but it does matter whether lennon's voalcs and guitar are on the same stereo pan.
of course multitracking makes it possible to put an instrument and/or vocal anywhere in the spectrum, but that doesn't make it "work".
Even though the beatles abandoned the actual "live" recording technique, they still marketed and presented the album as a live experience - to go with the movie.
The intended feel of the record is to experience a live beatles performance (even if it wasn't). So it's an anomaly to have a musician's voice separated from his instrument.
Of course perhaps I'm just too sensitive.
With electric instruments and microphones and amplifiers, modern live music often features "a musician's voice separated from his instrument"; it is not anomalous.
Even though this LP features my least favorite Beatles song, I still enjoy the heck out of it - Spectorized or not. In fact, I wish all of the songs on it were recorded "live" on the roof top. It would have been very refreshing to hear a live Beatles recording without the screaming.
As an aside, I get a kick out of the Spector quote on page 5 of this article. I'm by no means a fan of his, but it's the first time I've seen his defense in print. It's actually pretty funny.
Yes, I love that quote. I used it on the Phil Spector profile as well.
Dear all,
We would like to inform you about the following event :
LET IT BE live / The Beatles
by Yael Naim, Mathias Malzieu, Cocoon, Loney Dear, David Donatien, Camille O’Sullivan, Sense of Sound Singers,…
Paris (France), July 4th, Salle Pleyel
For the 40th anniversary of the release of the album Let It Be, David Coulter, who has collaborated with artists like Damon Albarn, Tom Waits and Marianne Faithfull, unites a young generation of European musicians to reinterpret the Beatles' last album.
http://www.citedelamusique.fr/minisites/1007_daysoff/concert/en_let_it_be_live.aspx
I believe Paul made a mistake. He did allow female voices in their records. Yoko sang in The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill, and Yoko again along with Patti Harrison in Birthday. His wife Linda provided background vocals for Let It Be.
Yeah, and there was also the female choir in "Walrus" - and howbout those two Apple scruffs that Paul himself invited to sing on "Across The Universe"! He was either being wilfully obtuse, or exaggerating, or he had a terrible memory. (And the amount of dope he smoked would suggest the latter.)
Pretty sure Paul meant a female singing lead
and wasn't there an entire choir on Good Night?
Ooh right, good catch!
LIB is both fantastic and disappointing. Eventhough substandard by usual Beatle standards, the songs are worthy and hold up against anything other artists put out at the same time (hell, for the next 40 years for that matter!). It was a disappointment in that it actually could have been far, far better. The Beatles are openly apathetic on LIB. Also, George's growth as a songwriter could have (had he been allowed to contribute more songs)partly made-up for John's growing indifference, dwindling song contributions and a seeming drop in the quality of his contributions. All Things Must Pass absolutely deserved to have been properly recorded and included on LIB (and NOT in place of, but in addition to, For You Blue and I Me Mine). It is no wonder why George walked out during these sessions and became hesitant to work as a Beatle ever again. What a pity (which reminds us that Harrison's brilliant song Isn't It A Pity was another in a list of George composed tunes rejected for Beatle records by John, Paul and/or George Martin). Thankfully, George recorded these on his own after the group's dissoluion.
It is funny that people think of John towards end as not writing much but he was actually very creative and writing a ton. He just did not want to write for the beatles. Look at his first two solo albums Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, they are full fledged releases. Paul's first solo albums while they are charming and having their bits (and the masterpiece 'Maybe Im Amazed) are bit rough and incomplete.
This is not a Beatle album, is just a Spector work... A Spector album, soloist, taking the tapes and the band's name...
Adding orchestra to a quarter of an album, while not doing anything else of his typical way isn't bad. It's called doing what you're asked.
I think Phil Spector is treated unfairly when it comes to LIB. He had the unenviable task of wading through hours of recordings and make something of it--all with virtually no input for the band. The only sin Spector committed was not being George Martin. Martin is tasteful and understated; Spector (on all his works) is melodramatic and over-the-top. Spector simply delivered a Spector production. Lennon was reportedly happy with it. I have little patience for McCartney's complaints. A bit like crying over spilt milk.
Actually I don't think Spector did wade through that many hours of tapes. Most of the selection and filtering was done by Glyn Johns prior to Spector arriving.
When Spector began work he hit the ground running, completing his work in a matter of days (he needed just seven recording and mixing sessions in March and April 1970), with George Harrison and Allen Klein apparently present for most of the sessions. Ringo Starr even played on one.
I alway wondered why george was at most (or all) of the Spector sessions, but didn't do the guitar overdubs which were probably done by some session guitarists. Maybe it was him on guitar but then we would know it (we also know that ringo did the drum overdubs). I really wonder who these guitarists were, maybe it was someone famous like eric clapton or so. But probably it will always be a secret who did the guitar overdubs on the long and winding road (and maybe on the other two songs)
I find this album to be sort of like that lost piece that you would love to retrieve, and it should be possible, yet, you can't grasp it. What should this album really sound like? How should I hear it? Can I ever just enjoy it for what it is (the music is not terrible)? Aren;t the Beatles even apathetic, still worthy of that mystique that John says is gone? Should I listen to which version? Was perhaps the Glyns Get Back first or second version the way it should have been? Did Paul have the chance to save some of it in Naked, yet even he didn't quite get it right?
As to defending or attacking Spector... I like his work from the 50's for sure. But don't see him as a producer for the Beatles. The thing is, he did what he thought was good, and I can stomach much of it (haven;t tried the winding road lately though). But I love Across the Universe. What bothers me, is that he adds such elaborate stiff to Beatle's songs without Paul's approval. In fact, Paul can not even change it after complaining. As an artist, this truly bothers me. I do not like the idea of hearing Beatle's tracks with significant changes made by outside people that some of them would not have even preferred to work with.
Yet, if the group had been more coherent and civil by then, and perhaps less lazy, they could have seen it through. But maybe mistakes are what they are for a reason. Maybe it is better that the album is what it is and tells the story it tells. Maybe seeing a group like the Beatle's not realize something is dramatic and powerful in a sense. Maybe if John wasn't on 'H' he could have been more willing to be workable. Maybe Paul forced the idea on the others way too much. Why does money and business get such a say in determining art. So what if they needed another money. I would rather violate the contract and lose money (easy for me to say) than compromise the well being of the band and make an unenthusiastic project.
So much to say about all this... now how to listen?
This album is seriously underrated. The 'naked' version is by far and away my favorite Beatles album
There is a great and amazing album in there, but it's never come out - not Glyn Johns, not Spector, not Paul's. It's like there's a dullness to the sound - like a mask over the sound - it's almost muffled. The crystal quality of their earlier recordings is missing. Was it their lousy attitude, bad recording equipment and set up at Apple versus Abbey Road, George Martin's apathy from being told by Lennon "none of your production crap" - something's missing - Lennon was right when he called it "lifeless" and it's a shame because there is a great magnificent album in there.