Let It Be | Page 11 | Fab forum

Beatlenut said
I've always been curious why George Martin did not produce Let It Be.  I know the album had a long, complicated history:  bad feelings all around which probably affected the quality of the recordings.   But did he refuse to produce it?  Was he over-ruled?  

Sorry, as big a Beatles fan I am, this is one history I'm not totally familiar with.  Having said that however, I have to say, Let It Be is still a very good album, with some of their best songs.

The basic concept of the Get Back/Let It Be project was to, after a series of increasingly production-heavy albums, 'get back' to basics with simple, straightforward songs in a still fairly raw state (i.e. no overdubs) as they did in their early days (the album's eventual cover was even supposed to mirror that of their first album, Please Please Me).  Paul also saw this as an opportunity for the group to segue back into performing live and would help reinvigorate them after the tension-filled White Album sessions.  John initially liked the idea (though, subconsciously, he was seemingly really ready to move on from the group at this point -- as was George, who was most against going back to performing live) and did indeed tell George Martin that the group didn't want his 'production crap' on this album.  Ultimately the concept became this: 1) they would be filmed bringing in totally new songs and learning/rehearsing them in order to get them up to snuff, and then 2) perform them live at some venue at the end of said film.  Unfortunately, the whole setup was counterproductive from the get-go.  The group, who usually worked 'third shift,' found themselves having to work during the day for the film crew.  They were filming in a cold, cavernous location.  And it didn't take long for all the tensions from the White Album sessions to resurface.  While they saw the filming process through to its filming completion, they essentially washed their hands of it almost immediately, leaving it to Glyn Johns and then Phil Spector to try and make a proper album out of it (and director Michael Lindsay-Hogg to assemble the film).  Oddly enough, both items finally came to fruition about a year later, by which time they had essentially disbanded.

Frankly, I don't think Martin overseeing the project would've made much of a difference.  At that point he was merely the guy who helped make the group's visions a reality.  However, I DO think he might've been able to assemble an album more to the group's satisfaction better than Johns AND without bringing in Spector's overdubbing fiascos.

On top of that, of all the songs they worked on during these sessions, I think all the right ones ended up on the final album (though "Don't Let Me Down" probably should've been included as well).  Let's not forget that the majority of the songs that would end up on Abbey Road were first tried out there, as well as subsequent solo efforts such as John's "Gimme Some Truth," Paul's "Teddy Boy," and George's "All Things Must Pass," "Isn't It a Pity," "Let It Down," and "Hear Me Lord."  Of all these afore-mentioned songs, I think only "Teddy Boy," "Oh! Darling," and "She Came In Through the Bathroom Window" would've sounded as equally effective with this same stripped-down/bare-bones production as the rest of the Let It Be songs (pre-Spector-doctoring) as their eventual finished versions would end up sounding.

GeorgeTSimpson said
The the long and winding road version in the anthology doc. is a completly different version (paul sings during billy's solo)

Well, the Anthology 3 liner notes claim they're the same, and they sound it.  Spector may have mixed out some of Paul's vocal ad libs.  Either way, I consider this version/these versions to have (a) weak vocal performance(s) by Paul.