Talk:Let It Be… Naked

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.		This Beatles-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.	High This article has been rated as High importance on the importance scale.
		Suggested article edit guidelines: New additions to articles should be attributed to reliable and verifiable sources, using inline citations per the Project's style guide. The system is very easy to use so please do try to help by following this guideline. Most articles should be written in British English. Some terms may be different from - or non-existent in - American English, and some spellings may differ. For more information, see American and British English differences. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment. This article is also within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful musical resource on recordings from a variety of genres.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!: Open tasks for WikiProject The Beatles. Edit or discuss these tasks. To Expand: Apple Records See also: Adopt an article To Clean up: Apple Records discography (wikify). The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour. Italian Cover Versions of Beatles' songs To Merge: To Create: Phil McDonald (engineer). Lennon/McCartney songs: I'll Keep You Satisfied (produced by George Martin), From A Window. George Martin produced Billy J. Kramer song: Magic Carpet (song). Bag o'Nails, where Paul met Linda. Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles tours). The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Full list & instructions. Lists to complete: Wanted Pics/Graphics: Jimmy Nicol, Alistair Taylor, Ivan Vaughan, Tittenhurst Park, Tony Barrow. Project Discussions: The Beatles history, Individual songs vs longer album articles, Beatle wives, Merge/split proposals Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)