Buttmunker

Sessions for this album started in January, 1969, and before too long, the Beatles gave up on what was then called the Get Backalbum and started work on a different record - called Everest.

Produced by George Martin, who produced all the Beatles albums to this point, "Everest" became "Abbey Road" because the Beatles didn't want to fly to the Everest mountain for the album's cover, thinking it would be easier just shooting the cover in front of or near the Abbey Road studio.

What I'm confused about is why George Martin didn't produce the shelved album, which would eventually see the light of day as "Let It Be" in 1970. Martin did produce songs from the album that were used as singles: Get Back (released back in 1969), Let It Be, and The Long And Winding Road. Those Martin-produced versions were not on the album.

Glyn Johns produced the album once, okay - twice, both times rejected by The Beatles. Finally, Phil Spector produced the album.

I find it strange that George Martin didn't want to produce it, or that the Beatles didn't want him to. He produced Abbey Road without any problem or protest, and that album came after!

I read through Wikipedia, and nothing is said about it one way or the other.

foofighters7

I was always under the impression that he didnt produce Let It Be because the band was getting chippy with each other and everyone was having issues with someone and possibly with him, or him towards them.
He did Abbey Road on the condition that they were wanting to get back to laying it down and forgetting about the arguing and all that.

Thats what I thought

Buttmunker

If that's true, then why didn't he go back and do "Let It Be?"

foofighters7

I think they were just done with it.

since Let It Be started as the live album, and went south I dont think they wanted to re-visit it.

James Lafleur

Yeah I think him and The Beatles all agreed that the tracks in the state they were in at the time were a lost cause and not worth going through, and that Abbey Road was meant to be their last album.

Of course even with Spector's overproducing, I think Let It Be is their most underrated album.

Ringmaster

Technically, George Martin produced the sessions that would become "Let It Be". The album was shelved and the Beatles w/Martin went to produce "Abbey Road". The Beatles broke up soon after that and the "Get Back", a.k.a "Let It Be" tapes were just sitting around. Lennon had just worked with Phil Spector on "The Wedding Album", an experimental album released in 1969. Lennon was so enthused with Spector's work that he gave Spector the "Let It Be" tapes to see if he can do something with them. Spector worked his "magic" on the tapes and you have the album "Let It Be" as you know it today.

Spector NEVER worked with The Beatles personally. He just overdubbed the tapes that George Martin originally produced, but since Spector tweaked them he gets credit. At the time, The Beatles were eager to dissolve their buisness relationship as a group, hence no protest from the the individual members to release Spector's version. Of course McCartney hated the mixes and that's why "Let It Be..Naked" was such an important release for him to fix the album (for the better too in my opinion). Plus, George Martin gets back his producer credit for "Let It Be..Naked"

Hope this answers everyone's question

Supermallet

That's pretty much it. Spector tweaked, Martin produced. Let It Be...Naked is a total failure of an experiment, imo. All they had to do was strip the overdubs and throw Don't Let Me Down in there, but instead McCartney had to go and mess with the mix, adding other things that weren't in the original sessions. Spector at least managed to mostly capture the informal nature of those recording sessions (The Long And Winding Road being the overproduced exception).

foofighters7

for the most part I do prefer the original Let It Be album.

I have always disliked that it had the broken version of Get Back on it though.

If they would have stuck with the "live" style of what they were going to do, throughout the album, I think it would have been great. Or simply do a true live album it would have been great too.

As it stands I think Let it Be has great songs but just doesn't hit the bulls eye. Still a great album just not Beatles Great.

Buttmunker

the "idea" of a live album in the studio sounds like an easy thing to accomplish. I mean, you have the song list you're going to do, and you start the recording machines, and you start playing. You jam out the first song, then go on to the second song, then the third, etc, until you're done. You keep it all "as is," without editing or going back for a second take.

I mean, was that ever done, by any band? Is that what Thick As A Brick by Jethro Tull is?

The album Blood Sugar Sex Magik by Red Hot Chili Peppers sounds that way, but I'm sure it wasn't done that way.

Supermallet

Actually, Please Please Me was recorded that way. I believe it was all done in on 8 hour, live in the studio session. I'm sure several of The Stones early albums were also recorded like that.

The problem with the Let It Be tapes was that each song had many, many versions, with no consensus on which was meant to be the master.

rw2516

Not an entire album but Led Zeppelin's "Since I've Been Loving You" and "In My Time Of Dying" are live in the studio. No overdubs or messing with. Just turn on the recorders and play the song.

whaaat

"Produced by George Martin, overproduced by Phil Spector."